Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, a theoretical physicist fascinated by time travel since witnessing the first atomic explosion as a child, explores its quantum and relativistic possibilities—like a hollowed-out sphere with super-dense matter reversing aging—while dismissing al-Qaeda’s nuclear threat due to undetectable engineering flaws. He aligns time’s fluidity with consciousness, citing David Deutsch’s parallel universes to resolve paradoxes like the grandfather dilemma, where altering history spawns new realities. Wolf also connects quantum physics to spiritual traditions, suggesting a "Great Nudge" of divine guidance through creation, and predicts science and metaphysics will merge within a decade. [Automatically generated summary]
He was perhaps a bit negative on some of the I don't know whether you'd call it fringe.
You really wouldn't call it fringe stuff for a theoretical physicist.
As far as I know, you wouldn't, would you, time travel?
At any rate, this night, Dr. Fred Allen Wolf is very up on time travel.
He, too, is a theoretical physicist.
You know, it's one of my favorite.
Now, it is my favorite topic.
Time travel is my favorite topic.
And so I thought I would ask you in this first hour to comment on a question I have.
It's maybe the most basic, simple question about time and time travel there is.
And that is, is time real?
Is it real?
Or is time simply an invention of man who has learned to measure between, you know, the motion of two things?
And if time is real, that is to say, it's a real thing beyond our concoction of measurement.
And it would seem like it has a possibility of being so because events do occur, right?
Things happen to you in your life in a chain that goes forward, inexorably forward, for the moment.
So is it real?
Or is it our makeup?
But it does seem like there's time.
We all have a measured amount of time in our lives and so forth and so on, right?
You could point to a million things.
But in the end, you still don't know if it's real.
And if it is real, will there be travel within it possible?
God, is that fascinating.
Now, this is the following is something I think you should hear.
If you haven't heard it yet, you sure as heck ought to hear it.
And I guess there's going to be a 60-minutes piece all about it on Sunday.
So you might want to watch for that.
The headline is, former head of CIA's Osama bin Laden unit says the al-Qaeda leader has secured religious approval to use a nuclear bomb against Americans.
Here it is.
Osama bin Laden now has religious approval to use a nuclear device against Americans, according to the former head of the CIA unit charged with tracking down the Saudi terrorists.
So this guy ought to know, right?
He was with the CIA until like days ago.
The former agent, Michael Schur, I believe it is, speaks to Steve Croft in his first televised interview without disguise to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, November 14th, at CBS course.
Schur was until recently known as the, quote, anonymous, end quote, author of two books critical of the West's response to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the most recent of which is titled Imperial Hubris, Why the West is Losing the War on Terror.
No one in the West knows more about the Al-Qaeda leader than Schurer, who has tracked him since the mid-1980s.
Boy, would I like that interview.
The CIA allowed him to write the books, provided he remained anonymous.
But now, now they're allowing him to reveal himself for the first time on Sunday's broadcast.
He formally leaves the agency today.
Well, that would have been, I guess, yesterday.
No, that was Friday in this time zone.
So just out of the CIA today.
Well, yesterday now.
Even if bin Laden had a nuclear weapon, he probably would not have used it for lack of proper religious authority.
Authority he now has.
Bin Laden has secured it from a Saudi sheikh a rather long treatise on the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Americans.
Says Shura.
The treatise found that he was perfectly within his rights to use them.
Muslims argue that the United States is responsible for millions of dead Muslims around the world, so reciprocity would mean you could kill millions of Americans.
Shura says bin Laden was criticized by Muslims, some Muslims anyway, for the 9-11 attack because he killed so many people in it without enough warning and before offering to help convert them to Islam.
But now, now Bin Laden has addressed the American people and he's given fair warning.
Their intention is to End the war as soon as they can and to ratchet up the pain for the Americans until we get out of their region.
If they acquire the weapon, they will use it, he said, whether it's chemical, biological, or some sort of nuclear weapon.
And now, as you've got to listen to this guy, he's head until Friday of the CIA's effort to catch bin Laden, so you've got to listen to this guy.
He says they will use it.
Let's see.
As the head of the CIA unit charged with tracking bin Laden from 1996 to 99, he says he never had enough people to do the job correctly.
He blames former CIA Director George Tennant.
He says, one of the questions that should have been asked of Mr. Tennant was why were there always enough people for the Public Relations Office, for the Academic Outreach Office, for the Diversity and Multicultural Office?
All of those things are admirable and necessary, he said, but none of them are protecting the American people from a foreign threat.
And the threat posed by bin Laden is also underestimated, says Ger.
Quote, I think our leaders over the last decade have done the American people a disservice continuing to characterize Osama bin Laden as a thug or a gangster, he said.
Until we respect him, sir, we are going to die in numbers that are probably unnecessary.
Yes, he is a very talented man and a very worthy opponent.
This is a quote now from somebody now out of the CIA.
So, you know, a lot of people think that Osama bin Laden has a nuclear device, that he has purchased one, and God knows there were enough nuclear devices running around in the old Soviet Union, and, you know, they were very hungry for money, so the possibility that he would have one would be pretty fair, I would say, wouldn't you?
And you have to wonder, I do wonder if a nuclear device should be detonated in a U.S. city.
It'd probably be Manhattan, perhaps Washington, D.C., or L.A., but probably more bang for the buck in Manhattan because it's so packed in, wherever it would be in any case.
I'm wondering what you all think the U.S. government would do if that occurred.
Now, remember, every nuclear weapon has a signature that will tell the tale of exactly where it was made, the materials used, and very likely exactly where it was made.
So, if a nuclear device goes off and destroys an American city, and you can't rule out the possibility, particularly after this story, you're going to want to watch 60 Minutes on Sunday, what do you think the U.S. would do?
You know, I'm not saying time travel is possible or impossible.
I'm still trying to make up my mind about that.
I hope it is, but the way the world is going right now, people with biological things that could take us all out, people with nuclear weapons that could take out entire cities, a day may come when we could use a little travel, huh?
U.S. military officials, looking briefly here at the rest of the world, said Saturday that American troops had now occupied the entire city of Fluja, and there were no more major concentrations of insurgents still fighting after nearly a week of intense urban combat.
And that's what it was, too.
Told you it was going to be door-to-door.
Indeed, it was.
A U.S. officer speaking on condition of anonymity said that Fluja was, quote, occupied but not subdued, end quote.
Vice President Dick Cheney went into the hospital, thought he might have heart trouble again.
He's had a lot of it, of course, but he didn't.
He had just a bad cold.
In the other news, the jury that convicted Scott Peterson saw a man with two faces in public, a loving father to be with a steady job, stable home, Mr. Nice Guy, right in private, though, a cheating husband who yearned for bachelorhood to the degree that he was willing to kill his wife and his unborn baby.
You know, there are so many murders in the U.S. that I do wonder why one of them, like this one, captures the American attention the way it does.
What is it that causes that magic click?
I mean, there are just endless, endless, awful murders that occur every day in cities all across the U.S., and yet we pick up on one and follow it, you know, right down at the very last detail.
I don't know why.
More than 70 U.S. soldiers from Iraq were flown Saturday to military hospitals in Germany.
Those would be the wounded.
A teenager accused of planning to supply a Somalian terrorist group with night vision goggles and bulletproof vests faces charges.
He had some sort of I'm going to take over the world complex, I guess, and was going to begin in Somalia, where things didn't go so well for us last time we were there.
Californians will soon see advertisements urging them to give Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and other foreign-born citizens a chance to run for president.
Well, I wonder how you feel about that.
The Governor of California would be a very strong contender, wouldn't he, for the office of the presidency?
But just one little detail, of course, and that is that he's foreign-born.
So, should that change?
Do you think that will change?
One other item before we check the phones, and this will be open lines.
The New York Times broke the media's silence on the cause of Arafat's death Friday by suggesting the terrorist leader may have died of AIDS.
