spend money and how pass better habits on to your kids. >> host: one more before we leave you, "home front girl." >> guest: yeah. this is a wonderful diary. it's a diary of a woman from chicago who she grew up in chicago, she went to the university of chicago, and during the war she was a teenager, and she kept a journal. and she was very politically active as a teenager and really smart. started at the university of chicago as a 16-year-old, got in. and her daughter found her journals much later in life and published them. so we published this journal as a teenager during war time in chicago. really a wonderful glimpse of what it was like to be in america on the home front during the war. >> in the 1990s, nasa scientists detected a mysterious force that was slowing down the pioneer 10 and pioneer 11 spacecraft. the first manmade objects to leave the solar system. konstantin ca cay whereas

discusses the implications of that finding, leads a discussion on how scientists search for truth can and how that search isn't always straightforward. this hour, 20-minute event is next on booktv. >> it is exciting to see a full room for an evening called cosmic anomalies. [laughter] the good news with a topic like this is, you know, if you think you don't know the answers of science, neither does anybody here on the panel. [laughter] so we're all on a level playing ground here. but we have -- it's, this is a very fun group for me to be with because they're people who i either talk to or want to talk to, and now i get a chance to spend a whole evening with them, and you get to eavesdrop in on this. constantine ca chi chris, did i do it right? >> i think so, yeah. >> i'm a -- we have a good ethnic group of names here on the panel.

constantine is a bernard l. schwartz fellow at the new america foundation and sort of the genesis of this evening because he has a new book out. i think you're the only person on stage that is going to be talking about an anomaly who's fully solved. you're the only one here who's actually going to give an answer. >> i might. >> possibly. but, again, you know, the purpose of this evening is really to talk about what are the big questions and how do people go about pursuing them. next we have louis yang walk witch. i'm going to do this, i'm going to do each person's name twice until i get it. and then i'm going to do my own twice until i get my own. she is a collaborator on the kepler mission which is, as you may know, has been probably the greatest mission for finding planets around ore stars -- other stars, has greatly expanded our view of the universe and the possibility of there being other earth-like planets out there. she's a fellow at the department of astrophysical scientists at

princeton. and finally neil wiener who is professor of physics at nyu and is a theorist who among other things speaks about dark matter. and maybe you can -- i was trying to do this, i was trying to remember this number on the way over, that if you sort of hold up your hand, there's something like 10 million dark matter particles a second moving through your hand. >> >> well, i think that you're combining two different things. [laughter] you have a number, the number is accurate, but i think what he's alluding to, and i think it's worth keeping in mind as we start the discussion is that the universe is fantastically interesting, and one of the ways we're ignorant of it is that there is this huge dark sector out there which copies most of what the earth is made out of. and one of the specific things we know --

[inaudible] a particle which is a partner of the electron that has almost no match, has no electric charge and pass through a light year of lead bouncing -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> that's a different kind of anomaly. >> i'm loud enough without it, but i guess -- so it's something that is a fascinating particle. what's very interesting is that the sun is actually the most local, copious producer. and the number you're alluding to is that through your pinky fingernail every single second there are 100 billion pieces passing every second. so right now through this room we are currently being bathed in knew trine that's constantly. and we're totally ignorant of it. it's not anything you'd notice on a day-to-day basis. we're actually constantly surrounded and bathed by all

sorts of things that we are, essentially, unaware of. >> and, actually, just picking up on that, so one of the incredible things i think about that idea is that we're just bathed in seas of invisible, imperceptible neutrinas, this is the part that we know, fairly well validated, and it's a particle that we're pretty sure is there. >> extremely sure. >> yeah. you can run experiments. and, in fact, a week ago i was in an abandoned gold mine in south dakota that's now called the, it's now called the sanford lab. it used to be called the home state gold mine. it was one of the sites, sort of the secondary gold rush that went into south dakota. well, after they scooped out all of the gold and the mine was starting to shut down, there was a researcher named ray davis who really, really wanted to understand all these neutrinas that are coming from the sun. and at the time when you tell

somebody i want to run an experiment to find particle that can go through ten light years of lead without stopping but i want to catch it, people look at you like, you know, that's not really the kind of thing we particularly want to fund. that doesn't sound like good science. so on a shoe string budget and largely initiative -- and neil can probably tell more details than i can -- he came p with an experiment. he figured out that every once in a very, very long while a neutrina might smack into a chlorine atom and turn it into an argon atom. it occurred to him that what, you know, cleaning fluid has a lot of chlorine in it. so if you just fill a tank with a lot of chlorine, sooner or later a neutrina is going to hit something. so if these particles are zipping all over the place, fill an enormous tank with cleaning fluid underground and you wait, sooner or later something's

