just thought it coldness inside. some people have the sensitivity to the landscape and that is a skill that comes from practice over from close observation of product does. most of that perception is unconscious. the fourth thing you might call sympathy, which is sensitivity to an emotional and social environment. can you pick out what other people are feeling and sensing? this comes in extremely handy working in groups. most working groups because groups function more for it within individuals. goodacre picard has been the groups will solve it much better. the capacity of a group to solve the card tricks are not problems or anything else given is not related to the high i.q. or median i.q. it is related to how well do those people read each other's emotional signals? how often do they take turns for communicating clacks unsubtly

group is. face-to-face groups do a lot better than groups that communicate electronically by the way. at the university of michigan to give people people not problems, one set of groups 10 minutes to solve problems face-to-face and they did very well solving problems. give another set of groups 30 minutes to solve, but they had to communicate by e-mail and those groups could not solve the problems. beware of teleconferencing. face-to-face is just a lot better. some people have the ability to read those things and some don't. the fifth trade i would list is called propriety. the ability to set up scaffolds to control some of your impulses are the most famous experiment in this field, which many of you know is called the marshmallow experiment, done by a kind and walter michelle. michelle took four euros, put them in a room, put marshmallows at a table in front of them. said if you've now, only from a comeback in 10 minutes. if you have any in the marshmallow, i'll give you two.

he showed me videos of the kids not getting the marshmallow. there's a little girl baby in her head on the table. one day michelle used an oreo cookie. the guy picks up the oreo, carefully thought the metal, carefully puts it back. that kid is now a u.s. senator. [laughter] but the scary thing is the kids who could wait 10 minutes 20 years later had much higher college completion rates. 30 years later, much higher incomes. the kids who could wait one minute, higher drug and alcohol addictions. that is because some kids grow up in homes where actions lead to consequences and they develop strategies to control their impulses. mostly by pretending the marshmallow is a cloud or that it's not real. somehow pretending the temptation is not in front of them. the kids go to school without self-control will frustrate the

kids who cannot. these are traits that are encouraged early and really happen unconsciously for the most part. the final traits and will mention is not so much a treat. it's more of a motivation. i call it the marines. the conscious mind hungers for money, for success, fame, recognition. but the unconscious mind hungers for the most is those moments when the cells fades away and the score line fades away and we find ourselves lost in a challenge or task or another. it's the moments of transcendence democrats lost and feels the one with nature, what a believer feels it is subsumed by god's love her most frequently for most of us when we find it in love for one another and we lose the sense of herself because of love for one another. this decision to fall in love like so many decisions is both

rational and emotional at the same time and makes a hash of those categories. when we see somebody we might potentially fall in love with, one of the things we do unconsciously as measured by a person in all sorts of ways. we tend to marry people who have nose wit similar to her on. we tend to marry people with high wit similar to her room. we tend to marry people of complementary and assistance, which we can tell they smell. we tend to marry people who love the maximum status symbols that we can get. women unfortunately tend to marry men who are taller than they are because the average inch in height and america equals about $6000 a year in annual salary. one study i came across suggested a man who is five-foot six can get as many online data offers is a guy who is six-foot on a salon essay makes $172,000 a year more. so some of this is rational and

cold and calculated, even though it's done unconsciously. but some is quite deep and mystical. he was enchanted headstand all had a great phrase called crystallization. he describes salt miners in austria who would take branches and threw into a salt mine. they would come back a few weeks later in the branches would be covered with crystals and they would glimmer in the sun. he said that is what we do to our beloved good reimagining of crystals around them and exaggerate their virtues would become addicted to them. a brain scientist say levin inside the brain looks very much like a addiction. it is not so much as a desire to be confused with one another. italicize close to with one another. should help them decide who to marry. that is the only important decision they will probably make

good marriage produces the same happiness game is making $100,000 a year more. if you have a good marriage a bad career coming to be happy. if you have good career coming to be unhappy. none of them believe me, none of a sense of divided by school, down we deeply want to interpenetrate that's the highest thing we long for her. one of the beautiful examples i book by indiana university, scientist who hofstadter was married to a and when their kids were five and care was dead, but

hofstadter was still one day happened to have just as he had done many days he happened to glance at her face as he was what he wrote in his book, and a strange loop about that experience. i looked lips so deeply that i felt i peered out once i tears flowed, that's me, simple words brought back many feelings i'd had before about the fusion of her souls but the fact the core of both hopes and notion those hopes were not separate but just one hope, one clear thing that

kind of unit i dimly imagine before being married and having children. i realized o'carroll had died, that core piece had not tied it off, but it had determinedly in used to say we suffer our way to the wisdom which is confirmed as a scientist scientific durocher thinks that ways much deeper than in a shallow and less important way, seen, educational forums suffered her way the shallow view dominant in our society as important if we defined policies, because i is, have. the good news is where researchers from all these fields are really giving i think

their our society year upon year, decade upon decade and give us us of new view of human nature, but reminding us that are there appeared for me, and it's be around those people the past few years and look forward to all the things they are going to bring to our culture in for >> put your wait they go to

daycare. how does that affect them especially with elementary and nursery school how these and should not be part of this research is that you don't have to be super parent to if you establish good relationships with you try to you are aware of

a very basic way, that is the threshold you don't need to be super mom or dad. most of the super mom just have to that is relaxing for most a guy who has written quite a lot parents, whether they work or not have they've done what they need to do it based for daycare, the guess it makes because the results are not that firm has an first thing to be said is there is daycare and there is daycare. some are good and some are are very kids and some are not. i lived in belgium and we were

going the kids would go during i asked the lady across match. she says you can do stuff this is not a strong it, kids who spend a lot of average to be slightly more aggressive than those who don't. and so, i think that is the researches i understand it. i wouldn't say this tremendously strong and would not be on the top of my list of social concerns. as for the touching, i spent a fair the good ones and to be what the rules are, but the teachers the main thing they do at the good ones as they talk the flow of words is incredible. one of the differences in our

society is between middle-class kids do here on average 480 lower class kids who here on average 170 words per hour. so that is over the course 32 million words and that has an effect. if you go to the the teachers are just talking to try to is one of the important things power has to be level in order for were talking about to ultimately? >> one of the things we need to acknowledge is we do have a woman says we do not have a continuum for child rearing us. we are two entirely different systems. what i grew up with is what she calls concerted cultivation, what the kids are driven around

other is i forget the name she uses, but basically life is hard, let them relax other doesn't prepare the kids as well for the world we now have have to frankly the most disorganized homes, we have kids who are not getting those organized attachments. we a big excuses schools, where you go when the school may teach the kids teach how to look in the eye and nodded when someone say yes, excuse me, thank you have these drums and chants what is earned. they say everything and order and frankly middle-class kids get naturally. the schools works phenomenally well because they are based on

this marshmallow type experiment and say we are going to skills. you have to acknowledge we have an unequal society into different sorts of systems for kids who >> another question. about five awareness of this humanism change your political philosophy is i just cried a lot i guess i would put it this way. we the five times individual in the 80s, a more economic individualism, free had two revolutions that rule.

one of this research does citizenship and emphasizes the relationship think community oriented. what can we do to strengthen communities then maybe i used to be. i wrote a book a couple years ago about the fast-growing suburbs in the far reaches of the suburbs. by now much more suspicious of them because the evidence about is more innovative and where you have changed guess i see everything now i look at egypt and tunisia come i see the the desire for recognition and dignity. and that is when you appreciate how fundamentally what happened

in cairo doesn't really surprise influenced me and all those ways. it hasn't made me like that. but it has pervasive had an influence on believe that the most important decisions we make from our values. i am wondering how that fits in are idc is solving the as a country with this first on the

values some of the things have to do has to do a thing of thousands of are cultural inherit whether it's the region or ethnicity, we inherit certain ways of seeing been a lot of research done on how chinese and americans look

>> you come in with all different categories and you have to be aware of the negotiations of those things.

values can change. it's all complicated stew. they are basically fundamental. i look at why the country does well or why it doesn't, it's fundamentally a values things. it's not natural resources. these are two crucial values. do you believe the future can be different than the present, and do you believe you can control your future? these are not universal. some places they have it, some places they don't. u.s. we have exaggerated sense of how much control we have. it's good for us. finally on the polarization and tieing it into the theme. if i see somebody in my group punished, my brain reacts violently. not any group being punished, sort of callous about that. we have essentially a tribal nature. and in washington we have tribalism on stilts. we have magnified tribalism. i mentioned the effective groups

where people took turns and communicated. if you have the definition of dysfunctional group, that would be congress. they don't communicate or listen very well to each other. the polarization that occurs in washington is in part caused by the fund raising and media redistricting, but it's mostly caused by the psychological psychodynamics of tribalism. i think. good people struck in the tribal hatfield and mccoy system. i see it primarily as a psychological and immoral problem, not fund raising. >> we need party that is have conversations with each other. >> let's see, back here lady with her hand upon her right. >> in the columns last sunday, you spoke about how we americans

over estimate our capabilities in every field. i'm wondering if that is unhealthy and unrealistic, which is the opposite that's the tiger mom. >> a couple of months ago, i was driving, and happened to here command performance. the episode that i heard was aired on veejay day. he got out there and say we've just learned on world war ii. mer death got out there and read and pyle said we won because we have great soldiers, allies, and a lot of material abundance.

we didn't win it because we are anything special. we should be glad and worthy of the piece. that tone of humility was so striking to me on the day they won world war ii. then i get home and i turn on tv, i'm watching football, and the corner back tackles the wide reciever after the two yard gain and does the victory dance to himself for his great achievement. it occurred to me i just seen greater self-puff reafter a two year gain than world war ii. i do think it's a change from a culture of self-afacement. nobody is better than me, i'm no better than anybody else. look at me, i'm good. and the polling data is the favorite one, the seniors in 1950, are you a very important person? 12% said yes. in 2005, i asked again, are you an important person, it wasn't 12%, it was 80%. so that's just the change. if you look at the math scores,

we're 36th in the world in math performance, but we are number one in the world in thinking we are really good in math. so that's a change. this expansion of itself led to par sanship -- partisanship because i know the answer. why should i stay for future generations. i'm here, i feel less connected to the broad change. and i think if you look at this societies that have done really well in math, they are the ones who have least confidence in their own abilities. and so i think the lesson from the research is that you should have a slightly above average view of yourself. you should exaggerate your virtues a brake lights to make sure you did go out and dare and try difficult thing that is are hard for you. we've taken it to the extreme.

one the phrases is the core of my political philosophy, is modesty. we should be aware about how little we know about ourselves and the world and prepare ourselves with those weaknesses and not think we are the bees knees. >> again, senator. >> if you want a good recipe for modesty, write a column every twice in a week. you'll read in the paper, what was i thinking? what did i -- [laughter] >> i've got a quick question for you. it's been on everybody's mind. what do you believe that our current -- can you name three things the current president has done correctly and a dozen things, 20 things that he has not?