In an article entitled, Secrecy by AIDS and Silence by Doctors Persists, and what killed Arafat is still a mystery, the paper chronicled Arafat's rapid health decline and the mystery shrouding his illness.
The paper reported, Even after Yasser Arafat's death this morning, French health officials continued their stony silence about what killed him.
And so the man who lived so much of his life, simply and in the public eye, died very mysteriously, surrounded by secrecy.
If there was an autopsy, we don't know how it came out.
If there was AIDS, they're not talking.
There are other possibilities, liver disease, last stage, end stage, cancer, and, of course, AIDS, any of them possible.
Plus, you know, he was getting on in age anyway, so but the New York Times is suggesting a strong possibility of AIDS.
And then, of course, prior to that, there was another rumor that the, one that I kind of grabbed onto when I heard it, too.
I thought the Israelis, you know, would they have slipped him a poison if they could have?
Well, certainly they regarded him as a stumbling block toward a possibility of peace, right?
So they might have.
They might have had motive.
I mean, if you were a cop looking for a motive, you might look at the Israelis.
But apparently not, and possibly even AIDS.
And I guess there's something about the French, I mean something more about the French, and that is that they're very private.
They will not disclaim.
Could that be the reason that he was flown to Paris in the first place?
Paris of all places.
You wouldn't think Paris, which.
Nevertheless, that is where he was taken.
That's where he passed, and that's where the secret of why he died and how he died shall apparently remain.
I said this soon after 9-11 that if any Muslim terrorist comes to this country with a weapon of mass destruction, we should put them on notice right now.
We should have put them on notice right after 9-11, that if any Muslim does that, they can kiss Mecca and Medina goodbye.
It will glow in the dark for the next 10,000 years.
Not only that, but I voted for Kerry for what might be considered an off-the-wall reason.
I don't think Bush is fighting this war as an all-out war.
It strikes me that he's fighting two holding actions, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.
In World War II, we had 80 divisions.
I don't know why we don't have an all-out recruitment effort, if not a draft, and have armies all over the world occupying these countries and hunting these scum down and exterminating them before they exterminate us.
Well, I've spoken to Linda before and most all your other guests have hosted the show.
And specifically, exactly what you're just talking about.
I'd also like to also comment on your guest tonight, too, a question about that.
First, I was on there with Linda a few years back, and I didn't make a prediction, but I did say on air, I was fearful of a nuclear attack on a city of America.
And I don't really feel that now.
What I'm concerned about now is I knew it when we went into Kuwait, and now we're in Iraq with our best troops positioned in small areas.
Two, maybe three nuclear devices could devastate our army.
And that's what I'm concerned about.
Well, not a bomb here, but a bomb strategically located on our troops.
Now, of course, the car bombs are going off on a regular basis now.
And we know there's no shortage of people who are willing to give their lives.
In fact, one of the recent diplomats who was wounded in Iraq, he was in a convoy, and he was hit by a car bomb, and then interviewed later.
And his one comment was, as he sat there on his hospital bed, that he was amazed that there were so many numbers of people willing to give their lives to set off a car bomb and extinguish their own lives in the process.
So certainly, if he's got a bomb, there will be no shortage of people willing to stand next to it and push the button.
Forget timers.
They don't need timers.
They've got people who it would be, I'm sure, in the eyes of our enemy, a glorious way to go.
You know, push the button on a big one, right?
So now they've received religious approval to do exactly that.
To drop a bomb, to bring a bomb in, to set a bomb off in a large American city.
Oh my God, it's the bottom of the hour and will be right back.
unidentified
I keep hearing your concerns about my happiness But all that thought you've given me is Conscience I guess If I were walking Subscribe to the After Dark newsletter online at www.coastocoastam.com.
Just click through the orange type to the secure server.
I have flowers on the wall.
That don't bother me at all.
Playing solid action song with the deck of 51.
Smoking cigarettes and watching Captain Kangaroo Mountain.
Tell me I've nothing to do.
Last night.
To talk with Art Bell.
Call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
From west of the Rockies, call 800-618-8255.
International callers may reach Art by calling your in-country sprint access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
Gosh, you know, most of us, I think, are old enough to recall the terror of the Cold War.
Remember that?
If you're really old enough, as a kid, you got under your desk and put your hands over the back of your neck and all the rest of that.
It was a horror, all right, the end of the world.
We were stocked.
They were stocked, and it was horrible.
But now, now everybody nearly has one.
And certainly those people who hate us and are willing to give their lives in the effort to kill as many of us as possible.
well if they don't have one yet you know they're gonna have one soon and you know they're going to use it the the the the
Pretty weird to think of the good old days as those days when we could have erased each other, and at least there was the balance, you know, of mutual assured destruction and equal terror.
And it makes what we have today look not so bad, frankly.
I mean, today we've got nuclear weapons in lots of different hands.
We've got biologicals that could just roar across the land and chemicals and various other weapons of mass terror.
Yeah, by all means, because, I mean, there's the guy who was in charge of the program to catch bin Laden.
Head of the CIA in that department.
He sure ought to know.
So we better listen carefully, Sunday night, and we better heed what he says.
What we can do about it, I don't know.
I really don't know.
If they did set off a nuclear weapon here and we had definitive information about where it came from, I suppose there could be a nuclear response, but that could start World War III, right?
I mean, if some atomic weapon makes it, I don't know, from, let us say, Russia, as an example, into the hands of Osama bin Laden through whatever crazy route it might take, who are we going to blow up?
Of course, then on the other hand, 9-11 occurred, and we did invade and now occupy Iraq.
I don't know.
Some people consider that a rational response, and some people do not, certainly.
What occurred in Afghanistan was rational.
I'm not sure that rational extends to Iraq, and I have no idea what we would do if one of our cities was blown up.
There would be a very large response, you can bet, of some sort.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hello.
unidentified
Hi.
Hi.
Well, okay.
This is really depressing.
Okay.
Common sense would say that other than preventing 9-11, which I think was highly preventable, if it happened, what we should have done was to do a police action, go after Osama bin Laden per se and his group.
The Taliban were not al-Qaeda.
And we shouldn't have stopped dead in our tracks and veered off to Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9-11.
And someone who was interviewed on one of your programs, it might have been either George's or I can't think of her name now, I'm sorry.
Barbara, interviewed a guy who made a very smart comment, I think.
He said he thought that the reason that Bush didn't catch Osama bin Laden is that if he had, the American Public would never have allowed him to invade Iraq, which is what he always wanted to do.
It was much more important to him than catching Osama bin Laden.
He's even said that.
So I can't, you know, and I couldn't believe it when it was realized that the sealed depot that the International Atomic Energy people had sealed that had been telling us over and over again to keep watch over it, that it had been plundered and it had triggering chemicals for nuclear weapons in there.
Meanwhile, we haven't done anything meaningful about North Korea, which may have already started selling weapons.
And probably Pakistan is selling nuclear weapons.
So, you know, here we are.
Frankly, I don't think there's anything we can do.
And it's just hopeless.
And I really think that the dumb, warlike people in the world, most, you know, in our government is being run by people like that, are going to kill us off before we ever have a chance to become civilized enough to not do that sort of thing anymore.
Listen, I appreciate your point of view, and thank you for calling.
Right.
She got to say what she wanted to say, and there's a lot of it I agree with, frankly.
As you know, prior to the war, I was very much against it because I couldn't figure out why we were doing it.
I refer to the war with Iraq, and I still don't have it figured out.
Yes, there's oil, and yes, he was a real bad guy.
And yes, I suppose we thought there could have been weapons of mass destruction there, although that's very suspect now.
The intel on that is.
At the time, I guess legitimately there could have been a fear of weapons of mass destruction.
Short of that, the weapons part, I don't see the rationale for invading.
Yes, it's good to have strategic bases located in Iraq in the middle of the Middle East.
I guess all of that is a positive thing.
And yes, we are rampaging through Fallujah at the moment.