going to happen. and he waited probably about 20 years of monitoring this and counting atoms to see what was happening in his little tank. and he not only found evidence that there were, in fact, these things were real, they really were coming from the sun, but, in fact, a number of them -- it was not what the theory expected, and it actually caused kind of an upheaval in physics from this big tank of cleaning fluid and from a true belief that these amom manicallies -- anomalies, these things that the theory says should be out there that we aren't quite sure really are, that it's actually possible to track them down. so i want to throw the story to constantine as the guy who's talking about the anomaly that we do know the most about. the pioneer detectives. maybe you can tell me, what were the pioneer detectives trying to detect? what was the anomaly they were after? >> sure. well, the book talks about a group of researchers at nasa's jet propulsion laboratory

principally, which is in pasadena, california, just outside los angeles. and what they found was an effect on pioneer 10 and pioneer 11 which were two sibling space probes launched in 1972 and 197be 3 to visit -- 1973 to visit crouper the and sat turn. they were explores in the true sense of the world. nothing anyone had built had been farther away from mars. so they went through the asteroid belt. some worried whether they would survive that trip, which they did without a problem. they went by jupiter, from there pioneer 11 used the gravity of jupiter to go all the way a i cross the solar system to saturn. after the planetary encounters for both spacecraft, a man named john anderson -- who's one of the men in the book -- realized that there was an acceleration slowing both spacecrafts down. and that sentence sort of contains what in the book is much longer and hopefully still

lively sort of passage. because i say that he realized they were traveling too slowly. and what i tried to get at in the book is what it means to realize something like that. >> let me just pause you here. so these spacecraft is going something on the order of -- >> tens of thousands -- [inaudible conversations] >> 32,000 miles an hour. >> yeah. >> the fastest thing ever made. >> so you can predict very precisely, you know, this thing's going by the planets, we know how gravity works, you can predict very precisely what it should be doing, and basically he was saying it was going, it was slowing down a little bit more than anybody could explain, is that right? >> that's right, yes. the way -- in fact, going by a planet complicates something slightly because we don't know the math of jupiter precisely. so when both of them did give by jupiter, it gave the most precise measure known. sending something that you understand very well by jupiter is one way to do that. what they did was look at the radio signals from the spacecraft. using something called the doppler effect which is a change

in the frequency of a wave, a radiowave, a sound wave because the source is moving. you can hear this when cars whoosh by you. that's the doppler effect at work. if you know the originating frequency very, very precisely and then you can measure the incoming frequency very precisely, you can infer the speed of the spacecraft. >> okay. so we've got two things, a very precise way to measure the speed, a very precise theory of what the spacecraft should be doing, and then something's not jibing. so what happened? >> exactly, yes. and that precision in measuring the speed is not just of the spacecraft itself. you have the earth itself rotating, moving around the sun, so you need sort of very detailed knowledge of the solar system, of how the radiowave acts when it does a solar wind, for instance, will effect the radiowave. you need a model for the solar wave. so you need many, many things just to measure this simple

thing. >> this is where the detective process comes in. you have to weed out a lot of uncertainty to figure if you're even seeing something real. >> exactly. so the reason this was sort of at all interesting to anybody is because of what neil works on in part, the dark matter and dark energy, sort of existing. physicists almost universeally, maybe universeally, agree that these things exist. and yet we don't have a very good hold. and we have a very precise measurements in certain respects. you can look at how quickly galaxies rotate and how much mass must exist in that galaxy and do so quite precisely, because you can look at many thousands of -- [inaudible] but conceptually these are constructs that we don't understand the way we understand the way we understand electrons and protons and normal matter. so there existed one school of thought when this acceleration was seen, that perhaps you can modify the laws of gravity, that

you could explain, for instance, the anomalous rotations of galaxies that don't have enough mass to hold them together. if galaxy -- if gravity, sorry, at long ranges deviated from the inverse square law of isaac newton to which einstein's theory of general relativity is a good proximation when -- >> so if i'm summing up correct hi, the simple solution is to say that einstein and newton were wrong. >> it's not the simple solution so much as it's a very interesting solution. >> okay. >> because then what you find is that we actually have pretty precise accountings for orbits of mars, of jupiter, saturn from the orbiters that are orbiting around these planets. mars has a number of satellites, you know, manmade space probes orbiting it. the galileo space probe around jupiter, around saturn, and even