[laughter] >> he's the best since i've been covering education. two, i disagreed at the time. he was right to rescue gm. you know, i could list more actually and there's some things i disagree with. i think i cover the president, and i speak to him periodically. i speak to people on the staff every day or several times a week. i would say within the white house, i disagree. within the white house, there's a culture of debate. they do try to find the right answers. they generally have the best interest of the country at heart, they are smart people there, they -- half many them from harvard, half of them from yale. if we are attached during the harvard-yale game, we're screwed. they will all be there watching

the game. i think there's an honest culture. as for the failures, you know, i thought when we did health care, i thought we had two central tasks. the first was to cover 39 million uninsured people and the second to get our cost inflation under control. we did one, i don't think we did the second. so that would be one thing i disagree with, i think he tried too much in the first few years and really polarized the country maybe more than it needed to be. i wish he would call some of the members of the opposing parties, someone that i'm friendly with is is a guy named paul ryan from wisconsin. very smart chairman of the house budget committee. i know them both. they would really get along, they would have wonderful conversations about the future budget that could really lay the ground work. obama has never called ryan and asked him over. he's never had a conversation with him.

i think they should at least talk. so that's just the function of the nature of washington. which he's -- i think he's well equipped to change but hasn't really taken the measures. i could go on, but i think that's enough. >> well, let's see, there's a lady four rows from the back in the center. >> you know what, sir, we have other people with their hands up. further back. >> you spoke how some variables of success were based on the 18 month old time period. in an effort to close the achievement gap, the educational achievement gap, would you be a proponent of mandatory childhood education? >> yeah, i wouldn't want to make it mandatory. just because that gives you all sorts of political problems. and i still essentially think that the relationship between a parent and a child is better

than it's going to happen at a public, especially a state supplied day care center. i wouldn't want to force people to do it. nonetheless, i do think there should be on one hand more funding. it should be a right of passage. we should do a lot better job of organizing our early childhood centers, our head start centers so the people there are teachers, rather than people we needed to give a job to. and we should not only we should start earlier. we should start with nurse family partnerships and visits, so nurses are coming into homes. and gives mom help on how to coach. in the first year of life, the average mother loses 700 hours of sleep, gets interpreted every 27 seconds on average, and sees a decline in marital dissatisfaction of 71%. it's tough. they are charming, but they are

invading your brain. it's a brutal thing. people need help. if you go to certain neighborhoods, things i've seen, babies locked in a car seat, coca-cola in the bottle to keep them quiet, there are things where people need help. we should be more aggressive. then you can't stop because even if you help kids at an early age, a lot of help fades out, and benefits. it has to be like nutrition every day, you got to have early chidehood education, schools where peachers are able to connect with kids. you've got a mentoring program, they've got to go to college where they peel emotional engaged with within. if they think about dropping out, there's someone they care about. they are engaged with the campuses. all through life, there has to be the concentrations of really relationships. so i would spend more money. i'm avoid the lobbies with the big guns, the k-12, caller,

higher ed, and mostly the senior citizen lobby. and zero through three is a pathetic lobby. i'm afraid that's very vulnerable in state after state. >> you mean you could take us out with your predictions from 2012 since we're not going to see you before then? >> i could write about book. but it would kill me. i really wouldn't bet against president obama. he is a very -- [applause] >> he has an amazing ability, i've seen him since he lost the -- the democrats lost the election, to self-correct. he has many personalities, the downside, he rarely commits all out. he's always one step back observing. the upside is he tends to look at himself and say how do i need to change? what do i need to do?

he has the ability to adjust and political skills. when i look at politicians, it's like a scout looking at pitches. who has the best. i remember when i saw him in 2005. long time ago, i thought he has the best stuff. he's probably going to be president some day. i wrote a column in 2006 on him because i thought he had the best stuff. i still wouldn't bet against him. that said, i'm not sure what he's going to run on. i don't think you can run the campaign that you ran last time, the big transformational hope and change. can't do that, can't run on health care, can't run on the stimulus, his administration has been slow to come up with the new big agenda for what to do in the next four years in a country that is still furiously concerned about national decline and furious at government for screwing things up. so that'll be a big challenge. on the republican side, the person that i would like to see get the nomination, i'm in a

front about this, i'm not supposed to root for one candidate or another, but it's the government of indiana, i like him because he's 5 ft.'6",w to the ground, in touch with people, you have to be down there. i think he's been in an extremely effective governor at a time when state budgets have ballooned and gone up 40% state after state. in indiana, the debt has gone down 40%. at the same time, a lot of programs that republican matter have been improved. even wait times at the department of motor vehicle have dropped from 60 minutes to 8 minutes. i think he's been effective government. i think the government that the republicans would do well to counterprogram against the graceful, elegant and brilliant democrat that may not be charismatic, but knows how to run things. i think the other two are mitt

romney and tim pawlenty. managers, i'm less enamored. pawlenty was a good governor, but i haven't seen as much management. i think republicans have two problems. the first is they to their credit and this is to obama's deficit, they are saying we have to tacklen titlements. that is a courageous step. because the government is more than they are willing to pay for. we have to adjust the benefit levels. they don't know how to sell it, and i don't think the republicans understand not only do we have a recession, we have structural problems in the economy which have hurt the middle class. i don't think there's an republican answer to that problem. i think they face some challenges. and they face sort of a talent deficit. i wouldn't debt against obama.

but it'll be a -- we'll eventually get to have the fight which we need to have is here's the money, here's the national wealth, here are programs, here's our debt, how are we going to figure this thing out? i'd love to think we're going to have that really series debate and then to end on a pessimistic note, i really don't think we're going to have that debate. thank you very much. [applause] [applause]

science for a little more than an hour. >> welcome a good evening. it is a special pleasure and an honor for me to welcome brian greene to our fair city. before we start talking about other universes why don't we talk about you. a lot of things we would like to

know, some personal details about you. understanding you are a vegan. [laughter] >> yes, in this universe i am, that's true. >> used all my next question. >> disturbing to think so but according to barbara understanding that's quite possible. >> i was on an airplane a few days ago coming from london, and the woman next to me i ordered a vegetarian and she said would you be offended if i ate meat and i said i don't care what you eat. any way i see you are a friend of the doctor. >> but he doesn't sit next to me on the airplane. it works out. >> so, tell me something else. i am dressed and you have eight number called, what is it,

>> there's this idea of how many degrees of separation you are from famous people. so the original one is how far away give an actor was from kevin bacon, and then mathematician's wanted to compete and have their own version of kevin bacon who collaborated with many mathematicians the question is how far away are you from having written a paper with him and then people said let's put it all together and see how far a given individual is from kevin bacon and aros and there aren't that many people that are sort of close to both, but there are a handful of us. so i'm one of them. >> how many are you? >> i used to be the world leader. >> what's your number? >> number five, but i've been overtaken. >> fight in one? >> five total. fi from aros and two of them from bacon or something like

that. but i think that gweneth paltrow has taken over the lead. i'm not sure, but there are definitely people that have taken over. >> but you have a number one. >> that's all communicate, yes. >> so, what is this -- let me ask you we all think that there is one universe. how could there be more? >> that is a central question to start with, because a long time ago, two years ago -- [laughter] the word universe meant just what you're saying. it meant everything, that have become every store, every galaxy, the whole shebang. so what sense could there possibly be in having more than one of everything and what we have found in the research that actually dates back a number of decades but most vigorously relatively recently is that of a mathematical investigations, our suggestion that what we have fought to be everything may

actually be a tiny part of a much grander cosmos, and that grande kosmas can contain other realms that seem to rightly be called the universe just as our realm has been called universe which means you have many universes', multiple universes' which would call them multi first. islamic it sounds like a brand of cereal to me. malae serial or something. so, tell me, i understand that physics is a science, an experimental science, so where does this come in? it sounds more like a religion, there's this universe and another universe. how do we learn about the other universes? >> how can you gain confidence in an idea that speaks of the realms we cannot see, that we can't touch, we can't visit, we can't desert directly. let me give the answer.

in some versions of the multiverse and i should emphasize not one proposal but a number of universes and proposals and in some there can be subtle connections between the universes that might allow us to have some experimental window on to them. so all of that set aside for the moment, let's think about the ones where you couldn't visit them. well, why do we think about these things? well, we have a believe founded upon really hundreds of years of experience that math can provide a gateway to reality, it can't provide a window onto a reality that at the moment the math is being done, we can't actually see were observed that really. einstein is the greatest example. he wrote on the equations of the general relativity way back in 1915 and others listed those and found that they seem to save the universe should be expanding. the matter said that the universes is expanding and einstein himself said no, i

don't actually believe that, but 12 years later observations showed the universe is expanding. the math was confirmed by observations, a verdict samples are black holes. again, his mouth gives rise to them. einstein didn't believe it, observations now show that there are black holes. so we are following in the tradition. we are doing mathematical equations, following them and as you can discuss in some specific cases, they are leading us rich by rich to the possibility that evers is only one universe. does that mean the math is right? we don't know. it has to be confirmed or ultimately tourism and observation of experiment, but the possibility that the math is revealing this new picture of reality is sufficiently compelling that many including the taking of the investigation to be to investigate vigorously. >> i think the operational word here was tanned because mathematics is not just physics. >> exactly. >> sometimes the mathematics

works and sometimes it doesn't. you don't have to go very far but if we go back to concede that they were invented by a mathematician, a greek mathematician and then use them to argue the earth is at the center of the solar system or the universe for him six years mathematics that is valid mathematics and not very complicated mathematics but nonetheless. but it doesn't describe for devotee. and you can go to leave iran for example -- >> before you leave that example, because i think that is a great example where you have some individuals who were looking at the motion of the earth and the motion of the planet and coming to the certain conclusions that we now know to be erroneous, the conclusions about how things are working. there were other physicists, mathematicians, who looked at that math and said this is so complicated and convoluted and if we look at the map this way it all sympathize, but the conclusion is that the earth is

not the center so we were propelled by the mathematical investigations imagine the earth is not the center and then others using similar that the sun is not the center either and then similar mathematical reasoning showed us that our galaxy is not the center. it's one of many galaxies. we've gone through a sequence of the cosmic emotions by following the math, confirming it through observations we may be on the threshold of the next demotion by following exactly the same patterns. earth is not the center, the galaxy is not the center, our universe may not be the center. it may be one of many universes following exactly the same pattern. >> the key is the mathematics is always simpler in this sense. but when you do very complicated mathematics and trust your equations, often these equations are cumbersome. >> i can understand where you might come to the conclusion because we get into the details some of the multiverse ideas

come from the string theory which seems like a complicated subject when you hear about its features but when you look at the equations of the fury, the starting point, it's actually pretty simple. >> how many are there? >> there is one of now. there was a time we thought that there was a handful, but wonderfully in the last decade the matt has come together and we've realized what we thought were different fees were the same just expressed in a different language. so everything has been simplified. if you take even a good example of the darwinian evolution, the principal of the evolution are pretty straightforward, but nevertheless those principles can yield the rich variety of the life that we see on earth. the outcome can be complicated even though the starting point is simple that is the way that i would characterize our thinking about certain modern physical theories. the outcome of the pherae if we get into it, extra dimensions from vibrating strings, it seems

complicated but that's the richness of coming from evolution, the starting print of the fury like the starting point of evolution pretty straight forward. >> so, tell me, what are some of these furies that lead to the multiverse? in your book to describe several of them. i couldn't find one of the anit-universe. that's my favorite actually. where your anti-person -- >> do you favor that to the multiverse? >> beebee good place to start would be what i consider the simplest of all, which is to imagine the possibility that if you were to get into a rocket ship and head out into the cosmos, would you at some point hit a brick wall? most of us don't think that is the case. what do circle back to your starting point like what would happen on the earth's surface?