But then, on the other hand, you can make a rational argument that we're also making mortal enemies, more mortal enemies, ones who would be willing to sacrifice themselves to kill as many Americans as possible.
Well, it would be a perhaps geo-effective place, thank you.
But you know, the terrorists certainly don't know that a nuclear device ignited in the Yellowstone area would precipitate the catastrophe that otherwise might occur 10,000 years from now.
They couldn't be sure.
And if it didn't work, and there's a good chance it would not work, maybe a better chance that it would not work than it would, then they would be largely wasting their one shot, right?
I'm trying to think as they would think.
Which is, in a lot of ways, a horrible thing to have to do.
Where would you get the most bang for the buck if you had, say, a one-kiloton nuclear device?
Answer, probably Manhattan.
I don't know.
But I think we're really facing that possibility.
Wildcard line, you're on the air.
Hello.
Hi, turn your radio off, sir.
That's always number one.
And tell us who you are and first name only and where.
Well, I got a couple of things to say about this Osama thing.
First of all, I don't think he would have said anything giving us any warning or anything like that unless he had things pre-positioned.
So I believe that he actually has nuclear weapons or whatnot pre-positioned in this country, and he was just waiting to get his religious leaders backing.
Listen, I don't think that it's all that awful a thing to admit, but if you look back on the history of the United States, in fact, nearly every great power that's dominated the world at some point or another, they've all been kind of warlike.
unidentified
Yeah, well, that gets to my point.
It's sort of like the essence of the universe is violence, and whether or not it's like righteous violence or evil violence is kind of immaterial because it's based on the perspective of the people involved.
Sometimes how righteous the violence is just simply depends on which side of the bullet you're on.
unidentified
Exactly.
I think the actual nature and essence of the universe is violence.
I mean, when you look at how the universe was created, it was created in an act of violence when it exploded.
And if you look up and down the food chain, vegetarians, they eat living plants.
I mean, that could be considered violence to the plants who's getting eaten.
So I think that it's just the natural state of things that there is violence inherent in the universe and that it's not something that we should disembrace or embrace because it's just part of nature.
Well, maybe it is true, sir, that as we evolve, if we continue to evolve, at some point maybe we evolve away from violence, but that moment has not yet come.
Or even close.
And we are.
Look, we are, to a degree, without apology, a warlike people.
We are not.
The American people are not a turn-your-cheek kind of people.
They're kind of I see them more as a don't tread on me kind of people, or at least that's the way I've always felt about us.
Well, there are other ways to measure the passage of time, nuclear decay and so forth, I suppose.
But measuring the movement of planets and one object's movement versus another's and the speed differential and so forth, that's all time.
unidentified
Well, if you go back in time and you look at the events that have happened, there's always been some sort of celestial event close to it or right on the time.
Oh, well, listen, American natives thought, and a lot of people continue to think to this day and age, that comets foretell something about to occur.
It's absolutely true.
Certainly is true.
That the passage of a comet, a comet rather, even a close passage, foretells an event that's about to happen.
On the other hand, I don't know if I really believe that that's true or not.
There are a lot of comets up there that take a passage, a swing, some of them between the sun and the earth, some very close, and whether actually there has been one at every major event as you track back through history or not.
I suppose you can try and sort of prove it all in reverse and go back through events and find, say, well, look, that was there.
And so the following must be true.
I don't know.
One thing I do know, this is not the age of Aquarius, nor even close.
It would have been nice, huh?
that age had come and there really had been peace and no more war.
unidentified
It's been the dawning of the end of Maryland.
Age of Aquaria Age of Aquaria Be it sight, the sand, the smell, the touch, the something inside that we need so much.
The sight of the touch or the scent of the sand, or the strength of the nerve waves deep in the ground.
The wonder of flowers to be covered and then to burst up from tarmac to the sun again.
Or to fly to the sun without burning a wing, to lie in the meadow and hear the grass sing, all these things in our memories all these music music is 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.
He's a physicist, a writer, a lecturer who earned his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from UCLA In 1963, he has taught at the University of London, the University of Paris, the Hahn Meltner Institute for Nuclear Physics in Berlin, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and San Diego State University.
So he's certainly been around.
Dr. Wolf's fascination with the world of physics began one afternoon when he was a child at a local matinee and saw a newsreel.
Remember the newsreels at movies?
Well, he saw a newsreel of the world's first atomic explosion.
And I guess the light bulb ignited.
After receiving his Ph.D. in theoretical physics, he began researching the field of high atmospheric particle behavior following a nuclear explosion.
So he's going to fit in well tonight, in view of what we've been talking about.
He is well known for his simplification of the new physics and is perhaps best known as the author of Taking the Quantum Leap.
Dr. Wolf continues to write lecture throughout the world.
He conducts research on the relationship of quantum physics to consciousness.
Well, I don't know how to do it at this stage, although I understand the principles of what an atomic weapon does.
And I've worked for a time at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory and learned some of the principles of both fusion and fission devices.
So I also know something about the Teller H-bomb and how it works.
But, you know, my learning and my understanding of that goes back to the 60s when I was working towards my Ph.D. in plasma physics and worried about controlled thermonuclear fusion and how it can be used for peaceful ways to get energy.
So in terms of my knowledge today, I'm sure the sophistication and the engineering know-how that goes into making a weapon is far more developed than it was in those days.
Does it seem very likely to you that a nuclear device may be loose and that well that's the first question, that one may be loose out of either the Soviets' control or, I don't know, Pakistan or our control or whoever in the world now possesses North Korea, for example.
Who knows where they all are, but do you think they're all accounted for?
So whether they're all accounted for or not, I'm not sure if anybody has an actual count.
But in terms of being able to explode one and get one working and do all that, I think it would take a lot more scientific know-how than just exploding an ordinary weapons explosive type of bomb.
It seems to me that the kind of things you need to do and that the kind of technology that you need implies a kind of very special effect.
You can't just, you have to make something happen very quickly and a very symmetrical way, and that's not always easy to do.
So we can talk about, you know, anybody's going to build one, but it's probably a lot more difficult than most people would even dream of.
Certainly, if they do get their hands on one, if Al-Qaeda does, they will, without question, use it.
If they will explode car bombs and take their own life in doing so, then I suppose from their point of view, the honor of detonating a big one in an American city wouldn't be hard to talk someone into it.
Well, it'd be very difficult, in my opinion, to get one into an American city by any kind of normal means.
And it would be difficult to bring it in piecewise and then assemble it in an American city without causing some activity in the rather sensitive detection apparatuses, or appareti, as I would say, that now exist in most of the cities.
We're pretty sensitively able to detect stuff like that, and radiation detection has become a great arch, much, much more refined than it was years and years ago.
I think that we really shouldn't start multiplying fear upon fear just because somebody says they can do something or maybe threatens such a thing as that.
We've had one terrible accident, one terrible incident, I mean, and that's, of course, the Twin Towers.
And of course, there's all that stuff that happened before.
But that was really devastating to us.
And I think that it's permanently maybe made our psyches running in the fear mode far more often.
And this is on the reverse of what I've just said.
When I was a child, maybe it was the same thing that's running the rest of the country right now in terms of the fear mode.
I dreamt of being in an atomic explosion and seeing it go off.
And this was even, I don't know if that's because of the thing I saw in the newsreel or what, but I really had this terrible feeling that I was going to be living through something like that.
So whether that's a forerunner of what's coming, I hope not.
But it's the kind of dream that a young kid might have.
Well, when you encase something in that much lead, of course, it weighs a lot, and that's going to attract some attention, too.
So I mean, there are some safeguards.
Nothing is foolproof, of course.
I mean, nothing can guarantee absolutely that if somebody wanted to do that, that it would absolutely go detected.
Anything is possible.
So we just have to rely on our Coast Guard and on our abilities to detect such things and also our intelligence, which would allow us to know who's possibly planning to build such things.
