which was foremost in his mind i think, because two years after the photographs were made in alabama, 1936, evans was the first photographer ever to have a one person show at the museum of modern art in new york, and that was in 1938, which include some of the hale county photographs. so those works, photography, were elevated almost immediately into the hyde park realm at the pinnacle of our temples in our country. >> if i might, i want to give john the last word and i think we're down to the last word, a minute or so. encountering the manuscript itself. it's a tight script, right speak was yes. >> with his hand, you know it's his handwriting. distinctive, awful handwriting if i'm not mistaken. >> it was, but what was remarkable about this project from our perspective was that it was recognizably, agee was

recognizably "let us now praise famous men" it's a different genre, it wasn't a book, it was a magazine. but also the third way impressive recent to do this project it was sort of easy because you know, it wasn't like we do now to go in and try to do a lot of guesswork. there were marks on every page of 92 i think total photocopied pages, is that right? and so there were 90, 150 or so marks but they were all fairly legible. so the editing process was really nothing more than just following agee's instructions. so it was, it was, discover is not quite the right word but it was more a question of the men's could have been around, it was more of a question of what did we forget to ask about? so we remembered. >> so what you have your is the last word from james agee of what he wanted the manuscript to

say? >> as a magazine article. >> yes. it's got his own handwriting on there. >> god forbid i should edit james agee. [laughter] >> thank you very much. this has been wonderful. chip simone, i want to thank you so much for this. and hugh davis and john summers. i'm hank klibanoff. it's been one full. thank you so much and we will see you in the lobby. [applause] >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s.-centric on weeknights watched key public policy fans and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get are scheduled at our website and you can join in the conversation on social media sites.

>> in the 1990s nasa scientists detected a mysterious force that was slowing down the pioneer 10 and pioneer 11 spacecraft. the first man-made object to leave the solar system. konstantin kakaes whose book "the pioneer detectives" discusses the imitations of the finding leads a discussion on how scientists search for truth and how that search isn't always straightforward. is our 20 minute event is next on booktv. >> it is exciting to see a ballroom for an evening called cosmic anomaly is. [laughter] the goodness of a topic like this is if you think you don't know the answer through science, neither does anybody on the panel. we are right on a level playing ground here. but we have, this is a very fun group for me to be with because people do i get to talk to want to talk and not get a a chance to spend all evening with them and we get to eavesdrop in on

this. konstantin kakaes, that i do it right? we have a good ethnic group of ninja on the panel. so a fellow at the new american foundation and also the genesis of this evening because his new book out called "the pioneer detectives" which is about i think are the only person on stage talking about an anomaly that isn't fully solve the you're the only one here who will give an answer. >> i might, possibly. >> possibly. but again the purpose of saving is to talk about one of the big question that the people go about pursuing them. i'm going to to each person's name twice until i get it right. then i'm going to be my own twice until i get my own. she's a collaborator on the nation which you may know probably the greatest mission for finding plans -- planets

around other stars. the possibility of there being other earthlike planets out there. and finally neil weiner was professor of physics at nyu and there is to among other things think about dark matter and maybe i was trying to do this, trying to member this number on the way over, hold up your hand, something like 10 billion dark matter particles? >> i think that you're combining two different things. [laughter] you have a number, you have numbers but i think what he is alluding to and i think it's worth -- avec the universe is fantastically interesting, and

there is this huge dark sector out there that actually copies most of what the universe is made of. and one of the specific things, a particle which is part of electron has almost no match, no electric charge and can past to a light year of lead bouncing off -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> that's a different kind of anomaly. >> i'm loud enough without it, but i guess, so if something that is a passing particle. but what's very interesting is that the sun is actually the most local, copious producer. and the number you are alluding to is that through your pinky fingernail, every single second they are 100 billion pieces passing every second. so right now through this room we are currently being based in