voyager ii which went by neptune and your us in also gave us precise accountings. so you need some sort of gravity that could explain the orbits of these planets which work very much as einstein and newton would have predicted, and yet also explain the sort of deviation in the trajectory of the spacecrafts. >> so when did they first notice this thing, that it was slowing down a little differently? >> so what anderson told me was around 1982. it took -- and this is a sort of interesting, that's a very natural question to ask. and it sort of as a journalist writing about science, you have editors that ask questions about that. to be able to tell a clean story, you know? on march 17th, and in fact -- >> he looked at his computer and said, aha, that can't be right. >> much more gradual process, particularly when it's data that is statistical in nature, as

probably the vast majority, as 76% of scientific data is. [laughter] you don't -- >> it's actually a pretty empty room, you know, statistically speaking. >> but you don't see it in one day. so it took -- he first noticed it in the early '80s. the first big paper in a peer review journal which was the physical review letters, one of the sort of main journals of the physics community, came out in 1998. so that was a sort of 15 to 20-year process of is this real, and if it's real, can we explain it. the other sort of possibility which in 1998 when they published this paper said this doesn't explain it was that it was some mistaken -- [inaudible] >> and that it was like an error of measurement or an error of interpretation? >> exactly. >> okay. so somewhere from the early '80s to 1998 they got to the

point where they were pretty sure this thing was real. then, you know, we have sort of another 15 years since then to try to figure out what it is. so where do you go from there? >> right. so part of what they had to do after 1998 -- and this sort of is a different direction than physics, but how we talk about data in society more broadly which is a conversation many people are having in the business context, in the context of the nation-state gathering lots of data. ..

>> one we were talking earlier. for all the tracks that they need to do, but how do you explain in trying to extract but yet in many, many ways and to you get to the bottom line with that intensity

rather than the others. >> but with your knighted israel with the real cliffhanger but with a little more background of this idea that things you can see or all around the room but also a lot of evidence there is a dark and unseasoned universe -- unseen universe. >> what gephardt of the anomaly you can sort of describe it to say okay something is accelerating differently are maybe einstein was a little off what is the big deal?

but looking at the universe with a galaxy of a black hole or whenever it is essentials that is how we determine the universe so with dark matter rethink we understand gravity very, very well nab extremely well but in particular we have this idea with theoretical physics if you understand this if she should understand microscopic physics for instance now you have an atom that is been charged the nucleus of the atom is made out of protons and neutrons but you don't need to understand that in order to understand how

basketball bounces by though long distance large-scale e fax that we can understand so we tested gravity extremely well. and our understanding why it is our important why it could have thrown a wrench into our understanding whether or not there is dark matter out there because this is something as you go to the airports we know how long dash judge wright down the theory i am a skeptic if this is.

by another skeptic. [laughter] you have to completely rethink how to write down the theory of gravity. throughout the rule book to end start again. that would not be an easy task. with the evidence of dark matter that consistently points to a lot of stuff out there that we cannot observe we know there is new physics out there but it all realize upon as understating gravity really well. i think that is why this particular anomaly captures a very well.

>> all these theories of the universe, and with the adl the way things work here is the way they work everywhere and light comes from the start and everything is in a different galaxy but gravity is all the same am pretty much all the rules that you live with right here if you went to the same -- the other side of the universe that they would be the same if you think about at why should that be true? that is on the the side of the universe care how things work here but it is in a consistent will booktv applied everywhere but if you have too little rockets into spacecraft out everything you have looked

at up until that time is in direct now for the first time this is sending you two out into the void as things go further and further out that is the first time your senses are directly touching that part. so that other studies you can show and other things you can do but also things you have never looked at before. the other thing is that anomalies are not just dark matter or the theory of relativity but it is the lifeblood of science. if it doesn't work they do have to do something more.

you can go back to the history of science people used to have a great model of how the planets moved based on the idea they were sitting around the earth but you have to put together a pretty good model but they wanted more in wanted a really, really good model. and eventually those anomalies built the case you needed better system. to come up with the idea of gravity.

>> you do the things that her small you don't know where it will lead. at least two things that we hear about all the time, which is worth noting at this point we have a pretty accurate measurement of the energy of the universe. so if you took a big big box of the universe, i am

talking millions of light years across then you average how much stuff was in it you would find the total budget works out something like 4 percent adams, 26 percent dark matter roughly in the balance 70 percent is energy and we infer that with a lot of ways that i will not bore you with but we study this again and again and all points back to the same set of numbers especially when you bring up of how people thought like copernicus it is amazing because we used to think we with the center of the universe then we thought this center aha of

the universe is the son be dark clothes. now the milky way galaxy now they're hundreds of billions of galaxies now we say the most of this stuff out there is not even the stuff we are made out of fear not even the center of the universe of what makes it. conceptually that is a pretty big deal most of the universe is something else we are rare in a number of ways in the universe. what is the difference between dark matter a and dart energy? dark matter is much more pedestrian in tax vaguely like ordinary matter and clusters together so there is a more inside the milky way that outside but dark energy appears to be completely uniform throughout the universe and

dark energy is the energy of space, and the space has a certain amount of energy so that affects the dynamics differently which causes it to expand more rapidly. dark matter has been around as long as we can tell part of the building blocks of galaxies but the energies space at this point in the history of the universe starting to push the universe apart faster and faster and faster. there are a lot of things that we don't know. like why they have the densities' they have or there is as much dark matter as there is there what it is made out of we are good at calculating energy you can ask how much is there a dark energy and the answer is infinity. [laughter] that is wrong.