that's possible. or would you simply keep on going forever? we don't know, but let's take the third possibility seriously. if we do there's a startling conclusion and it's simply this: in any finite reason of space, the matter can only a range itself in many different configurations and particles. large number of similar like to get that card if i shuffle the debt of the card deferred, there are only different orders of the cards and many different orders are still finite, so if i shuffle the deck and at times infinitely many times, the order of the cards have to repeat. similarly in the infinite space the order of the particles, the configuration of the particles has to repeat, too. what would that mean? as we heard in the introduction would mean something pretty strange. you see, you and i are just a continuation of particles. everybody in this room is just a configuration of particles as is the earth and the sun and so forth. if the configuration of particles repeat someplace out there in the cosmos, it means

all that we know is repeating. we are out there, and that's a very straightforward mathematical conclusion from a simple starting point. estimate your leaving out an important thing. and level of that when you go to the infinity. >> it doesn't matter. that may be the probability of less speaking in another universe. do you want to go there? >> absolutely. i don't need to frame it in the terms putative let me do it in a more concrete setting. if i have the deck of cards and i shuffle it over and over again, do you agree that sooner or later the order of the cards will repeat? not the probability, i'm not saying that it's too large -- too your taking the easy way out. i'm talking about the universe. >> you're just counting the power. the infinite space. this is a supposition. you can challenge that, but let's not just to get to the argument, if you take on board this idea which i think most cosmologist and physicists have

this case goes infinitely far, then you've got a lot of room for this to happen. that's the point. >> i have a problem with space going indefinitely far. in mathematics, you mentioned but in the physics the way that i anderson and physics, these three dimensions in which we live in the first time which weinstein taught is related to the others was created in the big bang. so, i think that if you think of this, and correct me if i'm wrong, this base year was created in the big bang. we are not expanding to another space, we are creating space as we are going out. as the galaxies are expanding with these 13.7 billion in iran. we are creating free space. so, where is the other universe? as mathematicians, okay, this dimension goes on forever. but i think we have the universe year and one here and one here

and many of them that is okay, but doesn't really exist from a physical point of view when the space is created in the big bang? >> i do need to corrected a little bit with all due respect. [laughter] so, there is an incorrect image that many people have in mind which is this. when we think that the big bang typically we imagine that further and further back in time, the entire cosmos is smaller and smaller and smaller, and we back toward the beginning, the universe we sort of intuitive we think of as very, very small and then from that forward and as you are saying, this piece is created from the big bang so how could it ever be infinitely big if it were very small in the past? and if that were the right picture, you would be right, that is not the picture that is compatible with the infinite universe. in an infinite universe as you head back in time, the universe is still infinitely big. if you go back in time and the

universe is half as large as it is today and half of the infinite lisalyn fenty if you go back further one-third of devotee is still an affinity -- the traditional one -- >> the universe is infinite? >> that is the thing coming gist. >> what is the radius of 13.7 billion light years? so the universe goes beyond that? >> that's the key point. the big bang is an event that gives rise to our realm, but if the universe is infinitely big, then our part, the part that we have access to is only piece of the entire day. so, you need to -- >> so expanding as well. islamic you need to make a distinction between the observed universe and then the entire city. the observable universe is the part that we can see and you are right we cannot see further back than roughly 13.7 billion light years because that's the amount of distance light can travel since the beginning but we almost nobody believes the

universe and at that point most everyone believes it goes on at least for distance beyond that and the supposition that goes on indefinitely for a. >> torian decision, too. he pulled out the in fenty from your hat. what does it have to do with anything here? anything we learn about physics is financed. what does antonette mean? the have a copy of the images are the continue amoore the function? i mean, to invoke an affinity you have to give me something. the most straightforward definition would be the same causality has the real line. the real line extended in exactly the way that you know from when you took the mathematics at a young age. let me ask you this and turn it around. if it is not infinitely big what happens when you travel out? >> i interviewed steven weinberg a few months ago about the cosmology and i asked him the

big bang is believed to be a quantum fluctuation and that is what created our universe. what is the quantum fluctuation in? what is the medium in which we respond if you will? and he said that, we don't know. we can't go there. we don't know. but you are telling me something else. you're telling me that there is an inch in the of space as mathematically i agree the line exists but it exists peloton ackley . islamic if you build a space ship and go out and just keep on going, what happens? >> well, if i take physics the we physics has been done, here's the big bang. it started here, but there is no -- location has no meaning. you can't define that as being located in space because it doesn't exist before the big bank hope. i don't know about other universes. if you start your come this

space is greeted with a big bang. >> if you go to a rocket ship and keep going what happens? >> you can't. >> you have a ship and go out. >> is it an end? is that the starting point? >> you know pretty well with you in a telescope in this direction that might and in that direction that might the two parts takes the farthest galaxies that you can see and faster than light because of the accelerating expansion of the universe acceleration so that part doesn't talk to this part how are you ever going to get to one part to another with space ships that trouble less than the speed of light. spaghetti get in that should what happens? >> i don't know what happens. i would be lost in space. [laughter] >> so, it is a mathematical question which in language would be what is the overall topology? >> that's where i disagree. i think that topology exists with mathematicians minds as a

platonic -- the way that the variety is were the motives or things that we have nothing to do with the real battle. >> this is a good point. as they take part in mathematics you actually that is my key point which is it's not physics to read a lot of mathematics here doesn't do anything for us. i will give you an example. we talked about cycles. when i take the glass i will give you another example. so brenda heisenberg who i actually met -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> i want it at the same level. so, one of the folders of the quantum mechanics and in the twenties developed the theory that if a bidding as the principal and matrix mechanics and anyone that step further chief of he's going to go to someone else and he said here's the proton and i need three ice cubes here and there.

we of the proton and neutron and the symmetry between them, i'm going to use the mathematics of the summit to explain why they are similar and he calls it has you know and we know where it went from there, but that assumption was wrong. that was taking mathematics that makes a lot of sense in your mind as a mathematician and has nothing to do with the real world in the sense that the protons and electrons. they look very similar because of an accident of nature because the courts are so small so to speak. one is a lot heavier than the other in absolute terms but when it compares to the math of the two then you think they are really very similar and he went into the symmetry. of course you and i know that later they add it and did all kind of things and the mathematics sort of came back. but at that moment what you have is a mathematics as very powerful and absolutely

worthless. -- which -- ruthless triet i rest my case to this gimmick mathematics opens the realm of possibility. thank you. and what the art of physics is is being able to sniff out which mathematics is able for the reality and which mathematics is not. now experiments and observations are a key part of that story and in the one that you just mentioned ultimately it was observations and experiments that dictated that math wasn't the right direction to go. so, what we need to do, and what we spend our professional lives doing is trying to understand which body of mathematics is relevant for the reality and which is not. now, in this particular case that we are talking about, the argument makes the assumption that a certain body of mathematics can go on infinitely far is relative to the reality. if that isn't right, and it may not be i'm the first to say that it may not be but if it is, you

come to this startling conclusion. it's not, then you don't. and i think that is the mode of thinking about many of the multi first proposals. many of them start with a certain mathematical framework, push the math as far as we can to the border of understanding and then use them to look out over the horizon and see what's there. are we seeing the devotee or are we seeing mathematical ideas? that is the question ultimately that has to be confirmed or defeated by observation. let me just give you an example where that mode could have appeared. some people ask themselves if it doesn't go on indefinitely far, could we perhaps observational the established that? that would be a nice thing to do. one way to do that is if it doesn't go on infinitely far and if it does have the shape like the surface of the earth where it comes back on itself, well, then as you know, there are structures in space that give off light, galaxies, the radiation and so forth. if the universe has that shape like it comes from the distant

source can hit our i but also passed by us, circle around the universe and come back a second time or third time. so if you can see the multiple copies of a given object, that would be a nice piece of observational evidence showing that it's fine that doesn't mean it's infinite, it could be big so that it has enough time to cycle around, but that is exactly what the physics is about to read during a theoretical one of the mathematical calculations, pushing to the limit and then trying to find the observational tests. >> tell us about some of these specific theories. let's start with the one that i liked the most. [laughter] the many worlds. it's somewhat different character of proposal for how we can be one of the many universe is coming and you may note that in the book is actually one of the leader tractors because --

chronologically it's early, you're right because i think in thinking about the subject marching through the development chronologically doesn't give you the most pedagogical a sensible way of thinking about where we are today. because in particular the quantum mechanics stands outside the chronological marked it ends up with the ideas of the strength pherae but it is an interesting proposal and that is why i have a chapter devoted to it. you are right, it is weird coming and you will note that in that chapter by basically come to the conclusion that i don't think it works. but that doesn't mean it doesn't. and if you're talking to other people, like a david deutsch, at oxford, or various other researchers, david and so forth, they would sit here and say it absolutely does work so i don't want to give the wrong impression. well, sure is the idea. so, the new idea of the quantum mechanics in the early part of the 20th century was that we're as newton said, tell me how things are today and i will predict how they will be

tomorrow. the universe is like a giant clock workable use of mathematics to turn the crank for word and predict how things will be and the observations we of thinking about things are accurate when applied to the everyday objects like glasses or the moon or to a rock that you throw newton can tell you what will happen and you to the observation and it does happen. great. when people began to probe the microscopic realm, the whole structure began to fall apart. >> different universe there. completely different realm. of what use the universe into many different ways to the different environment and in some ways shouldn't be so surprised how should the law is at work on the everyday scale also work on the timing skills and it turns out that they don't. they go on the quantum physics and the new idea of the quantum physics is that you can only predict the likelihood, the probability of one outcome or another. so if i'm not dealing with iraq or the moon but in electronic

and i want to know where it is, the quantums say there may be a 50% chance that it is over here and a 50% chance that it is over there. the 50% chance of each and can't do any better than that according to the quantum physics. the weird thing is when you do in observation of the electrons, you always find it either here or there, you never find it have here or there but a sort of melding of the two. so the puzzle has been for eight years -- eda years even though the probability of the quantum mechanics are confirmed by doing an experiment over and over again finding of the electronic 60% of the time here and 50% of the time here, how do you go from the fauzi probabilistic mathematics of the few to the definite reality that we've observed when we do an experiment? nobody has answered this question yet shockingly, 2011, devotees answered this a

proposal that comes from whomever in 1957 is this. he's as well it could be here or here. when you study them at diligently and really follow this through and apply it to the experimenter as well, the math seems to say that when you do the observation you find the electronic year, and you find the electron here just in the two different universes. each universe there is a copy of your thinking incorrectly that there is a single definite outcome but from the bird's eye view there's the two of you thinking that it and that is using the look-see of the electron that all the possibilities of but quantum walls are realized in one universe or another but recall the quantum of light verse. that's the idea. estimate but you believe it curious to know i don't believe it, i don't believe it because i don't think that we have established yet in any of the

analogies and it is controversial. some people think we have. i don't think we have established yet how this way of thinking about quantum mechanics actually describe as the observation. that link i don't think has been established. >> i don't think we understand the quantum mechanics. >> most people -- >> that is tantamount to the same thing. to understand the quantum mechanics to say how does it bring up with observations, and i don't think we've answered that yet. >> it just doesn't appeal to our understanding of the universe because we are living in a space where things don't happen the way they have been in the microworld. >> let me add to that. sometimes we can see large objects behave in quantum mechanically. they are very rare. >> i just want to emphasize that what you are exchanging expense for the quantum mechanics is counterintuitive. >> it is worse than that. >> that's crazy. >> whatever words you like.