neutrino constantly. were totally ignorant of it. totally. is that you think you wouldn't notice on a day-to-day basis. as we discussed the question of anonymous, it's important to keep in mind that we are surrounded and based by all sorts of things that we are essentially unaware of. >> actually just picking up on that, so one of the incredible things i think about that, that idea that we are based in this sea of invisible neutrinos, this is the part that we know. this is the part that it is very well validated that we figured out how to study. it's a particle that we're pretty sure is there. >> pretty sure. >> you can experiment. and a week ago i was in an abandoned gold mine in south dakota that's now called, it's not called the stanford lab at a used to be called the homestead goldmine. it was one of the sites, sort of the secondary gold rush that went into south dakota. 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 neutrinos that are coming from the sun. at a time when you tell someone i want to run an experiment to find a particle that can go through the entire 10 light-years of lead without stopping, i want to kind of catch it can people look at you like, you know that's not really the kind of thing we really want to fund. that doesn't sound like good science. so on a shoestring budget and largely initiative, you can argue more details than i can, he came up with an extended, and insanely simple excrement. he figured out every once in a very, very long while a nutrient might smack into a chlorine atom and turn it into a different atom. it's sort of come you don't need to understand anything about what that means except that it occurred to him that cleaning fluid has a lot of -- if you fill a think with a lot of

chlorine, sooner or later a nutrient is going to hit something. so if these particles are zipping all over the place, you just fill an enormous tank with cleaning fluid underground and you wait, sooner or later something will happen. he waited probably about 20 years of monitoring this and counting adams to see what was happening in his little tank. and he not only found that evidence that they were, in fact, these things were real, they were really coming from the sun but, in fact, a number of them, not with a three expected and actually caused kind of an upheaval in physics from this big tank of cleaning fluid and from a to believe that these anomalies come these things that the theory says should be out there that we aren't quite sure, that it's also possible to track them down. so i wanted to run the story to konstantin, the guy talk about phenomena that we do know most about, the pioneer detective. maybe you can tell me, what were

the pioneer detectives trying to detect? what's the anomalies they were after? >> ashore. well, the book talks about a group of researchers at nasa's jet propulsion laboratory princely, 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 siblings space probes launched in 1972 and 1973 to visit jupiter and saturn. they were at the time explores. nothing anyone had ever built have been farther away than mars. so they went through the asteroid belt. they were worried about whether they would survive the trip, which they did without a problem. they went by jupiter, and from their pioneer 11 use the gravity of jupiter to go all the way across the solar system to saturn. after the planetary encounters for both spacecraft, a man named

john anderson was one of the men in the book, realized that there was an acceleration slowing both spacecraft down. that sort of contain what's in the book is a much longer and hopefully still lively sort of passage, because i say that he realized they were traveling to slowly. what i try to get out of the book is what it means to realize something like that. >> let me just pause here. these spacecraft are going something in order of light speed is tens of thousands -- >> so you can predict very precisely this thing is going by the planes did we not gravity works. we not spacecraft move, very precisely what it should be doing and basically was saying it was going, it was slowing down more than anybody could explain, is that right? >> that's right, yes. in fact, going by a planet, kate something slightly because we don't know the math of jupiter precisely. so when both of them did go by jupiter it gave the most precise

measurement. if you want to weigh jupiter, send something that you understand very well what 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 way. because the source is moving. you can hear this when cars would buy you. that's the doppler effect. if you know the originating signal, very, very precisely and then you can measure the incoming frequency very precisely. you can infer the speed of the spacecraft. >> two things, a very precise way to measure the speed, a very precisely of what the spacecraft should be doing and then something is not jibing. so what happens to? exactly, yes. that precision and measuring the speed is not just the spacecraft itself. you have the earth itself rotating, moving around the sun. so you need to factor so detailed knowledge of the solar

system, about the radiowave acts when it does, solar wind, for instance, will affect the radiowave. you need a model for the solar way. indeed, many, many things just to measure this very simple thing. >> this is where the detective process comes in. you had to weed out a lot of uncertainty to figure out if your even sing something real. >> exactly. so the reason that this was sort of at all interesting to anybody is because of what neal works oncome in part from dark matter and dark energy. existing. physicists almost universally, maybe universally can agree that these things exist. and yet we don't have a very good hold. with a very precise measurement in certain respects but you can look at how quickly galaxies rotate or how much mass must exist in the galaxy and is a quite precisely, because you can look at -- [inaudible] my conception of these are constructs that we don't understand where we understand

electrons and protons and normal matter. so there existed one school of thought when this deceleration 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. gravity, sorry, long ranges deviated from the sort of inverse square law of isaac newton to which einstein's theory of general relativity is a good approximation when gravitational theories -- >> let me sum it up correctly. the simple solution to said einstein and newton were wrong? >> is not the civil solution so much as it is a very interesting solution. >> okay. >> because then what you find is that we actually have pretty precise accounting is for these orbits of mars, jupiter, saturn

from the orbiter's that are orbiting around these planets. morris has a number of satellites, you know, man-made space probes orbiting it. by galileo space probe around jupiter can continue around saturn, and even voyager two which went by neptune and uranus also give us precise accounting for the final orbit. so what you would need is to come up with some gravity that could explain the orbits of these planets which worked very much as einstein and newton would have predicted. ..