it is 120 times larger. and then to get it down but that's it. we know it is out there we don't know where it comes from that we can see the facts and we think it should be much more important than it is. so if you think of it from the scientific point of view if you knew all the answers that would not be fun so that is a good situation we very a jury we have a lot of unknowns. >> that always makes my head spin and one of them is the idea 70 percent of the universe is start to energy. if you clear out every single thing in the universe

even what we are not made of every single particle in terms of the total mass of energy m of it has nothing to do with tangible stuff that would is imbedded in the fabric of space and we have very little idea of what it is and what is interesting is with the breakdown is 4% our matter and 26 percent this serious dark matter we have not found yet and 70% direct energy in those numbers sound different but it could be anything. it could be 10 million parts energy to one part is

somebody says ticket number between one and defending these summonses for, 26, for, 26, 70, it is we're why are they so low? one of the say 1 million or 1 billion or google? this is another mystery. >> in particular dark energy the ratio is not necessarily constitute. but that ratio of dark energy is the ratio how dark matter changes. if you go back to much earlier in the universe the ratio would have been a large number were ordinary matter would have been far more important and it is a very interesting wind out

question because if we have done these experiments and "the pioneer detectives' billion years ago it is not so and comprehensible but it the universe will be complete the dictated by dark energy except for cluster dynamics demand be very glad you came this evening. [laughter] >> but what is amazing is every astronomers' believes what they said in 20 years ago this dramatic revision it is very recent and for very good reason and with

that evidence is a powerful scientific message which it does not always to. >> that is the thing is that we're constantly revising based on your observations. echoes opposite of the way science is reported the way it was delivered today but. >> i am not boycotting you actually does something more tangible. what people did that know about there was a question up until the 1990's is it

unique in the end -- universe and there is the assumption and in the science-fiction movies and then how did we find out with our place in the universe? >> the amazing thing about the search for planted -- the search for planets the first to be found or that were around were extremely different in one of the better known astronomers he decided to go look for planets because he did not think his career was going very well. [laughter] so the first planet he found were other stars very, very

large planets bigger than jupiter so up until that point it was just an example but there are these small planets better very close to the stars and also larger planets like neptune in jupiter are out further. we had actually constructed our entire understanding how the solar system forms based on the fact we could not have very large planets with cassius atmosphere close to the star. >> because you're looking at the example of how would is. and anomaly that they are relatively rare but they're

out there in other solar systems something that we never thought it would but even the last couple of years up until a couple of years ago we could not even looking up planets like earth so the reason these furs planets were found we were using the doppler effect that we observed the planets so better at believe that star so you could see that a lot better than otherwise. but over years to see the release will permit hoylake earth do think we're likely before was beyond technological means until

about four years ago until we could find planets like that. it actually it is teaming with planets in our solar system. and it is relatively where -- we are. >> this is the assumption as a journalist that in my heart i know it is not true but there is the assumption they lay at all on the line. as long as this is not on c-span. [laughter] if you read "popular science" stories again as

certain chauvinism at work that the only thing to really know about them is the mass approximately and the distance from the start precisely so you can say this is a little bigger than earth with the distance are the equivalent so it is probably 72 degrees there the only problem is if you apply that same model he looked at our solar system to save be this looks like a good place to live the only problem is 90 degrees and covered with clouds with sulfuric acid. [laughter] if you would get the best we

found this great planet but we have no idea with the things that we're finding. except gas and dust and all these other different things. >> just like once upon a time working with one solar system now working with a sample of one exactly one place in the universe we know there is life. if you are sitting in there right now. we go out and try to expand in such a way that if there was life like us we could perhaps identify it

especially since we cannot go to many of these planets but it is still the question are we the anomaly? >> how do look for life? >> what has been done is find the real-estate in the universe we found there are a lot of planets but how big they are in roughly what temperature the day are in the analogy of reset from the sun is so if we want to figure out if there is life we need to make measurements of the atmosphere. for example, we have the oxygen enriched atmosphere, ozone layer that is with the spectrum of the planet also the light from the star that shines through