>> i couldn't accept it. >> exactly right, but why is that? there's two parts to the story. now i was going to ask the question. >> i'm sorry. [laughter] >> you know, there's a part of the quantum mechanics that feels uncomfortable because of the experience, and that is the part which makes it hard to accept these crazy ideas. but if these crazy ideas have been fully worked out mathematically in the observation has been made which it hasn't yet been we have to accept that our intuition has been built up from thousands of years of living in a world of this size and there's no evolution a real advantage to understanding the probabilistic motion of electrons. when you are on the savannah trying to get your next meal, it doesn't matter if you understand the problem of the quantum physics it matters if you understand the dynamics of where that animal is going to be in five so you can jump in and eat it and so our brains have to

look to the newtonian. if i took this class and i took the water out and buy from it, somebody could catch it. they would be doing the calculation because it is into this. if i were to do the same thing with the electron didn't catch it because they don't of the cement division. that's the only part of the problem. the real problem of a quantum mechanics is not it is counterintuitive or crazy. it's that there is a puzzle we have not answered yet. how do you go from the probabilistic to the definite reality? that hasn't been solved. >> but why do you have to? are you a gambling man? you talk about your food habits. do you gamble? in the casino you have a life or something like that and it rolls around and the one member, the 36 number but this one, do you have a problem with that? >> to buy is a problem with that? no, no.

>> wendi have a problem with the probability of the electron? system event of a problem with the description, i do have a problem with of the theory that is incomplete. and that is our -- >> he said that it is incomplete. the fee is incomplete for a different reason. >> the problem of quantum mechanics have to do with the interpretation of other things even though he had the vision to but surely understand something that we call today the entanglement and the paradox and so on. but what i am asking is something that the lower level. you have no problem in going to las vegas -- gambling you have no conceptual problem and the dhaka on the prairie hunting the mastodon or whatever, you have no problem with the wherever you are hunting going one way and then another time choosing the animal going the other way. that is smithsonian in a sense, right?

would you really need to see a shrink if the wolf went one way and then the other way. >> if it looks like my mother or father i might -- [laughter] but -- >> i'm not sure the point you're making. >> you do an experiment and when you can observe it and open the locks, it goes one way, it can be to the right and then in another universal to the left. but when you don't it goes both ways. we know that. we are not neanderthal. it's okay for us. the typical young experiment is one of one particle, right? you have no problem with that at all? when you open the box he collapsed the weight so to speak. utah is the crime and roll the roulette wheel and it goes one way or another. why is that? and by the become the problem is not of mathematics and you know that. for mathematicians, the

operators and -- >> how many people are familiar with the space? [laughter] let me just be a little bit clearer. my problems with the quantum mechanics is nothing to the effect it involves probabilities. so i'm happy with probabilities. >> that is the alternative to the probability. is mike no, no, absolutely not. the people who believe in the world also believe in the probability. they are just trying to make a link between the probabilistic predictions and the fact that when you make an observation you see the silda fenech reali. and that link is a subtle one that has resisted the solution now for about 50 years. so if you were talking to a person who does believe that there are many universes' and quantum mechanics, you will ultimately find they are trying to explain the same probability

that kneal was trying to explain that in the old days. so it is not like einstein where he had in his mind that physics needed to make definite predictions. no, no, we've gone beyond that because our observations to show the probabilities work. we are trying to close the gap in the quantum. but my suggestion is that we move on from this because this is simply one variation. >> what is your favorite multiverse? >> it depends of the way in which you judge the favorite, but i certainly have a leaning towards those that have a chance of being experimentally tested in this timeframe which is one way of thinking about the subject and from that there is a multiverse that comes from the string theory which i find particularly exciting along these lines which is called the

brane multiverse from the following idea to be within the string theory and i think that many people have at least heard of what it is. it's the idea that the element of the constituents of the little tiny particles and the old way of thinking of things, the little tiny dots, the new idea of the fury is within these little particles there is something else which is a little tiny filament that vibrates in different patterns. the little film that looks like a little piece of string so the idea that deep in the heart of the matter is a little tiny vibrating string. as we study the mass of the fury more and more we come upon the following a very interesting idea. within this theory there are not only these little tiny filaments, there can also be what we call membrane, john and sheets if you will but can have the two dimensions or even three dimensions and so forth, and the math seems to suggest that at least it is possible that all that we know about every start of every galaxy and so forth is losing its life out on one of these membranes.

it could be a three-dimensional membrane. that's hard to picture so that we do a two dimensional and algae. imagine a big slice of bread where every store and a galaxy we know is on this slice of bread. that is our universe. now, this proposal suggests there could be other slices of bread, other membranes and universe is that if you will all partisan grand cosmos is to use the metaphor with our universe just being one slice of bread, one universe in this grand collection. why do i find this particularly exciting? at the large collider there is a chance that this proposal might be tested. how would that be? the call later slams protons against protons at high speeds, and the math shows that in some of the collisions if there is enough energy if you are moving fast enough when the protons collide they can create some that is the objective of our universe come off of our slice of bread. how would we know that? the debris would take away

energy with it. that means there would be less energy left for the detectors to measure after the collision than before there would be missing energy. people are looking for these missing energy signatures and if the energy is missing in the way that the math suggested it should be this would be the evidence that this bertino picture is correct that suggests there might be other universe is out there. >> have you been depressed recently? >> why do you ask? >> because you know that they haven't found anything in semidey and 14 they will find it, but right now has a lot of people may have heard, the results are negative on that and they are also on something else which i want to bring out. >> let me respond to that. it's very early in fact if they found anything at all the wouldn't denounce it. it would take years before they do. but you're making a great point. i would be thrilled because this is meant to be an experiment of science. if we could rule out the string theory.

let me be on the record very clearly about this, but i'd be depressed? i would jump for joy because i'm not wedded to a particular theory and why did towards working for truth. i don't do what you think. as you go around once i don't want to -- in this university of want to spend my time working on a fury that is incorrect. so if the string theory is wrong i would like to know today or yesterday so it is not a matter of having a certain emotional investment in one outcome or another. i have an emotional investment income trading however minimally that maybe to the ongoing human search for truth and finding a given a theory is wrong is progressing because you can throw that one away and went on the possibility. so the depression, know. excitement. >> good. so you will always be excited, whenever they find. >> it's the nature of reality, the nature of the universe is exciting to the estimate has been running for a full year now. i think the end of march, the 30 as of march is when they started and of course they stop for the

brigety create so many collisions every second, trillions of the data accumulate. they haven't found anything. the first thing they ruled out at the energy level is the extra dimension. >> the exist but they haven't found it. i want to go in another direction in that at least for a short while. i just heard that they haven't found any truth of the symmetry either. just happened now. so as of now, with all of the data that the collected in the year have the energy to reach the haven't found that super strain and i think the supersymmetry is another place where the mathematics and physics might diverge. so let me add something. i'm not here to pull your psychologist but -- >> i'm a little bit worried. how many people feel like -- >> i will explain it. don't worry. >> okay. let me just explain it first. [laughter] spec you don't trust me.

>> you live here, they can come and visit you once in awhile. [laughter] so, the four most string theory is the superstring theory the full name of the superstring theory exactly what he's talking about is the supersymmetry. what is it? super symmetry is a fantastically interesting mathematical symmetry that relates things that previously we felt were totally unrelated. what is the symmetry? if i take this class and i began to turn it around, it is highly symmetrical which means no matter how alternative pretty much looks the same. each point is related to every other point in a way that suggests nothing is special. each can be turned into the other point by simply rotating it. similarly, there are classic particles in the world that are very important to us and particles that make this up. electrons and things that make up protons, neutrons.

those particles seem to be very different from the class of other particles by virtue of the fact that they actually spin around differently. those particles that we all know about turnout to something the way these little particles spin but there are other particles we know about that half stand one that's like the photon or the particles that communicate the forces and there are some hypothetical particles not yet seen that would have spent zero they wouldn't spend around all. supersymmetry is a mathematical symmetry that would relate all of those particles and sometimes each of those particles can be rotated into the others. now if that is the case that could be true there would have to be a certain other class of particles not yet observed that the known particles we know about what turning to under this kind of symmetrical rotation to read those are the super metric particles so for the electronics partnered under this kind of symmetry known as the super symmetric electron or the sola

strong. i don't name them. for every known particle there is a cousin called a particle. so we are not looking for the sparticles. if they, are there it would confirm this idea and if they are not it means we don't have sufficiently powerful accelerators to create these sparticles or it may mean they don't exist. that is the current state. >> it's a beautiful theory. but we don't know if it has anything to do with the real world. the problem of mathematics and physics goes back to paul. he was the person who, a physicist and an english physicist to deny to the quantum mechanics with a special pherae and when he did that in 1928, i think something like that, he looked at this equation. now i'm going to sound like rye and maybe in another universe i'm number nine. so, what brian says is we just the mathematics and --

>> let me finish i have to interrupt you for putting words in my mouth. i'm saying that -- mathematics can be a potent guide for what we should consider interesting and investigate further, but until observations and the experiment confirms that no i don't trust -- i don't trust the observation in the experiment, find. so, paul was sitting in front of a fireplace at cambridge and he looks every allies is a way of uniting the special relativity with quantum few recreating the quantum field pherae. when he does that, she gets his mathematics and i'm not going to put words in his mouth, and he looks at the mathematics and the mathematics tells him that there are negative energy levels for the electronic he says well maybe anybody else looking at it would have said this is just the math. like when you solving equations and you get to solutions one is imaginary and one is real you say i'm going to ignore the

imaginary and only the real one is good for me in this particular real-world example but he didn't do that. he said their must be a particle because of the negative energy levels and he called -- that turned out first he thought it was a proton and then he realized another whole new particle. said he was looking for the new particles the way it looks for other particles, and that particle is a deposit and was actively discovered a few years later. so, the point is sometimes it works, but it doesn't work all the time. that is the example of heisenberg. so we want to follow the mathematics and we are in experimental science and want to see where it leads to the problem is -- and i think that it is a sort of for a lot of the physicist's today they believe in the supersymmetry more than or follow the supersymmetry a lot more than others theories so if we don't find these particles it is a beautiful mathematical

construct that may have absolutely nothing to do with this universe or any other universe. ultimately nature speaks and speaks to the experiments and observations. but you are right there is a large segment of the theoretical community that takes this idea very seriously. we have been working on it in one way or another since the 1970's. so if the particles are found, scientists around the world will be popping the champagne. this will be an exciting moment where the example you just gave would be capitulated in a big way. the particles are not found, we will accept that as the way the world works and go back to the drawing board and that for me is. >> good enough. how about the other theory is. the other ways you can get there. >> another one is money comes out of thinking very carefully about the big bang. we touched on the big bang earlier which is decided that the universe underwent this rapid expansion early on but one

of the things perhaps we ought to emphasize enough when talking in the general context is that the big thing if you react to we has something pretty important which is the thing. the big bang theory tells us how the universe evolved from a split second after whatever started the of course willing that happened in the first place, but it doesn't tell us what caused that to actually occur. people have been working very hard to fill in the gatt and the reason i bring this particular gap up is because there is a proposal now for what caused the of course will then called the inflationary cosmology and it is basically the recognition that goes back to einstein the gravity of a certain circumstances can be ripples for the gravity to be attractive you drop the class is false because the earth attracts it, trouble call it falls again, because the earth pulls things together, but the gravity does. but einstein shows that under exotic circumstances gravity can actually push things apart.