I can't imagine there's an al-Qaeda headquarters that hasn't been infiltrated by the CIA by now.
I would say that the chance of that happening is fairly remote.
It doesn't mean we shouldn't be wary, but I would not get too unduly concerned unless, of course, we start getting reports and the color of the protective code goes from, you know, what is it?
Red is the final color, whether it gets really...
If we start getting...
And I think we should more or less go about doing what we're supposed to be doing.
I mean, we can always voice our opinions about what should be done and what shouldn't be done and whether or not we can stem this tide of terrorism by some kind of economic solution, which I, in my heart, believe can be done.
And the Palestinian question and all these questions that we've left swept under the carpet, so to speak, I believe there are peaceful solutions.
I've always felt that way.
And it may be very difficult to see, and it may be things that are going to require a lot more time.
We just have to be patient and be willing to be patient and look for peaceful solutions and protect ourselves while we're doing so.
I hear that, and I've read it and so forth, but it's hard to do.
I've traveled around the world.
I've spent time in Muslim countries.
I've spent time with people in all walks of life and different things.
And it's very hard for me, after seeing most people, to believe that anybody, except a person of a very sick and ill disposition, would want to deliberately kill themselves.
I know people do it, and I'm not arguing that that doesn't happen.
I just wanted to give you some idea as to where we're going with this, that we're dealing with something which doesn't have a physical definition because it's not a physical variable.
That is not something we can actually pin down and measure.
So we are measuring something when we measure what we think is time, but actually what we're doing is counting.
And what we're doing is we're counting with memory.
So that time and memory and mind are really much more intimately connected than we might have thought.
So if we begin to look at time, we're also looking at another thing that is very much part of what we call consciousness.
And that's this thing we call ourself or our ego or our body-mind.
It is a very necessary artifact of consciousness, not something which we can just simply hope it will go away.
But it is an artifact.
It's something that we create.
And the kind of time we call objective time, that time that we agree is the clock time and so forth, is really an agreement between all of us that one second is one second.
But when we really get down to actual measurements of time, then we find that there is no absolute measure of time at all.
In fact, we can't even say for sure when is now.
Because anything we think is now actually turns out to be a window of time.
There's a bottom edge, which is the past.
There's a top edge, which is the future.
And there's somewhere in the middle that bar running across the windows, which we call a now.
But it's not clearly defined.
And some windows are very large, and people can see backwards and forwards through time.
And some windows are very narrow, and people can't see at all.
And wonder what the heck are people doing when they claim that?
So to define time, I will tell you just this much, that time is the same thing as mind.
Mind and time are the same thing.
And that's why it's so hard to define.
And what this has taught me from my understanding of physics, particularly my understanding of the theories of relativity that Einstein was famous for bringing into our understanding, and also this thing we call quantum physics, this very mysterious business that has really revolutionized the whole 20th century.
The 20th century was not the atomic century, it was the quantum century.
And this 21st century, the one we're in right now, is really going to be the first time we're going to see a wrath of very remarkable practical applications of that, which include time travel devices.
And the reason I sound crazy, but it's getting to a point now where we're really nailing it down as to what we would have to do to build practical time travel devices.
so you're saying within the twenty first century yet we will we will be contractually there's that using using these kinds of devices will probably start out very small just like in I was prepared.
I'm excited about technology, although I'm very much into the spiritual idea of what time travel is all about.
I certainly will be happy to talk about the Yoga of Time Travel, which is my latest book, which is just great.
I have no doubt about it.
In fact, I can't.
It's on the drawing boards already.
It is.
Yes, people are thinking about it already.
There's one famous physicist who you might call the father figure of quantum computers.
His name is David Deutsch.
And in order for him to build quantum computers, he is already positing and writing the groundwork papers, the seminal papers right now, on how time travel is an integral part of how these computers are going to operate.
Another physicist is doing work in the lab trying to create artificial gravitational fields that are strong enough that they would squelch and distort time, slowing it down.
So there's a number of real efforts going on here.
That's the key is that in reverse, because cramming forward through time isn't so much of a big trick anymore, but going backward in time, that's one where everybody gets their eye teeth confused.
Professor Fred Allen Wolf is my guest, and he has just finished saying, indeed, it's going to be possible to build a device to travel both forward and reversed in time, and he thinks it will happen in the 21st century.
In other words, we're coming up on it, folks.
This is going to be fascinating.
so many questions Last week on the program, and what was a prefeed this night on tonight, it would have repeated.
I had a theoretical physicist as a guest who said that travel, time travel into the past would be impossible.
Time travel into the future said he, yes, but only in the sense that we are all traveling into the future right now.
And if one were to be put in a state of suspended physical animation, for example, it would in effect be time travel or traveling close to the speed of light.
Otherwise, he was rather adamant there would not be a device to take one into the future or into the past.
He was well-credentialed, also Professor Wolfe.
So there's apparently a lot of disagreement in the world of theoretical physics about this, huh?
It's surprising that there is because the papers about it have been published in very reputable journals.
So I don't know where this guy's coming from.
Either he hasn't read the papers or he's read them and understands something I don't understand, which is certainly possible.
I'm not claiming to be the smartest guy in the world here.
I'm just claiming that I've understood the principles involved and I see no paradoxes with it.
And I'm also relying a lot on the work that I've read and understood, which is the work of David Deutsch, the Oxford professor of physics who's designed quantum computers and sees a way that the conflicts that usually come from traveling backwards through time are totally resolvable and that there's nothing in the physics which forbids that kind of travel from taking place.
You see, people who know the classic ways of time travel realize that in order to time travel, you have to make a kind of time warp.
You have to use a great gravitational field or move near the speed of light or something of that sort.
And that's the classical ways.
And, you know, I would say, sure, that's right, pre-quantum physics.
But once you start grasping what quantum physics is telling us and how it operates, you begin to see another way of doing it.
And two Israeli physicists, a couple of Israeli physicists, one of them being the master physicist Yaqir Akharanov, has come up with a way in which we can use a device in which you just have many, many little shifts of time.
Not big ones, little mini ones.
But if you can add up a whole bunch of mini ones and get them all like ducks in a row, you can get a huge time shift.
Even though the device which is doing the shifting is putting little positive time shifts, slowing them down by a small positive amount, this computer that you, quantum computer that you hook up to it, can put the device in a state in which you can shift Backwards or forwards through time.
Now, what gets shifted is also very interesting.
It's a shift of the person inside the time machine, not the people outside.
The world outside is going on, but the guy inside is actually getting younger or getting older.
A lot of that has not really completely been resolved.
I think I see what's going on, but it's going to take a little bit to try to explain it and make any sense out of it for a listening audience in a short period of time.
Well, as you go back to earlier time and get younger, you're actually going back to what is called a contrafactual past.
That is, you're going back to a past that could have been the past that you actually experienced that got you to the place where you have been when you first entered the time machine.
And does that mean then, if you went back, say, let's say, 10 years, that what was actually happening 10 years ago wouldn't necessarily be happening when you arrived in the machine?
And you decide to go back in time to the pre-cancer stage.
Yes.
You can go back to a time where you're healthier and actually prevent yourself from getting cancer because you would go to a place where you avoided whatever circumstances, such as breathing in asbestos or something like that sort of thing, that was acting in a causal manner towards you getting cancer.
So you could do something like that.
You could use it as a kind of a healing technique.
no that's fine are you suggesting this technology will be developed before the actual ability to go back in time or are you saying the ability with this We're going to be starting there.
Well, let's not worry about all that kind of, you know, where this dada da da da da da da da da da.
Let's just talk about building a device and what we would do.
How would it work?
If we build one now, okay, and it's a box or something, and there's a door, and we build it, and we open the door, and maybe something's going on, maybe not.
But let's say that that device is allowed to exist for 10 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, whatever, when nobody destroys it.
During the time that it's existing, then if it's still existing 1,000 years from now in the future, somebody could enter that device in that year, 1,000 years from now, and travel back through time to our present time and come out.