it as it turns out different elements leave a fingerprint on that light see you can identify what elements are on the planets. so when we tried to find a plan is the right distance from the sun looking for places where we to make these measurements and measure what the atmosphere is made up to as we could distinguish between venus and earth but it is a very challenging thing to do. they will be coming down the line over the next several years of the other missions to find close planets to earth. not around the corner close but those that would be a target for additional future missions to measure what these planets are made of

then we hope we can check the atmosphere. >> the short answer is to don't know if there is life on other planets we don't know dark matter or dark energy but we do know where you actually give me an answer. [laughter] i will make a couple of observations about life on other planets echoes to having its confidence that the laws of the same everywhere there we have a basic confidence that gravity should work the same here as in other galaxies. i have moved toward more complex interaction we

should have no real reason to believe the same way biology works here is the way it works elsewhere fetus appears to be very hospitable with chemistry but there is a very basic reason and typhoid be impossible at 900 degrees? there is a detailed answer but nonetheless positive that we could have foreseen with these circumstances coming back to the question of the pioneer anomaly, is a much more constrained problem because you can work to a definitive answer i

believe they have answered that question in john anderson does not believe that which is something that i talk about in the book. one of the things i want to get at having the scientist in front of us is the process by which they form the least around the world our understanding of a vacuum is off by a factor reved than to a very large number to the orders of magnitude the reason for that is fundamentally we do understand quantum mechanics very well. there is a very strange cognitive they believed one set of thing of quantum mechanics but yet cannot

reconcile those something that to the extent of house science works we have theories, experiments and it is more complicated than that. it seems strange to the layperson you did have a scientist who has very detailed evidence but contradictory theories fargo [laughter] >> had you get out of bet in the morning? [laughter] you try to understand the best you can maybe you have your ideas but what is funny is because we discussed

planets there is the interesting point with the ideas put together because one of the effects of having dark energy much larger if the universe appears as the accelerant once it starts accelerating galaxies are harder to form but the rapid expansion polls them apart as soon as universe starts accelerating the structure's stop forming if we had much larger dark energy they and the galaxies would not be here. we would not be here so it's like we live on earth or here is such a nice place when us somewhere else? maybe you don't live on

venus are jupiter because you can deliver on the planet that you can live you don't get to ask the question because if it were not there you would not be around to ask the question. he simply would not be there there would not be the observer to say what a nice place. it might be the question of dark energy reconciles why it is confusing is maybe it was a much larger we would not be here to have a conversation to say it is so amazing but it is so small but of course, to say you live on an ice planet i assume there are a lot of planets out there. if you say you live in the universe with little star kidder g does that also assume there are different amounts of dark energy? now we get out of the

question of physics to look at other clinics but we cannot look at other universes'. >> but there are people trying to figure out how to do that. >> there are theories from two different directions that accommodate the idea of whether universes' one comes from the theory of how the universe is formed and how it originated the other comes from the other and to understand what happens on a very small scale both of them lead you to interesting or theoretical reasons thinking there are many universes' out there but talk about anomalies that we

pretty much know everything there is to know but just start to think about this you realize how far we have to go off even before you get to think about other universes' but how to reconcile with the gravitational physics that pioneered the spacecraft its in quantum physics that rule the electronics in your cell phone reid know how to make them work together we can describe them will -- well and an understanding of what they do but at the deepest theoretical level we don't understand how they fit together. >> but from the scions of one of the things that is interesting to me is the increasing level of abstraction that used to

have the scientific experiment of things that you could see and talk about 100 years ago with the astronomer who did not have telescopes' that made very angular measurements of stars and planets in the sky. did you have this intermediary of galileo and the telescope that to really get the sky through something. it is still an image you still use the same sense and in fact, the doozy that jupiter has rules but when he does that it is something fundamentally different way you look and in for the existence of other planets.

also to talk about the neutrino detectors underground nobody can see that you can see a flash of light in the pool of chlorine and and for the existence this is something we like to avoid and we gloss it over that we will not sit down and write about the detection in the pool of chlorine. few rightabout the neutrinos. a and the way the use language too obscure for good reason because it gets real the of that lairs of abstraction and if if we try to speculate house finance will be done going into future decades there is

something about what many scientists compared to your average astronomer or physicists did five years ago. that change was gradual and every indication things will continue to change. >> we have an observer here in the observatory planning all the planets did this simple experiment looking for a shadow of a plan of moving in front of the star. just watching for that the little blip of light but the process is not quite that simple. is it? but how he finds planets how does that work?