the belief is that the possibility is that the early universe that exotic environment was realized there is an energy state that gave rise to the ripples of gravity that pushed everything apart. that's why the universe started swelling in the first place. the thing is when you study this theory in detail what seems to show that this out for a swelling would not have been a unique one time event. it says there could be many of these beginnings of the various and testing locations in a much larger cosmos, each giving rise to the wollman to the corral and the observable universe and the universe that people like us could and had it but the universe upon universe. this is the inflationary multi verse and the nice thing about this approach is the idea that space underwent this rapid swelling nearly gone from the ripples of gravity that has been subject by some very interesting observation and tests. if the universe went through

this rapid swelling nearly non, here's what would happen. little tiny quantum fluctuations in the universe would be stretched out by the rapid swelling in spirit out across the sky and demonology if i have a balloon with a fine tipped pen imagine my roel message on the surface of the balloon you couldn't actually see if it's too small but if i blow air into the balloon as it stretches, my message gets smeared out across the surface of the balloon and now you can see it. the tiny quantum jitters in the universe are like a little methods and that is when space under this rapid expansion that the message gets smeared across the sky a tiny temperature differences and the heat left over from the big bang is called the cosmic radiation, and we've measured this eat leftover from the big bank and the way that the temperature varies from the point to point is exactly in line with the mathematical calculation, and that is a very

convincing piece of evidence for that least taking this quite seriously. >> i think the theory is taken quite seriously but most of only cosmology but even astronomers and physicists and the question is does it really implies the existence of something that is not observed which now is a multi multiverse. kinkos microwave fluctuations, and as they explain i think there are these galaxies from them as well come and that really implies rather than the mathematics you keep going back to the mathematics, doesn't mathematics really tell you that if you see this picture of the microwave background radiation you must have -- >> no, no, that's why i'm not here saying that these ideas are proven. you may recall when we started out this conversation i emphasized that these are speculators ideas that come from our investigation and until we have an observation of the

weekend believe that it's real. >> let me take a little bit further. what happens in the subject is when you have a theory that is able to describe things that you can see, it bolsters your confidence to follow the theory further. that's where the confidence comes from to follow it further. it doesn't uniquely imply there has to be another realm, know. there are versions of the fury or there would only be one realm. they are very hard to come by. they are very cumbersome and they feel very contrived from the mathematical standpoint. that doesn't mean that they are wrong they could be right, but the ones that don't have that quality are the ones that do give rise to the other universes'. so do we know that they, are there? absolutely not but as it suggested as a compelling possibility that is worthy of study? yes. and how would you know? what sort of experiment might give you insight? pure again its rhetorical. if you have these -- you have these expanding realms. if you have these expanding

realm scum imagine coming you know, as a big cosmic bubble bath of different universes with ours being one of those. now in a bubble bath and they can collide. similarly the universe is as the expand can collide too the form close enough together we can smash into each other. how would we know that if our universe had a kind of fender bender with another universe in the past? well, that collision can send a ripple for this he is left over from the big bang, the cosmic background radiation once again. so the scientists are looking in that mediation to try to find the fingar patterns and the temperature variation of this case that might indicate we got hit by another universe. is there any positive evidence yet? no, not yet. the collision could yield a signature that is too small for the current level of technology to access, or maybe it never happened. but that is the way that in the principle we could have observational evidence of a universe that you can literally see. you see it's affecting our

universe. >> how would you another fix several generations of satellites looking at the microwave background radiation and we know what about the radiation in fact is uniform to 110416 or something like that of the filtration. how would you be able to tell -- you have to give something concrete to say here's the universe in another universe and they collide. you lost me at the beginning because i don't think another universe can exist on this access because of the fact that we created this case. you haven't answered my question on that but let's leave that out spikelet the finish. islamic but you've given the impression that there's something missing, and the missing part is actually that you are not fully comprehend the idea because we are talking about -- >> i know what you're saying. there's the high prospect there and busbee six >> knowledge can be a dangerous

thing. you sort of note too much right now. [laughter] this has nothing to do with hyperspace. bread-and-butter cosmology of your memory dimension of the fact, let me just describe it. the cosmos that you are having trouble grasping, think of it as a big sauna. three dimensions, let's stay simple. the three dimensions that is filled with this energy that causes the out ripples of gravity that i referred to. what happens is region by region in this because most the energy can degrade and as it does, all polls open up in this wider cosmos where the energy turns into particles that makes the stars and galaxies caruso our universe is simply one of the regions where the energy has degraded. the image that works pretty well is think a lot of swiss cheese. imagine that the cheesy part of the swiss cheese is where the energy exists and is forcing things to experience the

gravitational repulsion. the holes in the she is are places where it has degraded and the stars in the galaxy can form a reverse of the different universe is i am talking about or the different holes -- >> so they are really one universe. >> whatever language you would like. i said earlier on -- >> has said early on the language is confusing. >> but we ask you talking about the experiment on the evidence of the multiverse, whatever the multiverse mean. so these universes' are colliding and here's the background radiation, it's fluctuating. how do you know from that and something else? >> that's a question that you face with all data. when you look to the data you say what is the best explanation for it and you try to ruled out all of your of the competing proposals and the proposal that stands up and is the best explanation is the one that you have gained confidence and to read so we've done calculations

and actually i have not done diesel calculations myself. others should get the credit for it. but others of the calculations of what would happen to the microwave radiation under this process. i may have a very explicit predictions for what would happen to the radiation, plus how the temperature would vary from place to place. and if you find the temperature variations in line with those predictions and there is no other competing explanation, then indeed you're confident in the possibility would likely grow. that's the way science works. >> let's assume it will happen when they come in and then we will have proof of it but until then of course we don't know. tell us about some of the other multiverse fees'. stat what time is it because i think the we've been going on -- >> 8:ten. >> i want to make sure people have the chance they want to. i don't know if the format is that you tell me. i had to keep on going. i have no place to go tonight but whenever you want to do. >> i guess you got your answer.

anyone have a question or want to throw anything else? >> we have time for questions now. we have to staff members with microphones who will be walking up and down the aisle. we will select you and when we do, please, stand up and don't begin talking until you have a microphone. we are ready for some questions now. >> first question, down here. >> i know this field moves very quickly, but in 2006 the theoretical physicist at the institute of canada wrote a book entitled the trouble with physics, and it seems to me that he has basically abandoned the

string theory chiefly because the lack of experimental confirmation. so my question is has he abandoned it too early for -- >> it's a good question and he is a good friend of mine, and he largely thinks his book has been misinterpreted. what she claims she was really mean to say in that book is that it is not the only approach to putting together a quantum mechanics and general relativity. there are other approaches in fact he's a champion. he has been one of the founders of the competing approach called the quantum gravity and part of what he was saying is that he feels too many people work on the theory, the field would be advanced if there was a more balanced approach where more people were on the other approaches and the string theory wasn't the sort of primary one that was looked upon as a solution and in the community.

i agree with that is evidenced by all sorts of different ideas. the reason they were on the string theory frankly is - it's a more attractive and more appealing and promising approach and that is how they make their decisions, but you know, full well agree that it would be great to have active centers of research and all of these approaches, and he helped found the premier institute that he mentioned in there are a lot of people working on the quantum gravity. so the idea that he abandoned -- he's not a string theorist. he worked on it from time to time and is one of the folks that really tried to cross over. maybe there's a way of doing the quantity and the fear remolding them together. he and i have discussed this and the would be great if it happened, but the main point is there are other approaches and they deserve attention and i would agree on that. >> we have a question over here.

>> my question is related to the theory basically about the fact that i could be asking a question of someone else, but whose world is it like if we are making these choices like are we creating these cults and if so whose world is the santa cruz was the other world, is it yours, is it my income is it someone else's? >> according to the bread-and-butter approach i'm a others others have developed since the 1950's, if you were in a situation where the quantum mechanics says there's a possibility of this, a possibility of dhaka, possibility of this and so forth, all of those possibilities happened to be it's not really a matter of you choosing which happens. the mathematics doesn't allow any possibility to go on realized. all roads are traveled in the quantum multiverse ..

.. it is an idea that i don't think it's right. but i have taken on by the mathematical argument to sort of the last that. the last step i don't think he quite irate and no one in my opinion has yet fielded in. others disagree with me and say that it has been filled in. it is correct, all possibilities allowed by quantum physics, i'm

sometime announced and is described as there is one universe, where sarah palin as president. it has to be compatible with the law of physics. [laughter] [applause] >> next question over here. >> so come you mentioned the other quantum, do any half the implications as far as the multi-verse goes? >> you know, it's a good question. i don't know enough to answer that with any degree of confidence. in all of them, quantum mechanics as part of the story. so at the quantum multi-verses true, all of them will likely embrace it in the manner that we've been discussing. from that perspective, yes. in terms of the other multi-verse ideas, am not sure what they have to say about it.

>> question over here. in your many bubbled world, we know that after the big day, certain specific criteria had to be met or the universe would've flown apart. so in the other world, do they have to follow our laws in order to succeed or do some of them died? how does that work? >> so one of the deep questions we have faced over the last 15, 21st is certain features of our universe, certain numbers come as certain parameters like the electronic mass, the strength of the gravitational force, masses are and so forth. what we found is we understand numerical values the experiments are revealing, but we haven't been able to explain why those values have been found. you might say, should we care if

the electron was heavier later? maybe it's one of those details you shouldn't really worry about, but you should for exactly the reason u.s.? if those numbers had been somewhat different as we observe and know how they wouldn't exist. if i had a machine with 20 dials anathema to come up, any fiddling you do come in the universe does not evolve in a way that we know. stars don't form. planets don't form and it's hard to imagine how life could exist in such a universe. the deep question has been, why do those numbers have just the right values to give rise to the universe we are familiar with? we have had it dead ends so far in trying to answer that question. the multi-verse task has a very different way of thinking about that question, along the lines of what you suggest. the idea is maybe there are many, many universes in which those numbers very from universe to universe to universe and most

of those universes we couldn't exist. we couldn't observe any other value. we couldn't exist in those other realms. and that is an approach that may ultimately hold water. let me just give you a little analogy on this, that happened to me two years ago with my 4-year-old, which helps one understand this a little bit more. my son is six years old now. we went to a shoe store and this was the first time he was really old and a two begin to think about what was happening. the guide measures issue, goes back and everything's happy. my son turned stream the street and says, was that lucky that they had a shoe size? [laughter] and as i probed further, i realized what he had in mind with that shoe store had a single shoe size and it just so

happens that if it is for. [laughter] what a mystery that would be. i explained to him in the stock rendered many, many, many different shoe sizes and the guy picked out the one he measured. the ministry went away. the moral is if you think there is a unique object are trying to explain, that can be mysterious. if you realize it's not unique, it's one of the basque elections, the ministry can evaporate. just as we found the shoe size to fit his foot, we found a universe where the parameters that are existent in that maybe the the answer. >> i guess to preface this question, i'll ask you if you are familiar with ronald mallett in his time machine experiment. i guess these are theoretical physicists -- in connecticut,

ray. i guess he postulates that if you twist of life cannot come you can twist this time efficiently or at least send a subatomic particle to when the time ago. if such a machine would go, can something be used to maybe test some of these theories? [laughter] >> you talk about speculation. we are now in speculation squared. how would time travel interface to some of these ideas? let me turn it in that direction. i'll simply say this. one of the big postals are time travelers who affect things in a way that events are existed. you kill your parents before you were born and there's a logical paradox. back to the future, hollywood does this idea. there is a variation on the

paradox, which comes from the following idea. imagine you know -- imagine i travel to the future and i want to see what's happening, proven or not, so i go to the library or the floating internet station, whatever. and i see that surprisingly and that dear he has made a major advance in the author of that paper my mom. i'm like that's weird because my mom doesn't like physics. she wants me to be a.err, not this kind of doctor. all this sort of stuff. then i look in the acknowledgment to the paper in the future and she thanks me for teaching her all this physics. i'm like i better get back. i've got a lot of work to do. so i use your machine and traveled back and start to tutor my mother and it's not going well. she's not getting appeared a year goes by, two years.