But isn't that discouraging from the point of view that if the future is out there to be traveled into, then at some future point, what you're talking about should have already been invented.
Well, in classical thinking, there is no way there are paradoxes, and that means people just wash their hands up and say it's impossible to travel back and past.
Because if you go back to the past and you kill your grandfather when he's pre-pubescent, that means he'll never, ever produce any children, which means your mother or your father couldn't get born, and that leaves you out in the cold.
That would be me, Professor Fred Allen Wolf, who's saying we will, in this century, build a time machine.
We'll be able to go both forward and reverse in time.
Now, we've arrived at a unique place, this multi-universe place.
And so before we get started again, I want you to go up to the website, coastcoastam.com.
This is worth seeing.
You will see a picture of what looks like a television screen with a ray gun aimed at it or something.
And then it says parallel universes, question mark.
Physicist Richard Feynman explored the strangeness of quantum behavior through the famous two-slit experiment in which light is passed through two narrow slits and detected on a photographic plate, what I call the DVD.
The expected result of passing light through two slits was pretty easy, right?
It would be the appearance of two lines.
But instead, one sees a series of lines diminishing in intensity on the plate.
Some physicists, our guest included, believe this experiment may point to the existence of parallel universes.
And that's the exact place we had arrived at the ending of this last hour.
So I want you to go on up to the GhostCoseon.com website and take a look at this demonstration.
It shows light being blasted through a little plate with two slits cut in it.
But what we see displayed last night, that's many more.
Does that really prove the existence of parallel universes?
That's what we're going to ask in a moment.
The End I believe that Professor Wolf is telling us that, well, you know, paradoxes are not a problem because there are multiple, perhaps even endless numbers of universes.
Well, here is the story is maybe even more bizarre than we might even imagine it.
Because when we start looking at what actually hits that screen, when we turn the light intensity way, way, way down so that we're really getting very weak light through it, we're getting what are called photons, particles of light, little bits of light that are traveling.
And what's weird is that you turn the crack down and you get one photon that leaves and it goes through these double slits and then it hits the screen, your television screen, and it makes a small spot.
And then another one comes and make a spot and then another one and another one.
And finally, when you get a billion upon billions of these spots, all going through one at a time, then you see this Venetian blind effect.
And now you start thinking, huh?
Huh?
How could that be?
Why are there spaces, why are there so many blinds?
Why are there spaces where the thing doesn't go?
Now you close one of the slits.
You close it down.
And now you do the same experiment all over again.
Suddenly the Venetian blinds completely disappear.
How did you get those Venetian blinds on the screen?
Where did all that pattern come from?
The only way that makes any sense is to say somehow the fact that there were two possibilities for each particle of light to travel from where it started to where it finally ended, the two slits in the screen, somehow had an effect upon the way that particle traveled.
This is where this whole thing about probabilities and the parallel universes and parallel worlds and interference between one world and another and all that kind of stuff that drives most people a little bit mad, but is a delight to any quantum physicist because you realize this is really the key to quantum physics.
What Richard Feynman would say is the only mystery there is.
Yes, and that's exactly what David Deutsch would say.
He would say this is not only a proof of other universes, but he would prove that in whatever universe we happen to be in when we make the observation, the effect of the other one is present.
Even though we don't see that universe, it's affecting what we do see in this universe.
So if we got to the full time machine to go back into the past, could we choose, for example, into like little photon or Ton, could we choose where we went?
In fact, if you choose to do the kind of paradox that we started talking about at the beginning of the hour, we were talking about this grandfather paradox.
If you do that and you go back in time and you tell your grandparents or you get your grandparents not to marry whatever you do to them, and they don't, and they really don't get married, then what you've just done is to create a parallel universe in which you're in.
And now you've left one universe, literally disappeared from it, and have appeared in the universe where you were born.
And you've appeared in the universe where you're not going to be born, and there's no second you there to deal with.
There's great time travel movies where guys go back in time and they meet themselves and then there's a thing about what happens if you meet yourself in a parallel universe which you can see.
So if you were in a world where some damn terrorist blew up a bomb, potentially you could escape from that and go to a universe where everything was pretty much the same, except that didn't happen.
Well, I'm interested in, for some bizarre reason, to the just before the Nazis came into power in Germany.
I'm very interested in culture that created the whole idea of the Social Democrats, the Nazis, the Nationalist Socialist Party.
And I'm interested in that time period because it turns out that this was a time period of the greatest schism in physics that ever could possibly come into being.
Which was quantum physics and classical physics, determinism and indeterminism.
It was a big split because quantum physics said the world's indeterminate, and classical physics says the world is absolutely determined.
And what we had happening then is Nazi Germany coming into being with almost a rampant desire to make everything absolutely determined.
They wanted to control everything, the future, the present, to the past, everything.
They wanted to control the whole shooting match.
And at the same time, during that strong desire to control everything, suddenly there's this birth of this whole indeterminate world, which is shocking to physicists, but yet is responsible for nearly every great technological tool that we presently are using in today's world.
Quantum physics makes the computer possible.
It makes television the way we see television possible, not the old television.
It makes...
There isn't anything I can think of where we're not using quantum physics as part of You can't even drive your automobile if it wasn't for quantum physics because the technology used for all the kinds of things that your automobile does, such as spark plugs and all that kind of stuff, and timing.
How many times have you had timing chain change in your current cars?
Remember we use timing chains?
They don't use UVAs anymore because they use computers to do all that kind of stuff.
All that's responsible, all that comes about through quantum physics.
So we can just go on and on and on.
I mean, photoelectric affected cameras, TV, deep space communication, modern photography, modern digital photography.
How about DVDs and CDs?
Not possible without quantum physics.
How about lasers and laser surgery?
How about all of that?
All of these remarkable, wonderful inventions that we just take for granted?
We are at the cusp of getting down to individual atomic events.
And what we're finding as we manipulate down at that level is some more surprises that we didn't expect.
The kinds of things we did at the quantum level when we came to designing chips and microchips and quantum, I mean, classical computers and all that kind of stuff, we didn't have to control individuals.
We had to control large amounts of in very refined kind of, you know, what we call dope silicon and stuff like that.
We had to get down in there, and the technology was very refined, clean rooms, everything had to be done in spotless things, spotless ways.
And that technology didn't require individual atomic control.
But now, now, in order to build quantum computers, we're beginning to look at control of individual little groups of atoms, two or three or four of them at a time.
So we're going into a whole other technology.
This whole other technology means that our thinking has to even go deeper and more into the quantum nature of reality.
And that is introducing some surprising new insights into the relationship of the mind to these devices that we're building.
And this is where I'm very excited because I think we're beginning to now really get on the brink of, remember hell?
artificial intelligence now with the with the understanding of quantum computers and how they work is really going to be where there's going to be this huge break where there's going to be actually a guy in that machine that's going to talk to you how close do you think we are to what we classically understand as uh...
I would use what has been popularly called the test that was designed by the guy that first came up with artificial intelligence definitions.
But the test was if you can ask a device certain questions and if the answers that the device gave you were such that you could not tell from those answers whether you were speaking to a machine or to a human being, then the thing is artificially intelligent.
Well, if that's true, if that is the measure, then but now we don't anybody with any degree of intelligence could actually come across a device like that.
Actually, on the internet, Professor, I've really seen software that, frankly, if you didn't know, if you were set up for it correctly, you would not know that you're talking to a computer, that a computer is giving you answers or responding to you.
In the same way that I ask you questions and you respond to me in surprising ways, I can't predict what you're going to say.
And the computer would have to respond in similar ways in such a way that there would be a novelty or something really novel about it.
Now, we're getting, you know, people, some people, this is debatable, by the way.
This whole point is very debatable.
And the AI people are really up in arms with us quantum computer guys because we're talking about you need quantum physics to really make something AI.
And these guys are saying, no, you don't.