so you look at a pitcher but how does that actually work? >> if you look at galileo it is literally a of a drawing looking at the moons of jupiter there is a mark of the moon every day and planets of other stars we really cannot see the planets in very few cases we are becoming able to see those other orbiting other stars directly but the measure the light from the stars very, very precisely and look for them to become dimmer. the effect of the planet like earth for example, is equivalent to somebody shining in their headlights at you from across the ball field that is the incredible

tight be changed to measure because the transit only lasts a couple of hours so if you want to find the earth exactly in the same orbit around another star you would have to wait to see if that little blip ochers again -- ochers again >> why the mission is multiple years-long if the plan goes around many times with a short orbit then you can see that diming happening again and again they know with certainty is there but if you want something further out you have to wait. you may not have enough signal because all these sources of noise as well

sometimes you see artifacts with the digital camera although that is not that dissimilar. so it is also of the artifact so the job of cleaning the data to make sure we're not mixing signals but then we have to wait for that signal to repeat to make sure it is there. not only are we a step removed from causing the planet but it but the very careful accounting of all the sources of data that could interfere the signal and then measure that way. all the things that need to have been to develop a list. this is before you get to the planet it means you have

just seen a certain number of blips in you are sure the star is getting bigger on a regular basis and it looks like it would happen if you have a planet around that star. >>'' but then also looking at a number of stars simultaneously we measure about a thousand stars every 30 minutes of. >> so every single disk is an anomaly view have to figure out which one. >> you have to wait for certain anomalies to occur at regular periods that the plan is going around an a regular fashion. so then we end up doing a bunch of other analysis including pointing additional telescopes to back it up with measurements to help confirm there is a plan that there. it has come to the point he with some of the planets that they are so small even are other methods cannot

actually make those back up measurements so again we do very careful accounting with the statistical argument of all the things that could possibly be causing the signal 99-point 9-9-9 99 percent sure this is the planet that is a very different way we've elected years ago. that we could make multiple measurements. >> when i was the editor of discover magazine we did an article on the observatory with the interview of one of the prime movers behind the mission and we did a companion article of very interesting planet and the fact checker got the story and called up the sources to

fact jack is reaction have not fully verified that. hold on give me a couple couple-- then the researcher said that plan it is:. [laughter] -- bond so i said that they destroyed the planet. >> so to see the process in realtime soviet idea that you are fact checking to see if the plan is there are not there is the way you think how science works but i want to open up to questions of the audience of love to hear what the people wonder about and what anomaly is on your mind?

>> that was fortunate in undergrad to be able to do a first course of general relativity i remember when your first constructing the metrics in the two things i remember in particular was homogeneity as part of the universe ought not sure if i can convince myself of the homogeneity can you convince me of either? >> the point that is brought up is the cosmic principles that the universe is to save every where with no special direction. >> experimentally you can

look out there is not seem to be any special direction of the solar system of the galaxy and it is true obviously the universe is not totally homogeneous and the space is empty galaxies have stuff so only homogeneous once you get to those that are millions of light years across but value have many surveys such as one of my colleagues that works on that you can see yes there are fluctuations but this is starting with the public genius' universe

with structures so experimentally we have a pretty good study of this that used to be the save every where in every direction. >> it is experimental right now. >>. >> guest: to address the recent issues that it could be broken forever? >>. [laughter] that is true. templar was designed for a very specific amount of time to last three and a half years the reason for that is if you want to see earth with a solar twin types are you have to wait and see if you see three of those transit's send enough of a signal.

so we got to the end of that primary mission of three and a half years and the extended mission that had as renting additional four. but unfortunately what uses to point the telescope to maintain this very, very steady focus in this one patch of sky, are reaction wheels in it requires three to point with that provision we had for so that if one failed and fortunately we had bad luck because one failed extremely early on in the mission that left us with three working ones with no spares in an earlier this year we found out that basically the third reaction wheel has stopped operating.

so at the moment it cannot point with this fine precision to make these precise measurements. >> so from the moment we fifth if you can imagine not to have a way to stabilize through space it has the maneuverable structures so actually the radiation of the sun pushes on it but that is not find enough to do that part of the mission so we're trying to revise the reaction real but it

looks like the mission is essentially done there could be of use is for the telescope but as the hunting machine that part of the mesh -- mission may be over weber templar already did all of the things it was supposed to do it is that data that we have not thoroughly mined yet so it is entirely possible you will hear about planets even though it is not operating at the moment for her to come through that data is sad i literally cried. [laughter] it was in the meeting and it was embarrassing. [laughter] it is sad it is the end but also many other additional missions that can characterize these planets there is one of coming down

the line finding the closest planetary system that would be similar to the hubble that we could look at the planetary at missile low dash of this year to look at the fingerprint. keep your fingers crossed. >> one more question. >> i am only an undergraduate but i believe one of eyes scenes -- einsteins contributions obviously he has many but one is the idea that space and time is one as of matter and energy that it is condense energy? so dark matter in dark energy do they have a similar relationship? new york in the pie chart of 4% matter and 70 percent dark energy where does regular energy fit in?