how she ever going to write that paper? guys that i know is in my paper. i read it. let me tell you what to write. i tell her what to read and she paper and paper in every turns out in the future, who gets the credit? it's not a question of credibility. it is a question of where did the information come from? dishy think of that? no, she got it for me. but i think that? now, got up from her paper. now, how does this relate to multiple universes? here is the possible fanciful idea that people thought it. imagine when you travel to the past, for instance come you never come back to your own universe. you come back in the quantum multiverses, to one of those other copies that are universe. so for instance, if i go back in time and kill my parents before and born, i would be born in that universe, but so what.

i would still be unaffected because my parents to be unaffected. so again, it's a little far afield, but at least had some interaction with time travel. be not question over here. >> i just had a question about something i was recently aware of, the einstein condensation theory. some day now when people can produce a bose einstein in certain elements. hypothetically, if they could create that instance in a room, do all the basic theories of quantum mechanics break down? >> i don't think it does that. brian would be the final arbiter. but i think it was created here mit. it was also created in colorado. so around the same time.

you just call something, cool synonymous to a very cool temperature. what happens is the wave, the particles leave comments at the waves overlapping you are creating quantum mechanics for a large object, in this case a collection of atoms. i don't think it relates to anything else we've been talking about. >> and it really comes out of based the quantum mechanics. it's not incompatible. [inaudible] >> you absolutely reach a bose einstein condensate, on the waves come to one point. that's at the physicist at mit say. >> i personally wouldn't describe it that way. i'm not sure exactly what they had in mind. >> they describe it that way. >> okay. >> we have time for one last question over here.

>> yes, excuse me. i should preface this by saying i'm a diehard mini worlder. i was impressed and observation to your first book, where he noted the duality between links and one overlength over time, which seemed to have a special meaning if i understand this correctly about one fairman time after the big bang and the unknown stringer about the same. there was something i don't recall the details now, but something you said they're in the notes prompted this idea. i'd like to know if anyone is pursuing anything like this. that is if you imagine there's a moment perhaps this one permit time after the big bang of perfect symmetry, zero much of a universe that is no mini roadstead going to evolve, perhaps 10 to the 500th of what it takes to get us forward to all the versions of this year

now, we could look at the same thing. you'd expect the same thing to be happening in the one overinterpretation going back towards the moment of the so-called big bang. now that singularity turns into a dilution, dislike singularity at the north pole using an in an appropriate set of axes to describe it having. so here's this image of us and we have this other doppelgänger, which is a multi-verse repeated in that first little moment of time. if anyone pursuing ideas like that? >> it is one of the most surprising features of string theory, which shows under the circumstances largely you are recounting a universe that bigger then the plane feeling and expanding, that isn't equivalent to universe smaller and contract.

that is our world you're talking about. i wouldn't use the word doppelgänger or image to describe these two rounds. they are distinct mathematical descriptions of the same reality. it's really two different ways of looking at the same thing, even though they seem vastly different. i would cosmologies luck and a singularity in this picture? right here at harvard, and other cosmologists named robert rina berger studied in the context of this universe that had this one symmetry and they did find something along the lines of what you're in. so what is the singularity? 51 back in time because denser and denser and denser. they found in this sendup when the university is more than a plank length, temperature bubbled out and as it gets

smaller, the temperature starts to turn down because of the very symmetry are talking about. it never spikes to infinity. there's never a time never a time of the time-limited seekers instantly big hit there was a cosmological model that has been proposed based on a symmetry. there were other things it doesn't describe you. there's much work they would need to be done to take it fully seriously. as a toy test case of a cosmology rather wouldn't be a singularity, is one of the most public words come out of strength here. >> we have time for another brief comment -- question. >> i wanted to point out that if you take that kind of a model seriously, then our current event horizon would be

>> sra, are we done quite >> i was going to say, i think our time is that.

thank you so much for the wonderful, lively and very mind expanding

animal," sources of love, character and achievement. >> it is a great pleasure to be here, more or less in my hometown to know what to read in her high school about 13 miles west of here. and so, it's always good to be back home in this area.

because i know philadelphians, i know you didn't come to hear me speak. you can to heal yourselves speak. [laughter] and so, i'll try to be brief. get out of your way. it is a pleasure to be back. i try and think of what my high school teachers at ratner would've thought if they could see me addressing crowds in philadelphia. there'd be widespread shot. i was not a big man on campus, though i was stuffed into lockers by some of the big men on campus. [laughter] actually, one of my debate partners on the debate team needless to say. tom wilson played this in the back to the future movies in another one was a guy named josh warman who chases tornadoes that was one of the subjects of the movie twister years ago. so they went on to lead exciting mines and i went on to talk. and now, a lot of the people i talk with our politicians.

and so, when i was given my current job at the times, i was given a good piece of ice which was to agree to politicians every day. concerning that much time, they are all emotional freaks of one sort or another. they have logorrhea dementia, which is a tax that much they tried themselves insane. [laughter] that they do have incredible social skills. when you meet them by and large, they will seem close to you, invade your personal space, read the back of your head and caressed her cheek. dinner with republican senator couple years ago kept his hand on my thigh the whole meal. [laughter] several years ago, senate press gallery watching dan quell intan kennedy greet each other and they gave each other these big hugs in their faces are so far apart and they are laughing and groping in their hands are revving up and down each other's

backs and grinding away there. get a room. i don't want to see this. [laughter] another story atoll, which is a bit of name dropping. i'm going to a hotel in boston and bill clinton comes out of one of the elevators and starts praising me for a column i had written praising him, which was particularly an astute column. as he is talking, people see them in the lobby and he starts backing that said they cannot hear what he's saying. within a few minutes, he's like 80 feet away, but just talking to me and just embracing the crowd. another case i was following mitt romney around while campaigning the last election cycle. he was campaigning in new hampshire with his five perfect sense, the, chip, rip and dip. and so he goes into an exciting

diner and goes to the tables of introducing himself to the families and asking where their friend in describing the home he owned in the village. then he would go from table to table anemias 30 people. on the way out he first names almost everybody he's just met. like okay, let the profession i won't be going into. finally, just a few weeks ago at the national institute of health i wish i'm very neuroscientists a video of a young girl with williams syndrome. he looks from the outside like reverse autism. the little girl is 18 months old in a room with a 12-year-old roy, some of the researcher and she only wants to look into his eyes. the boy is juggling and knocking over stuff. she has no interest in the physical objects in the room. she only wants a social connection. she gets close and stares into his eyes, minute after minute. i was thinking this is every senator i've ever interviewed.

they are socially attuned creatures. when they turn their minds to policy, all the social sophistication vanishes and they start thinking like cbo report, like computer models. i have covered a lot of what has to do with the overly simplistic view of human nature. so i covered the union and we sent economists and with digitization plans. what they really liked favor social trust and we were going to die. as a result they really so everything in the debate. then i covered the war in iraq. we sent the military and animators were oblivious to the cultural and psychological realities in iraq and unprepared for that. we had a financial system and regulatory machine based on the assumption that bankers for rational self-interested creatures who wouldn't do anything en masse and that turned out not to be true. most importantly, we covered

education, trying to understand why 30% or 20% of kids drop out of high school. and we've tried for years to try to raise high school graduation rates. most of those efforts have been disappointing because we rearrange the bureaucrat boxes, big schools, little schools, charters, vouchers will screen the central issue, the individual relationship between a teacher and student. [laughter] people learn from people they love. if you talk about love at a congressional hearing, they look at you like your opera. they don't talk about language. the question is why did the most socially attuned people completely dehumanize them to think about policy. i came to the conclusion this was not simply a political problem, but a broader cultural problem. we have in our society disinherited view we are divided house, we have reason over here and a motion over here and the

two are at war with one another on a seesaw. if you're emotional, not rational. if your rational come you're not emotional. society progresses to the extent the reason, which is trustworthy can suppress the passions, which are untrustworthy. this biases the tree view of human nature that we are fundamentally rational individuals to respond and straightforward ways to incentives. his lead to academic disciplines the traitors to the human behavior using the methods of physics, and physics, emphasizing what they can count on model and sort of ignoring all the rest. i think it is led to an amputation, shallow view of human nature oriented site things rational and accountable and ignore and are inarticulate about a sound below. it has created a cold culture and work data type in about the motions. really good at talking about health and safety and professional skills, but about the most important things like

character and integrity, we often have little to say. alice mcenery, the great philosophers said we live in a system where we still have words for important things like virtue and honor, but we don't have a basic understanding of how they all fit together. imagine science for the neutron or gravity, but didn't understand how physics work and how they'll fit together is where we are. i do think we have this amputation, which us in a certain way. it poses in the direction that we are not only satisfied with. i mention i went to high school in my folks to live in pennsylvania just listed here. the parents. many places sort of trapped in a certain style of raising their kids. you go to an elementary school there in the third graders wearing these 80-pound backpacks, the wind them over. fairly beatles stuck on the ground because we want them to

study and get ready for the harvard admissions status. they get picked up by sobs and audis and volvos because in that town essentially acceptable to the luxury car salon succumbs to a country hostile to u.s. foreign policy. [laughter] big it raised and picked up by a creature called goober masur had a successful career women who take time off to make sure their kids get into harvard and they actually weigh less than their own children. they do but exercises during the moment of conception, cutting umbilical courts themselves. the baby pops out in the mandarin flashcards put together so they can learn chinese. they turn them into little achievement machines and sat robo product is. they aren't happy with it. they don't do gets the most important thing, but the tiger mom down the street is doing it

and they feel trapped into a system in which they ridicule, but actually can't renounce. they are often in a system where they sorted into at the morality and character matters most, but don't quite heavy vocabulary for it. when people talk about morality, often wind up talking about shopping. in radner we had the ben & jerry's ice cream of its own foreign policy. i joked with my books that ben & jerry's should make the pacifists to space. it's got a whole foods market, one of the grocery stores vote -- are so quick their loans from amnesty international. in my house we buy their seaweed-based macs called veggie booty with care, for kids who, in same on a snack that will help prevent colorectal cancer. [laughter] so i think this is sort of the world we are trapped in.