You need like Stephen Wolfram's invention of the pattern recognition machines and things which follow simple rules to make very complex patterns.
And I say, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's all true.
I would say that we're within five years of the first practical quantum computer gets built, we will have artificial intelligence five years after that.
But first we have to get a quantum computer up and running.
And these are very, very non-robust type of guys.
They're very unstable.
The environment can quickly shake them up in such a way that their outputs are practically useless.
We have to find some way to stabilize quantum computers to make them more robust, to stand up to the toils and troubles of thermal environments and things of that sort.
Everything A band is throwing dixie Double fall time You feel alright When you hear the music ring Now you step inside But you don't see too many things Coming in out of the rain You hear the jazz go down
Competition in other places But the horns they blow in that sound Way on down south Way on down south London town The wind is blowing down south
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 to 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.
Indeed, Dr. Fred Allen Wolf is my guest with regard to current events and the world situation.
He's very optimistic.
He's also very optimistic about time travel.
Yes, he says, a device for time travel is going to be invented, allowing both reverse and forward time travel.
That's led us to multi-universes and to the quantum world, of course, and actually to artificial intelligence.
That's something we just hit on.
And before we move forward from there into some of the Star Trek-y stuff, there are quite a number of questions I have about probability of almost certainty of artificial intelligence.
Once again, Professor Fred Allen Wolf and Professor, I want to stick with AI for a second.
Since it could be 15, 20, 25 years, perhaps at the most, ahead of us, I really wonder about the wisdom involved of the creation of something that might be smarter than we are.
We'll call it a machine, call it an entity.
It doesn't matter.
If you create something that is smarter than we are, is there a big danger?
What about the danger of creating something smarter?
Well, you know, we face that danger every time we have a kid, don't we?
Kids sometimes are smarter than we are.
So parents are saying, wait a minute, you know, I mean, I'm probably smarter than my parents were, mainly because I had maybe a better education than they have, and maybe because I just got the best of both of them.
Sure, we're going to be confronting machines that are smarter than us, because if they work properly, they're probably going to do things that we can't even do.
In my mind, I can imagine an artificial form of consciousness or machine which gets control of a great deal of our world.
In the modern, connected, ever more connected world, this living computer gets control of everything, more or less.
Stick with me for a second here.
It's firmly implanted, deeply implanted with the concept you mentioned from science fiction, but it sounds logical.
There shall be no harm to man.
It's number one, most important directive, no harm to man.
Okay, let's say a machine like that existed right now.
Oh, gee.
It might look at the bigger picture, perhaps a bigger picture than we intended, since it's a smarter device than we are.
And it might take a gander at its sensors, telling it the North Pole is melting and the Antarctic is breaking off and also more or less disintegrating.
These are really major things going on in the world.
North Pole, melting, South Pole, dilapidating.
And this machine might look at that and take its number one directive and do something, well, that just wouldn't please us at all for our own good and safety.
But let me, certainly this scenario, nightmare scenarios are definitely within the mainstream.
And boy, Hollywood writers out there, pay attention to what Art's saying.
But listen to this.
As we move into this next period of technology, as we begin to understand what it means to have artificial intelligence, we're going to beginning to look at what I might call the mechanics of self or self-organizational abilities.
And we're going to be looking at what's involved in that.
Now, if what I am discovering from the work that I've done over the last 40 years in quantum physics and time with shamans in various parts of the world and some of the spiritual teachings that I've been reading about, if that makes any sense to me, and I think it does,
if it makes any sense to anybody else, and I think it will, you're going to find that there's a spiritual basis that also, and this may sound even farther art to people that are just technocrats, there's a spiritual basis to this whole thing.
The reason I'm saying this is the fact that the current trend in physics today, in papers today, is leading into a more abstract, less material-based worldview than was even conceivable 20 years ago.
There are Nobel laureates in physics today who made remarkable discoveries in electral weak theory, People like Sheldon Glashow that have confessed that these new ways of thinking that are being developed, today we call it string theory or membrane theory.
There are many different languages for it.
These guys are confessing.
We don't understand what you new physicians are doing.
You're coming up with ideas that have no experimental verificational ability at all.
And yet they seem to be providing a basis for what we call reality.
As we peer into that more deeply and we begin to try to unite all the fields, we're going to find that, this is my prediction, this is what I see happening, we're going to find that's one part of the equation that's missing, which is called consciousness.
And this is where, you know, I see is inevitable.
I'm not the only one thinking this way.
There are a number of physicists that are thinking like this.
Roger Penrose, who's written a number of books about this, has thinks his way.
Brian Josephson, a Nobel laureate, has thinks this way.
Even Stephen Hawking is beginning to think a little bit more about information and its respectful place in the physics community.
Anyway, they had or have computers scattered around the globe, they call eggs, that report back to mom a computer at Princeton, and they've discovered this correlation between world events like 9-11 and these sudden spikes in non-random activity of these so-called eggs, computers planted in different physical locations.
And that would seem to me a place where physics and science and metaphysics are colliding and discovering each other, perhaps.
Well, there's certainly some indication that if you get something complex enough, it begins to exhibit some of the elements of what we would call conscious behavior.
So that fits in very well with many of the current biodiversity type guys, the evolutionary biologists, that if things are complex enough, then they will begin to show intelligence.
I'm saying there's something more that's still needed here, that that's not enough.
There's something else that's needed, and that is the ability to form pictures that we call selves.
Like, I see myself as Fred Allen Wolf talking to Art Bell.
Why isn't it just one man, one voice, one person, one entity, including all the listeners on millions of artists?
Why aren't we just one mind?
Well, if we are just one mind, how do we get these different separate egos, selves that arise?
To me, that is an interesting question that's not immediately obvious.
It was taken to be immediately obvious until we began looking at quantum physics and began realizing that the assumption of there being separate minds is really fraught with a number of paradoxes that cannot be explained until you begin to look at the idea of one mind, which projects itself as separate minds, rather than separate minds which have no relationship with each other at all.
Now, I'm going to be as presumptuous as I can possibly be and speak for God for a moment and say, what did I as God do?
First of all, I exist in a timeless, spaceless, matterless realm of non-being, non-existence, non-material, neither sun nor moon, neither star nor planet.
I exist in this realm with basically nothing to do.
But I'm there and I'm conscious, and I'm going to be this way for all eternity.
As far as I can tell, there is no time for me to even measure eternity.
It's constant.
Everything is constant now for me.
And I create something.
And in that creation, it's a huge explosion.
It's the most chaotic, violent event, as one of your listeners was talking about before.
Loneliness, boredom, whatever you want to call it.
I don't know.
Desire, the first inkling to make something like this happen.
We can speculate about that all we want, but what's important to me is the mechanisms that start to result as a result of this desire or this loneliness that arises.
The Big Bang is a violent, terribly violent thing, and if it left to its own devices and its own quantum mechanics and everything else, it would just continue to expand into all these possibilities with nothing ever really reaching any fruition at all.
No actual matter would even appear.
Nothing.
It would all be probability clouds.
But suddenly or at times or constantly, I'm going to enter into this game and I'm going to nudge.
I'm going to nudge this.
I'm going to tinker with it as it goes on, just like a good quantum physicist would do in our laboratory.
And in tinkering with this thing, suddenly things are going to start to structurize.
That is, electrons are going to appear.
Oh, now we're getting protons.
We're getting quarks coalescing.
We're getting strings coalescing into quarks.
We're getting particles.
And now electrons and protons are beginning to form hydrogen atoms.
And the electron, in order to form a hydrogen atom with a proton, has to go into a quantum cloud of possibility.
And now we're getting to form helium atoms.
And now helium and hydrogen are beginning to, wow, squeeze together under their own self-gravitating space-time distorting mechanisms, which are already inherent in the Big Bang itself.
And they're producing stellar materials, which we call stars or suns.
And some of them are big, and some of them are small.