is that the 4%? >>, einstein had a famous equation e e=mc2 that mass is energy there is a limit of a slightly different equated that energy squared is mass squared the awful power plus momentum squared plus light squared to say it is not just its mass battle some ocean. his point was not just that matter and energy are the same but mass is a form of energy and what zero gravity was said all forms of energy

distort space and time that is our understanding of gravity it is not the way we think of it but you have energy density its with a trajectory to move in the best possible straight line that they can but on a curve. it is true that dark energy in dark matter are both forms of energy and they both the fact that the same time. what is important and different that as the universe is expanding the dark matter is diluted you can see it but the universe is getting bigger and bigger so the other is getting lower but dark energy does not appear to be diluting

see you have a bigger universe you just have more direct energy. the density within a space is constant so they are both different forms of energy they do affect space time but they do seem to act in profoundly different ways as universe is expanding and do seem to be fundamentally different things. many people including myself have made efforts to connect them but it's the least mine have not been very successful. >> just to get back to the core of the question, of the things that we normally think of as energy of radiation or light and x-rays and gamma rays you can see it and tally of how much is out there and do that e. clay shaw in e=mc2

it was the equivalent of all visible radiation? it is like 100th of a percent? something like that. >> density and photons dash 16 to the fourth. [laughter] >> but to remark about the question with the drive to the metaphysical duality of what einstein said the pseudo buddhism we are all one and that is tough to go down not entirely wrong but i caution if you read too much into a part of what you are saying is a purely technical results how motion

works. if you try to understand mass what covers the mass of the object of the inertia of these are the questions feinstein or any physicist sense could satisfactorily answer it is much more philosophical so the question is common but it does not view to the nature of things. >> but with the journalistic headlines this is the particle that explains why matter has mass and were all mask comes from. that is true in a way that it helps explain why particles have the mass that they do and part of the

broader theory of physics that tells you how the world works at the subatomic level but with that deeper philosophical level what is mass? these are things almost outside the range of what you could call physics into. >> there is a wonderful video you may have see no ready. >> maybe charismatic. [laughter] >> i see he is a good-looking guy. >> he explains electoral magnetism and he says it is like the rubber band the relief you stretch it out it is the electro magnetic forces binding the atoms with the analogy we tried to

explain physical forces by what we know which is circular the world is the analogy for itself. >> know we can calculate the energy. >> i just have to make 1.. [laughter] because it came up but it isn't just electrons in maryland's but most comes from dynamics and everybody reavis and hassled by my colleagues if i did not. >> most of the energy is neurons and mass. >> the last thing i'd like to do is let each of you ask a question about an anomaly. [laughter] to close out the evening.

>> since you are the journalists are will let you kick off. >> i guess maybe we could talk about the neutrino observation the belief there are three different kinds of neutrinos through experiments deepen how it changes but it is a strange thing to happen either one or the other so maybe you could talk about how we make that inference in what it means at one moment really was and how does that make sense to go into the dressing room to put on a different pair of jeans? so what physically happens when it changes?

>> the first thing we have to briefly mention is there are the electrons that you all know and love also one that looks just like the electron but it is to vendor times heavier and then another particle that is about 18 times heavier than the previous one that they have different masses so when it scatters the key and converted to the electron stock and then when it scatters in converts that is the operational definition invade do if their distinctive what is funny about the experiment was. >> the cleaning fluid experiment where he had to extract a handful of atoms

wore a small number to accurately measure and he found the number was a very small is smaller than it should have been. and then you calculate in the number was about one-quarter of what it should have been and it turns out the electron neutrinos were converting to a different combination that requires the presence of the electron that would not have been energetically possible so that was the first time

in the thought that these neutrinos were roughly but now we have them that match up but are there more neutrinos? are there other things out there in right now it is not clear there are some anomalies showing maybe there is another neutrinos' something entirely different but those are not conclusive at this point. it remains a very active future of neutrinos through this conversion process and may be changing into something we totally did not expect to tell us that it is there but it has been of long time ionizes book --

suppose it will take more time. >> you can make a person you can fill the world on three particles neutrons and protons and electrons but it turns out there is a whole hell of a lot more out there and what we are and what we are made of is in the larger family and that is part of the struggle to make sense of all of that there is a lot of physics over the past century to understand why is the world so complicated? where all these things in addition even at the simplest level? >> i went to know what is the most exciting thing from a the kemplar data? would you most excited about?