though we realize that is not all there is and there's more to life and more that we should be experiencing. so i was thinking about this problem and gradually became aware of this other sphere of life, where they were looking into some of the deeper things. at the western theologians, though i've read a lot of theologians. it is people who study the human mind. when this incredibly exciting. in the study of mind done across a wide range of spheres like neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, behavioral economics, people are looking into the human mind. really it's a revolution because many synthesize their findings across these many different spheres can be released start with three key insights. the first site is for the conscious mind writes the autobiography of our species, most of the action in the most impressive action happens

unconsciously below the level of awareness. one way to think about this is the human mind can take in roughly 12 million pieces of information a minute, which it can consciously process about 40. all the rest is done without our being aware of it. a lot of the things going on are somewhat odd. i figure research finding from the university of buffalo scholar is people named dennis are disproportionately likely to become dentists. people named lawrence are disproportionately likely to become lawyers because unconsciously we gravitate towards things that are familiar, which is why need my daughter president of the united states brooks. [laughter] some other things going on unconsciously are sort of impressive. it's not the tangled web of urges that for an imagined. the unconscious is really a different way of understanding the world and often yielding superior results. one of the tips i read about this if you have a tough

decision, tell yourself you decided by coin flip. flip the coin, but don't go by how the point comes. go buy your emotional reaction. are you happy or sad it came out that way? @conscious mind having made the decision and tell you what it thinks. the third area that happens unconsciously is really the most important. how do we relate to people? had we understand situations and perceive the world? these are the fundamental factors in whether will have a successful life and a lot of that action is happening unconsciously. the second insight is the motions are the enemy, emotions are at the center of thinking. people with stroke solutions that can process properly or not supersmart. what the emotions do is they assign value to things. they tell you what you want, which evaluates you don't value. if you don't have the valuation advice come you cannot make rational decisions. emotions are not separate from

reason. they are the foundation of reason. i'm a middle-aged guy not talking about emotion particularly. one of the scientific experiments iran to coach the practical, but still thinks it's the truth is they took middle-aged guys, put them in from her eye, brain scan machines and have them watch a horror movie and describe feelings towards their wives. the brain scans were the same in those circumstances. [laughter] sheer terror. i know what that's like. my wife's history writing about emotions this can't be right in a book about gluttony. it's not in natural thing. they're the center of power brain organizes itself. in 1945 was orphanage outside by renée smith. at this orphanage, they decided to keep kids healthy they would keep them germ-free. they gave them food and good

health care, they did not handle them. they separated them. those kids died by age two. ibid. 37% polity rate. they stopped naming the kids because they weren't living long enough. but it's a sign of how emotion is literally physically necessary. and so emotion is something you just have to get comfortable with. the third insight is we're not self-contained individuals. we're social animals with deep inner penetrations to another. every second are mine is not only seen you come to see me, we are reenacting what we see insider online, deeply interpenetrate it and they are all sorts of communications through which we are communicating in ways we are not even aware. there was one story about a psychology professor wandered side to side in this class paycheck, when it's over here, work at home. within two minutes, he was out of the door.

he just thought better thought better of it there. another experiment done in germany, taped it under people's arms, some people watch a horror movie, so much a comedy. at other people to sniff the gauze pads, presumably well-paid. and save to their watch a horror or a comedy. tickets are way above average you saw what appeared women were much better at this than men. so, we are deeply interpenetrate it. these findings give us a different story of how life works any difference of who we are. so we are in many ways children of the french enlightenment, the leading reason is the highest of our faculties. the research confirmed some of the emphasis of the british or scottish enlightenment. david gibbs and not an smith, the reason is weak and sentiments are quite strong. our most important faculty. it gives a different view of who we are in human capital and what

it takes to lead if you fill in knife. when we talk about human capital, talk about things you can measure. grades come in degrees, sat scores. all that's important. their other qualities more important, which are both emotional and rational and make a hash of these two categories. one of the talents is this thing called mine site, ability to mentor other nine similar to download what those mines have to teach you. babies, quick to a great degree. alan millsaps was a researcher at university of washington, thunderbird baby and whacked his tongue at her and she went back. babies at the sager bill to merge with the mines they come into contact with and really absorb models for understanding the world from the day come in contact with. the 18 month, about 55% of american babies have established a two-way relationship with her mom primarily, but also the dad.

those kids had secure attachments. they really know how to build relationships with parents and with adults. those kids have a huge lake. researchers can take a look at kids who were 18 months old, look how they attached a mom can predict with 77% accuracy was going to graduate from high school. if you go into a school at three or two or five and you know how to relate the teacher, you just have a better shot at doing well in school. 20% of the kids are what they call upward in the attached. kids sending out signals, but not much has been coming back at them. a teacher described one of the kids coming in the classroom tack in like a sailboat in the win, wanting to get close to the teacher, but not knowing how to do it. those kids have less activation and reward areas of their brains during social interaction. less of a kick out of social engagement.

by age 70, no of many, many fewer friends than others. something that happens at 18 months does not determine a life course, but opens up a pathway, which can be either confirmed or just confirmed by later experience. somebody with the bad attachment can discovery mentors in their life can be changed. these are the skills you learn very early on. a second skillets which you may call equipoise. this is serenity and maturity to look inside your own mind and be aware of your weaknesses. for example, the unconscious as many skills, but some weaknesses. 95% of college professors believe they have above average teaching skills. 96% of above-average leadership skill. "time" magazine asks people in the top 1% of earners. 19% of americans are in the top 1% of earners. paul shoemaker and edward russo

gave tester executives about the industry and asked how confident are you that your answers right quite advertising executives said they were confident they get 91% rate. in fact they got 60% wrong. computer executives, most overconfident industry thought they got 95% rate. in fact they got 80% wrong. this is a strongly gender linked trait. men drown at twice the rate of women because men think they can swim across that lake, especially after they've been drinking. and so, have the ability to correct your own biases. he had the ability to be open-minded in the face of ambiguity, to adjust the strength of your conclusions and strength of your evidence to be modest in the face of the things you don't know, to invent modesty devices for yourself. when you make a decision, rights and the reasoning, seal it in an envelope and open it in nine months.

you'll discover a third-year decisions are right come in third rock from a third in between. in most cases, your reasoning will be irrelevant. these are skills in 10 japanese related to i.q. mental character, not mental force that has to do with emotional equilibrium. the third trait is the record called menace, which we may call street signs, ability to look across a scene and pick out a pattern to arrive at just. there's a story in my newspaper about soldiers in iraq who could look down the street and sort of tell if there is a bomb on the street. they couldn't tell you why, they just thought it coldness inside. some people have the sensitivity to the landscape and that is a skill that comes from practice over from close observation of product does. most of that perception is unconscious. the fourth thing you might call sympathy, which is sensitivity to an emotional and social environment. can you pick out what other people are feeling and sensing?

this comes in extremely handy working in groups. most working groups because groups function more for it within individuals. goodacre picard has been the groups will solve it much better. the capacity of a group to solve the card tricks are not problems or anything else given is not related to the high i.q. or median i.q. it is related to how well do those people read each other's emotional signals? how often do they take turns for communicating clacks unsubtly group is. face-to-face groups do a lot better than groups that communicate electronically by the way. at the university of michigan to give people people not problems, one set of groups 10 minutes to solve problems face-to-face and they did very well solving problems. give another set of groups 30 minutes to solve, but they had to communicate by e-mail and those groups could not solve the problems. beware of teleconferencing. face-to-face is just a lot

better. some people have the ability to read those things and some don't. the fifth trade i would list is called propriety. the ability to set up scaffolds to control some of your impulses are the most famous experiment in this field, which many of you know is called the marshmallow experiment, done by a kind and walter michelle. michelle took four euros, put them in a room, put marshmallows at a table in front of them. said if you've now, only from a comeback in 10 minutes. if you have any in the marshmallow, i'll give you two. he showed me videos of the kids not getting the marshmallow. there's a little girl baby in her head on the table. one day michelle used an oreo cookie. the guy picks up the oreo, carefully thought the metal, carefully puts it back. that kid is now a u.s. senator. [laughter] but the scary thing is the kids who could wait 10 minutes 20

years later had much higher college completion rates. 30 years later, much higher incomes. the kids who could wait one minute, higher drug and alcohol addictions. that is because some kids grow up in homes where actions lead to consequences and they develop strategies to control their impulses. mostly by pretending the marshmallow is a cloud or that it's not real. somehow pretending the temptation is not in front of them. the kids go to school without self-control will frustrate the kids who cannot. these are traits that are encouraged early and really happen unconsciously for the most part. the final traits and will mention is not so much a treat. it's more of a motivation. i call it the marines. the conscious mind hungers for money, for success, fame, recognition. but the unconscious mind hungers

for the most is those moments when the cells fades away and the score line fades away and we find ourselves lost in a challenge or task or another. it's the moments of transcendence democrats lost and feels the one with nature, what a believer feels it is subsumed by god's love her most frequently for most of us when we find it in love for one another and we lose the sense of herself because of love for one another. this decision to fall in love like so many decisions is both rational and emotional at the same time and makes a hash of those categories. when we see somebody we might potentially fall in love with, one of the things we do unconsciously as measured by a person in all sorts of ways. we tend to marry people who have nose wit similar to her on. we tend to marry people with high wit similar to her room. we tend to marry people of

complementary and assistance, which we can tell they smell. we tend to marry people who love the maximum status symbols that we can get. women unfortunately tend to marry men who are taller than they are because the average inch in height and america equals about $6000 a year in annual salary. one study i came across suggested a man who is five-foot six can get as many online data offers is a guy who is six-foot on a salon essay makes $172,000 a year more. so some of this is rational and cold and calculated, even though it's done unconsciously. but some is quite deep and mystical. he was enchanted headstand all had a great phrase called crystallization. he describes salt miners in austria who would take branches and threw into a salt mine. they would come back a few weeks

later in the branches would be covered with crystals and they would glimmer in the sun. he said that is what we do to our beloved good reimagining of crystals around them and exaggerate their virtues would become addicted to them. a brain scientist say levin inside the brain looks very much like a addiction. it is not so much as a desire to be confused with one another. italicize close to with one another. should help them decide who to marry. that is the only important decision they will probably make good marriage produces the same happiness game is making $100,000 a year more. if you have a good marriage a bad career coming to be happy. if you have good career coming to be unhappy. none of them believe me, none of a sense of divided by school,

down we deeply want to interpenetrate that's the highest thing we long for her. one of the beautiful examples i book by indiana university, scientist who hofstadter was married to a and when their kids were five and care was dead, but hofstadter was still one day happened to have just as he had done many days he happened to glance at her face as he was what he wrote in his book, and a strange loop about that experience. i looked lips so deeply that i

felt i peered out once i tears flowed, that's me, simple words brought back many feelings i'd had before about the fusion of her souls but the fact the core of both hopes and notion those hopes were not separate but just one hope, one clear thing that kind of unit i dimly imagine before being married and having children. i realized o'carroll had died, that core piece had not tied it off, but it had determinedly in used to say we suffer our way to the wisdom which is confirmed as a scientist scientific durocher

thinks that ways much deeper than in a shallow and less important way, seen, educational forums suffered her way the shallow view dominant in our society as important if we defined policies, because i is, have. the good news is where researchers from all these fields are really giving i think their our society year upon year, decade upon decade and give us us of new view of human nature, but reminding us that are there appeared for me, and it's be around those people the past few years and look forward to all the things they are going

to bring to our culture in for >> put your wait they go to daycare. how does that affect them

especially with elementary and nursery school how these and should not be part of this research is that you don't have to be super parent to if you establish good relationships with you try to you are aware of a very basic way, that is the threshold you don't need to be super mom or dad. most of the super mom just have to that is relaxing for most a guy who has written quite a lot parents, whether they work or