And yes, not only is it complicated, but there's no way that you can explain any of that based upon any common sense understanding of the laws of the evolution of the universe, any mechanical.
We can get people thinking about what's going on before the Big Bang.
We're now beginning to look at things from a timeless, spaceless, unoriginated, unformed, unborn form, which is the place that I believe consciousness really resides.
You see, when we start looking at many of them, we come into certain kinds of conflicts which result as, which come about because of the disagreements which result from these things.
Of course, there are disagreements.
Don't get me wrong.
But there's no basis for any kind of agreement at all.
In fact, there is conflicts about what is really an observation or a non-observation when you have multiple realities.
This was pointed out, by the way, in a series of papers by Schrödinger, the guy who originally founded quantum theory and the basic mathematics for it, and one of his students, Ludwig Boss.
And he showed in a very, very interesting logical argument that there couldn't be more than one mind.
There had to be just one mind, because if there was more than one mind, certain kinds of paradoxes would result that are unresolvable by logic.
They're just logically impossible.
I'm not going to take time to go through it up great.
Once you start forming this material world, and once consciousness gets to be part of it, there's tendencies which develop, which are called reflective or self-organizational.
And once that begins to happen, then the self-organizational pattern begins to recognize itself as a thing separate from God.
It starts to happen during this phase of what the Christians call the Great Fall.
It comes about in this kind of phase.
And it makes perfect sense to me because that the only way that you can really make conscious can enter into it, the only way God can play with this stuff is he's got to get involved in it.
He, she, whatever you want to call God, she can't remain outside of what she's created.
She has to get involved in it.
And getting involved in it means tinkering with it, and in getting involved in it, it means becoming it as well.
When we come back, we're going to open up the phone lines.
Is this interesting or what?
I'm Art Bell in the middle of the darkness, which is where we do this kind of work.
unidentified
Nothing wide sector.
To access the audio archives of Coast to Coast AM, log on to coast2coastam.com.
Let's do this everyone.
Never meet each other.
The future had always been seen with these eyes before
You believe like mommy, babe, like I believe we get by All you believe in the fall is raising miracles So would I?
I might have to know you Ooh, baby, baby I know we're making love I feel the power I feel the power And there's really nothing we can do You know we could, you know we want If we want, you know we could We could exist on the stars It would be so easy
Well, we have all we gotta do We could live, baby, say we We could live, baby Only you believe that mommy, you believe I believe we could find a heart
with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295 The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222 To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033 from west of the Rockies call 800-618-8255 International callers may reach Art by calling your in-country sprint access number pressing option 5 and
dialing toll-free 800-893-0903 from coast to coast and worldwide on the internet this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
Dr. Fred Allen Wolf is obviously a fascinating man.
He's written two books.
And so if you've been fascinated tonight, and I know you have, then you might want to take a read.
For example, his book called Taking the Quantum Leap, or perhaps the yoga of time travel.
Here's a man who tells us the machines, the vehicles, the devices are indeed going to be built, giving us time travel, but there are other ways, probably, no doubt, described in the yoga of time travel.
i'm ardell and were about to go to the phones just a couple of small matters and then in fact directly to the phones with professor wolfe
You may not completely know who you're listening to tonight, so this might help you out a little bit.
Ever heard of a movie called What the Bleep Do We Know?
Yes, you have.
Early this year, a unique independent film called What the Bleep Do We Know began popping up in limited theaters across the country, and a funny thing happened.
It sold out.
I mean, it stayed there and stayed there and stayed there because it just kept selling out because people were telling each other about it.
Just going berserk.
It was all about this award-winning actress, you know, Marley Madeline, Children of the Lesard God, West Wing, and so on.
Find yourself in a fantastic Alice in Wonderland experience when her uninspired life explodes, unravels, revealing the uncertain world of quantum field hidden behind what we consider to be our normal waking reality.
Now, this is pretty wild stuff, and one of the scientists interviewed in this movie is our guest tonight, right, Doctor?
Well, the producers and the director were, believe it or not, fans of mine.
I've written 11 books.
I've been doing this for a while.
And they had heard me lecture several times in the Pacific Northwest.
In fact, I was given a special invitation to speak before the mystery school that was run by this woman who comes out as a guided spirit called Ramtha, a man, a warrior from the past.
Whether that's real or not is debatable, but it's besides the point because the wisdom is there.
And the producers were all students of Ramtha, and they heard me.
And my books at that time, Space-Time and Beyond and Taking the Kiwana Leap and as my new books came out, were all being used by her students since they contacted me having been in her class several years later after Bill Arnz, the producer, had made some money in the computer business and decided to make this movie.
And so I was one of the several that they first contacted.
In fact, several of the people that are in the movie were there because I recommended to them that they should get these other people.
Many times you have a concept of what a movie is going to be because perhaps, well, I wrote a book that became the inspiration for a movie along with Whitley Striber.
So I've been there, done that.
And my question is, how did your concept of what it might be and the reality of it when you saw it, did they collide?
In fact, it was an amazing synchronicity of a confluence of thought.
It was almost like a proof of the one mind.
I was really flabbergasted by the way the filmmakers put this film together because what they, it was, all the different scientists and the mystics and the people that are peering the film that are commenting on what's happening in the movie to Amanda, played by Marlee Matlin, her life story and the story of the universe, it's as if there was one voice speaking through many different bodies.
And it was kind of fun.
I was kind of a fun kind of guy.
I mean, I like to, you know, joke and have fun, and so that came through in the movie.
And the other guys maybe were a little more serious, but even that was important because it set a whole kind of tenure for the movie.
And people that see the movie come away having had a spiritual, deep feeling experience.
It certainly gets you thinking, but it really gets you in the heart.
But there was a certain part of the movie that I found was really fascinating, and that's where the shaman on the island pokes Marlee in the head with his finger to awaken her for her to see what's going on in her life.
And having been with shamans in Peru, all I can really say is that the film carefully, but very visually, showed what it's like to go through an awakening process.
I still get chills when I see that part.
I also liked when Amanda, Marlee Matlin, gets in the basketball court with young Reggie.
That's Robert Bailey Jr., who's a wonderful little actor.
Quite fun to watch.
And Reggie, playing with basketballs, takes Amanda into the quantum physics world using Parallel Universes idea.
It shows her how consciousness makes a choice.
I thought this bit of animation was really quite superb.
I'm hearing from everybody about this, so it must really be something, and I've got to see it.
I have yet to do it.
And I would love to.
So I will find a way.
Now, this is a wild question for you, but if there is a single mind projecting all of these other billions of minds around this world and perhaps others, if the world should do the very worst and blow itself up and its existence,
if we were to end our existence in the reality of multiple, even endless universes, would it matter?
What, from the point of view of what we might call Krishna or God consciousness, it would matter because, you know, you don't like to see something that you put a lot of heart and mind and soul into go down the tubes.
But it's just one of many worlds, many possibilities, and there are others.
It's what I call the great nudge, the great cosmic nudge.
It's more of a nudge than it is.
I'm going to take my hammer and I'm going to hit you on the head if you don't do the right thing.
And it's a different kind of action.
And it necessarily seems to have to be that way.
We can get nudged by the great consciousness of God or the great spirit, but we can't really ask this great spirit to hit us over the head, hit the bad guys over the head, because who's bad and who's good constantly changes.
Even though right now we're in the midst of this fear and terrorists and all that kind of stuff, all that picture could change.
And I remind people that during the height of World War II, there were a lot of atrocities going on.
And we were accusing people of being the bad guys there.
And now, the so-called bad guys are dearest allies.
I mean, so, you know, things change.
And so we have to be very careful about how we throw around good and evil and absolute evil and absolute good because those things really don't exist.
And so I would say, give this world a chance.
We're still going through this whole recognition of this new technology, this new spiritual movement.
And I'm optimistic in spite of the fact that we're having these troubles right now.
As you said, what are the driving factors, the desire that the one mind would have?