>> there is a the of vanilla cancer very exciting also and i am personally excited one of the things we are working on is the true first analog because it broke up after about four years that means we have relatively few transits of planets in the yearlong sorbate to wait to see the transit. so i really waiting for the true analog so far we have found the those that are larger than earth's the sounds like earth but better but if that size of planet that we just don't have we

done no if those really are or not but the other thing that i am hoping to actually discovered part of by a'' what i work five is the phenomenon of stars themselves but kemplar is tea acted -- capable of detecting to actually measure the things that the stars are doing those of orbit around each other with the eclipse also spots on the surface so we see all of this many and varied abilities we have already found in the data and even

though kemplar is a relatively small datasets a few thousand stars is not that huge by today's standards eidenshink reaction elected all the variability that is there so i'm interested in this for two reasons. number one i'm looking at a cause agnostic version of steady the ability that you cannot explain the if you found something of what you knew would be interesting in and of itself. [laughter] >> so i am excited just from the variant of the data.

>> i will feel them to one did you actually. we have a detection now with a fair amount of confidence there is some indication in this of the standard model that with additional data may be strongly couple of a blade to know your predictions for additional data. >> in theory. >> but now have to make one prediction but theories have to be consistent. [laughter] but actually what is amazing what was postulated 50 years ago and since then we have

only not know one thing about it to calculate all the properties it the case into four electrons are to electrons for the accommodation in view at the energy and it has the energy of a single planet you can calculate the ratios and right now that is all very close to what the standard model would predict. there's some indications maybe a little better off initially they seem to have settled down i would really love a lot predict because that would jinx that but i would love it ends up the

difference because anomalies like that is the first time the standard model is not complete. it is not complete then it is a beautiful and amazing theory that anybody can come up with but it has a lot of unanswered questions. >> i think the most important message the anomalies are beautiful and is part of the first inclination or indication the will get new answers i encourage you all to go out to look for the anomalies and thank you for joining us

tonight. [applause] >> people say that women did have to roles traditionally and i think it is true today as well. the role of women on the one hand but on the other hand, it is a wonderful woman that

it would save nevada rides on the backs of poor women but that is true with the gaming industry. housekeeping was the work of the kitchen, laundry it was all done by women and it is a backbreaking labor one of the most interesting things in researching the book just to be more familiar with how hard they've worked is for instance screening 50 grams per day in and it is getting harder because if you sit in a hotel the blankets are heavier and more pelosi and amenities and that was not necessarily there 20 years ago

it is one of the top two most dangerous, housekeeping , a job categories because there are so many injuries with back, injury, neece all kinds of injuries associated with housekeeping. so that is on the one side. on the other people like cocktail waitresses very skimpy uniforms that provide the sexual a lower in devil always provided that in the bars and the casinos and to read the accounts of early gaming of the moguls that

talk about many and beautiful women been together like magnets. i am not sure if it is true or not true but gaming has consistently shown that beautiful women very skimpy dressed are key to brief meeting with mint -- people into the casino. i am not sure if it is true or not but that is the idea. in northern nevada in general is not unionized you begin at a minimum wage $8.25 per hour and a tidy raised like $0.10 per year or $0.25 per year and as a consequence you cannot live on that so people would have

one and a half jobs or two jobs in have a very hard time to make ends meet. but in las vegas that is highly organized people often don't know that boss vegas is a big uniontown like detroit or san francisco there they may start at 13 or $14 per hour and half a beautiful benefits package called the rolls-royce of benefit packages it is free to the member and for his or her family. so as the conditions are greatly different between the two cities. the cocktail waitresses in northern nevada also make minimum wage but they get tips.

in a lot of the casinos you really have to work hard for the tips in the cocktail waitress is also head the labor you can imagine carrying that tray 25 pounds wearing high heels walking many miles per night so a cocktail waitress and northern nevada we interviewed people who were proud to make 35 or $40,000 per year but it's in loss vegas the tips are higher in the cocktail waitresses with a big shift in a big area of the casino could make well over 50 or $60,000 per year. is interesting is the culinary union which is international has 60,000 members in las vegas that is

the largest local in the country. but the culinary union really isn't a large part due to the women's activism they care about the family's and the benefit package and they have the culinary academy where you can go if you are a brand new employee you can get trained to become a housekeeper if you are already an an employee working in the kitchen you could be trained to become a sous-chef's for a higher position if you need help with immigration status or

english language you can get help and go to class is and that sort of thig. they have elected several members to the legislature and politically i think probably hautboys election in nevada for the last two presidential cycles is largely due to the union to get the members and the family is out to vote. it is a very politically conscious city. . .