not have they've done what they need to do it based for daycare, the guess it makes because the results are not that firm has an first thing to be said is there is daycare and there is daycare. some are good and some are are very kids and some are not. i lived in belgium and we were going the kids would go during i asked the lady across match. she says you can do stuff this is not a strong it, kids who spend a lot of average to be

slightly more aggressive than those who don't. and so, i think that is the researches i understand it. i wouldn't say this tremendously strong and would not be on the top of my list of social concerns. as for the touching, i spent a fair the good ones and to be what the rules are, but the teachers the main thing they do at the good ones as they talk the flow of words is incredible. one of the differences in our society is between middle-class kids do here on average 480 lower class kids who here on average 170 words per hour. so that is over the course 32 million words and that has an effect. if you go to the the teachers are just talking to try to is one of the important things

power has to be level in order for were talking about to ultimately? >> one of the things we need to acknowledge is we do have a woman says we do not have a continuum for child rearing us. we are two entirely different systems. what i grew up with is what she calls concerted cultivation, what the kids are driven around other is i forget the name she uses, but basically life is hard, let them relax other doesn't prepare the kids as well for the world we now have have to frankly the most disorganized homes, we have kids who are not getting those organized attachments. we a big excuses schools, where

you go when the school may teach the kids teach how to look in the eye and nodded when someone say yes, excuse me, thank you have these drums and chants what is earned. they say everything and order and frankly middle-class kids get naturally. the schools works phenomenally well because they are based on this marshmallow type experiment and say we are going to skills. you have to acknowledge we have an unequal society into different sorts of systems for kids who >> another question. about five awareness of this humanism change your political

philosophy is i just cried a lot i guess i would put it this way. we the five times individual in the 80s, a more economic individualism, free had two revolutions that rule. one of this research does citizenship and emphasizes the relationship think community oriented. what can we do to strengthen communities then maybe i used to be. i wrote a book a couple years ago about the fast-growing suburbs in the far reaches of the suburbs. by now much more suspicious of them because the evidence about

is more innovative and where you have changed guess i see everything now i look at egypt and tunisia come i see the the desire for recognition and dignity. and that is when you appreciate how fundamentally what happened in cairo doesn't really surprise influenced me and all those ways. it hasn't made me like that. but it has pervasive had an influence on believe that the

most important decisions we make from our values. i am wondering how that fits in are idc is solving the as a country with this first on the values some of the things have to do has to do a thing of thousands of are cultural inherit whether it's the region or ethnicity, we inherit certain

ways of seeing been a lot of research done on how chinese and americans look

>> you come in with all different categories and you have to be aware of the negotiations of those things. values can change. it's all complicated stew. they are basically fundamental. i look at why the country does well or why it doesn't, it's fundamentally a values things. it's not natural resources. these are two crucial values. do you believe the future can be different than the present, and do you believe you can control your future? these are not universal. some places they have it, some places they don't. u.s. we have exaggerated sense

of how much control we have. it's good for us. finally on the polarization and tieing it into the theme. if i see somebody in my group punished, my brain reacts violently. not any group being punished, sort of callous about that. we have essentially a tribal nature. and in washington we have tribalism on stilts. we have magnified tribalism. i mentioned the effective groups where people took turns and communicated. if you have the definition of dysfunctional group, that would be congress. they don't communicate or listen very well to each other. the polarization that occurs in washington is in part caused by the fund raising and media redistricting, but it's mostly caused by the psychological psychodynamics of tribalism. i think. good people struck in the tribal

hatfield and mccoy system. i see it primarily as a psychological and immoral problem, not fund raising. >> we need party that is have conversations with each other. >> let's see, back here lady with her hand upon her right. >> in the columns last sunday, you spoke about how we americans over estimate our capabilities in every field. i'm wondering if that is unhealthy and unrealistic, which is the opposite that's the tiger mom. >> a couple of months ago, i was driving, and happened to here

command performance. the episode that i heard was aired on veejay day. he got out there and say we've just learned on world war ii. mer death got out there and read and pyle said we won because we have great soldiers, allies, and a lot of material abundance. we didn't win it because we are anything special. we should be glad and worthy of the piece. that tone of humility was so striking to me on the day they won world war ii. then i get home and i turn on tv, i'm watching football, and the corner back tackles the wide reciever after the two yard gain and does the victory dance to himself for his great achievement. it occurred to me i just seen

greater self-puff reafter a two year gain than world war ii. i do think it's a change from a culture of self-afacement. nobody is better than me, i'm no better than anybody else. look at me, i'm good. and the polling data is the favorite one, the seniors in 1950, are you a very important person? 12% said yes. in 2005, i asked again, are you an important person, it wasn't 12%, it was 80%. so that's just the change. if you look at the math scores, we're 36th in the world in math performance, but we are number one in the world in thinking we are really good in math. so that's a change. this expansion of itself led to par sanship -- partisanship because i know the answer. why should i stay for future

generations. i'm here, i feel less connected to the broad change. and i think if you look at this societies that have done really well in math, they are the ones who have least confidence in their own abilities. and so i think the lesson from the research is that you should have a slightly above average view of yourself. you should exaggerate your virtues a brake lights to make sure you did go out and dare and try difficult thing that is are hard for you. we've taken it to the extreme. one the phrases is the core of my political philosophy, is modesty. we should be aware about how little we know about ourselves and the world and prepare ourselves with those weaknesses and not think we are the bees knees. >> again, senator.

>> if you want a good recipe for modesty, write a column every twice in a week. you'll read in the paper, what was i thinking? what did i -- [laughter] >> i've got a quick question for you. it's been on everybody's mind. what do you believe that our current -- can you name three things the current president has done correctly and a dozen things, 20 things that he has not? [laughter] >> he's the best since i've been covering education. two, i disagreed at the time. he was right to rescue gm. you know, i could list more actually and there's some things i disagree with. i think i cover the president,

and i speak to him periodically. i speak to people on the staff every day or several times a week. i would say within the white house, i disagree. within the white house, there's a culture of debate. they do try to find the right answers. they generally have the best interest of the country at heart, they are smart people there, they -- half many them from harvard, half of them from yale. if we are attached during the harvard-yale game, we're screwed. they will all be there watching the game. i think there's an honest culture. as for the failures, you know, i thought when we did health care, i thought we had two central tasks. the first was to cover 39 million uninsured people and the second to get our cost inflation under control. we did one, i don't think we did the second. so that would be one thing i disagree with, i think he tried

too much in the first few years and really polarized the country maybe more than it needed to be. i wish he would call some of the members of the opposing parties, someone that i'm friendly with is is a guy named paul ryan from wisconsin. very smart chairman of the house budget committee. i know them both. they would really get along, they would have wonderful conversations about the future budget that could really lay the ground work. obama has never called ryan and asked him over. he's never had a conversation with him. i think they should at least talk. so that's just the function of the nature of washington. which he's -- i think he's well equipped to change but hasn't really taken the measures. i could go on, but i think that's enough. >> well, let's see, there's a lady four rows from the back in the center. >> you know what, sir, we have other people with their hands up.

further back. >> you spoke how some variables of success were based on the 18 month old time period. in an effort to close the achievement gap, the educational achievement gap, would you be a proponent of mandatory childhood education? >> yeah, i wouldn't want to make it mandatory. just because that gives you all sorts of political problems. and i still essentially think that the relationship between a parent and a child is better than it's going to happen at a public, especially a state supplied day care center. i wouldn't want to force people to do it. nonetheless, i do think there should be on one hand more funding. it should be a right of passage. we should do a lot better job of organizing our early childhood centers, our head start centers so the people there are

teachers, rather than people we needed to give a job to. and we should not only we should start earlier. we should start with nurse family partnerships and visits, so nurses are coming into homes. and gives mom help on how to coach. in the first year of life, the average mother loses 700 hours of sleep, gets interpreted every 27 seconds on average, and sees a decline in marital dissatisfaction of 71%. it's tough. they are charming, but they are invading your brain. it's a brutal thing. people need help. if you go to certain neighborhoods, things i've seen, babies locked in a car seat, coca-cola in the bottle to keep them quiet, there are things where people need help. we should be more aggressive. then you can't stop because even if you help kids at an early age, a lot of help fades out, and benefits. it has to be like nutrition every day, you got to have early

chidehood education, schools where peachers are able to connect with kids. you've got a mentoring program, they've got to go to college where they peel emotional engaged with within. if they think about dropping out, there's someone they care about. they are engaged with the campuses. all through life, there has to be the concentrations of really relationships. so i would spend more money. i'm avoid the lobbies with the big guns, the k-12, caller, higher ed, and mostly the senior citizen lobby. and zero through three is a pathetic lobby. i'm afraid that's very vulnerable in state after state. >> you mean you could take us out with your predictions from 2012 since we're not going to see you before then? >> i could write about book. but it would kill me. i really wouldn't bet against president obama.

he is a very -- [applause] >> he has an amazing ability, i've seen him since he lost the -- the democrats lost the election, to self-correct. he has many personalities, the downside, he rarely commits all out. he's always one step back observing. the upside is he tends to look at himself and say how do i need to change? what do i need to do? he has the ability to adjust and political skills. when i look at politicians, it's like a scout looking at pitches. who has the best. i remember when i saw him in 2005. long time ago, i thought he has the best stuff. he's probably going to be president some day. i wrote a column in 2006 on him because i thought he had the best stuff. i still wouldn't bet against him. that said, i'm not sure what he's going to run on.

i don't think you can run the campaign that you ran last time, the big transformational hope and change. can't do that, can't run on health care, can't run on the stimulus, his administration has been slow to come up with the new big agenda for what to do in the next four years in a country that is still furiously concerned about national decline and furious at government for screwing things up. so that'll be a big challenge. on the republican side, the person that i would like to see get the nomination, i'm in a front about this, i'm not supposed to root for one candidate or another, but it's the government of indiana, i like him because he's 5 ft.'6",w to the ground, in touch with people, you have to be down there. i think he's been in an extremely effective governor at a time when state budgets have ballooned and gone up 40% state after state.

in indiana, the debt has gone down 40%. at the same time, a lot of programs that republican matter have been improved. even wait times at the department of motor vehicle have dropped from 60 minutes to 8 minutes. i think he's been effective government. i think the government that the republicans would do well to counterprogram against the graceful, elegant and brilliant democrat that may not be charismatic, but knows how to run things. i think the other two are mitt romney and tim pawlenty. managers, i'm less enamored. pawlenty was a good governor, but i haven't seen as much management. i think republicans have two problems. the first is they to their credit and this is to obama's deficit, they are saying we have to tacklen titlements. that is a courageous step.

because the government is more than they are willing to pay for. we have to adjust the benefit levels. they don't know how to sell it, and i don't think the republicans understand not only do we have a recession, we have structural problems in the economy which have hurt the middle class. i don't think there's an republican answer to that problem. i think they face some challenges. and they face sort of a talent deficit. i wouldn't debt against obama. but it'll be a -- we'll eventually get to have the fight which we need to have is here's the money, here's the national wealth, here are programs, here's our debt, how are we going to figure this thing out? i'd love to think we're going to have that really series debate and then to end on a pessimistic note, i really don't think we're going to have that debate. thank you very much. [applause]

[applause]p/@ú!pzçñ?????