And one of them certainly is what the listener is pointing to is the idea of self-recognition.
I need some matter to see myself.
And that all of these different minds and consciousness, what we see around the planet and maybe around the whole universe, are reflections of that one mind, so God can see himself or see herself or see itself.
Wildcard line, you're on the air with Professor Wolf.
Hello.
unidentified
Hi, I just have a question about the time machine.
If we assume that the time machine, once invented, lasts 1,000 years, like you said, and time travel could only exist within that thousand-year period.
In the exact moment we realize that the time machine is working, wouldn't someone from the future should they pop out of the time machine with like a bunch of upgrades for our machine?
Therefore, the first test that the time machine works would simply be just opening the door to see if someone's sitting there, right?
It touches a little bit of what the past caller said, but I don't think time travel is possible because if it was, it's not being done right now.
What I mean is, let's say if it was created 15 to 20 years from now, that person should travel back to this period in time right now and say, hey, look, I just come back from, again, this 15, 20 year loop and say, here it is.
What I'm trying to point out to you, I hear you very well, is that all these really bizarre paradoxes that your mind is going to come up with, which tells you time travel is impossible, read how it's possible before you dismiss your impossibility.
Read what physicists are saying about it.
And you can read me, you can read David Deutsch, you can read the Scientific American, you can read any different number of sources before you dismiss all of the problems that I'm sure your creative mind is going to come up with because it is possible.
And maybe the cosmic justice would be, as Rod Serling lives on, that the universe in which he arrives, well, hell, there's diamonds littering the whole earth.
Yeah, well, for 15 minutes, I was thinking of the question to ask when you came back on the air to Dr. Wolf about our parallel universes, and if one blew up, you know, how would it affect the other?
Well, I'm not sure, but in honor of you, sir, I will, again, I don't know, sort of engage that question a little bit.
Professor, when I said that, there are many people who think that, in fact, this parallel universe thing is true, and there are other parallel universes where the quantum science that we're now pursuing is already a done deal,
and that perhaps if we harmed ourselves in some way, we would harm some or change some other reality, and there are those in that reality now who might be concerned about that, and they might travel here to try and stop some catastrophic event that would affect them.
And you can create paradoxical situations with the result of where is your consciousness at the moment.
And those are interesting to contemplate.
But there's actually no paradox.
You can actually, when you do this kind of traveling, you actually form a nested set of parallel universes in which there's an alternate.
They alternate in the universes where there's only one U with the universes where there are two Us.
And you can find a whole logical sequence in which you and you are going along smoothly in one universe, in half of those universes, and you by yourself are going along smoothly in the others.
What happens, however, is in all the universes where you are as a single entity, when you time travel and go backwards in time to the other universes where you meet yourself again.
There's two of you then.
In those universes, the universes you're left, you're no longer in.
If time travel becomes possible, and maybe I better qualify it, are you imagining that one day time travel into the past, into a time prior to the invention of time travel, will that ever be possible or no?
It's wonderful that you answered the question that way.
Otherwise, had you affirmed we could have done that, I would have asked you, and you can still choose to answer it, or now you don't have to at all, if you were to go back to the time of Christ and to observe for yourself the passion Of the Christ.
Would you return disappointed, or would your faith forever indelibly in place?
There is, I mean, the basic equation has squares in it, so you might say there is the possibility of negative appearance.
So in that sense, you could say maybe he did throw it out.
But there's a little bit more to it than that.
It's not quite that simple.
It really is Dirac, Paul Adrian Maurice Dirac, who, in solving the quantum mechanics of the things that Einstein discovered, realized that he couldn't throw out the negative mass solution.
There are Hebrew scriptures which, ma'am, say what?
unidentified
Well, one is that in Ecclesiastes it talks about the silver cord, and you hit a nail on the head because in translating each number of each word, God says that he is the self-existent, eternal Jah.
And there's two of them.
There's this one and then another one I want to share because it explains how UFOs move.
And this one is...
Okay, that an eternity of time and space, that God says he is an eternity of space and time, and from a crossing place desired inherited company.
Yeah, well, yes, what's interesting about the caller's comment is that the number of mythologies, I'll call them mythologies, not in a pejorative sense, the number of mythologies of spiritual practices that have similar myths or similar stories,
whether we're talking about the great God Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita or Brahma, the great God Brahma, or whether we're talking about our great God Yehovah, whatever one we're talking about, there is the general understanding that this God is beyond space and time.
It comes from a timeless, spaceless realm.
And is itself all time or eternity?
And then the question is, what is it like to be eternity?
The genomic helix is the biological string of the previous metaphor.
And about the double-slitted experiment with the particles reacting with each other, my question was: is that relative to the double helix or the twin helix of our genome?
You know, the one thing with time travel, what got me motivated to call was the proton going down the two slots, you know, where he's saying that, you know, it's sort of evidence of possibly other dimensions or other universes.
You know, my aspect in looking at the whole subject is, you know, light, that proton, let's say a galaxy 12 billion light years away, it's traveling that far to reach our telescopes today.
So, you know, apparently the proton, the photon of light, you know, is packing a lot of energy to travel that far a distance in time.
Not only that, it's racing against the universe that is expanding.
You know, it's a pretty powerful thing.
Now, if you want to look at it in the aspect of the slots, you could be dealing with, you know, they say most of the energy in the universe we can't see, like dark energy or dark matter.
Well, it's possible.
It's all around us.
And light is using that energy that we can't see or detect to keep that proton traveling through space.
So when it burrows its way, say, to the right channel in your test, it's used up that energy for that proton of light to travel effectively through the first hole that it gets to.
And the second proton following right on its heels is all of a sudden with a choice of sort of that dead zone where that first photon of light is whirled through the energy field, it decides to choose the other side.
So hence you start getting this pattern, you know, of the shades like he was talking about.
I have admired you, Dr. Wolf, for so long a time, and it's a pleasure to talk with you.
I have a question.
I had a very powerful experience some years ago where I became a holograph.
Unexpectedly, it was an experience I can't quite explain.
But through the experience, I became aware that my consciousness was creating reality on a screen of energy before my eyes.
And my eyes seemed to work as a holographic beam or a set of beams.
And I perceived from that that reality not only is coming out of perception, or my mind is part of that creative process, but that consensus was formed by a series of isocubes, which is what I was called, and was aware that everyone is holographic as well.
So I wanted to ask you about that within the context of what you're saying.
I've always felt that the body, in a sense, was the pattern of a larger reality.
You know, it's the mirror image of science that we talk about often.
But that the body with its trillion cells, one cell in many, is really a pattern, as I perceive maybe the universe is.
Well, I think there's some evidence that what you're saying is true.
One of the books I wrote called Mind into Matter, I take that pattern up seriously in terms of what the ancient alchemists used to talk about.
They would say not only as above, so below, they would also say as within, so without.
So that the processes that we see taking place within our body are also processes that we can see taking place universally if we look at them a certain way.
And so there is some truth to this.
And the idea of a holographic being is one that is also not only just thought of metaphysically, but currently physicists are looking seriously at the idea of a holographic universe.
Well, while you would say that science and the metaphysical are already meeting right now, how far ahead, Professor, do you think it will be before it'll be what we call an incontrovertible head-on collision?
I wanted to touch on something that you were talking about the new movie, What the Blake Do We Know?
And he called it an awakening.
And that is something that I've experienced twice in my life, where basically something was said to me once in a dream, and then I remembered that same thing once outside a dream.
It basically shook me loose from this reality and made me suddenly look around and see everything for exactly what it was.
Well, this is some reality that you've laid out for us.
And I guess that's how you think of all of this, right?
As reality?
I don't know what other word to use.
When I said collision, I meant, well, you know, eventually, as we move forward in this timeline, there is going to be that moment where science is going to confirm something that was previously so metaphysical that people chuckled their tail ends off about it.
And that's going to be a kind of a collision, right?