>> particular the data that is statistically nature. probably the best bid to we, 60% of the data is. >> could be an empty room, you know. >> you don't see it when they. he first noted in the early 80s the first big paper in a peer review journal, one of the main journals came out in 1998. that was a sort of 15 to 20 year context of is this real and if it is real how do we explain it? the others are the possibility which in 1998 had this doesn't

explain it, some mistake in how they were explaining the motion. >> it was an error in measurement or mirror of interpretation. >> exactly. >> somewhere from the 80s to 1990 they got to the point that the sort of thing was real and then another 15 years since then to figure out what it is and where do you go from there. >> part of what they did after 1998, this is a different direction, talk about how we talk about data which is broadbased, a conversation many people are having. the business context of the nation's state gathering the data. a lot of data was lost even though -- one of the men who wrote in his book, salvaged in some cases by dumpster because the spacecraft, you have a date

for navigational purposes, you needed -- nasa be able to point the antenna to the speed -- dep space network and the right direction to communicate with the spacecraft. after it they did that there was not a strong institution to hold on to the data. he wanted to analyze the data going back to 1972. a 1998 paper relied on partial data in the intervening years computer technology change the law. data change, there is tons of intermediate steps. we were talking earlier with neil about the public, all the little tricks they need to do to correct at this point. part of it was not as interesting but how do you explain the corrections made to the data. in the way that you are trying to extract a physical fact about the world and yet manipulating

the data in many ways and you get to the bottom line and from this operation, the intensity of the star rather than something in the atmosphere. i tried to get those steps in the process. >> i want to leave this as a cliffhanger, and switched over to give us more background about this idea of the dark universe, this idea that there are things you can account for and see all around us in the room but also a lot of evidence that there's a dark universe, an unseen universe whose effect we feel even though we can't perceive it. >> something that gets to the heart of this anomaly, ok, something is accelerating differently. maybe newton is a little off.

and the informations the we have about the universe, the gravitational effects of the galaxy, a black hole, and we know how much stuff is there and it is essential to understand the theory of gravity because that is how we understand what is in the universe, there is dark matter, and we understand gravity very well. and then extremely well since einstein. in particular we have this idea, in theoretical physics when you understand very microscopic physics, and microscopic, and charged up in the middle playing

around. the nucleus of the atom is made of protons and neutrons, but you don't need to understand that, but you understand how that is. large-scale affects, and macroscopic laws and physics, and understand long distance physics. and done extremely well. we tested all sorts of distances so what is so special about the pioneer anomaly and our understanding and why is important for understanding of the weather, why it could have thrown a wrench into our understanding of whether there is dark matter out there, because this is something which has your going to outer parts of the solar system gravity is starting to change and we don't really know how to write a theory that does that simply.

this would not, if this had been, or if this is, i am a skeptic. i am not a skeptic. i am a skeptic. you would have had to completely rethink how to write down the theory of gravity. it would not have been -- just throw out the rules, start again, how do i write a theory of gravity that acts like this, would not have been an easy task. on the other hand when we look out and see galaxies spinning giving evidence for dark matter, see galaxies helping other clusters of galaxies giving evidence for dark matter we see evidence that seems to point to a lot of stuff out there we cannot observe. so we know there are physics out there, we think there is new physics we cannot observe. but it all relies on this idea that we really understand gravity at these distances extremely well and so that is

why this anomaly captured the attention of people so thoroughly. >> a couple things, one is all of these theories of the universe are built on the idea that the way things work right here is the weightings were everywhere. like comes from a star, that is light years away or in a distant galaxy, that gravity is all the same and pretty much all the rules that you are living with right here, if you went to the other side of the universe those rules would still be the same and there is a lot of evidence that that is true. it is kind of amazing. why should that be true? why should some place on the other side of the universe care how things work here but this does seem to be a consistent rule book that applies everywhere. when we have something like

this, basically two little rockets throughout two little spacecraft into an area where human beings never explored directly before everything you look at until that time is in direct and now for the first time, one of the last act of the nixon administration was grounded out into the void, everything goes further and further out, the first time human senses are directly touching that part of space and so there are all kinds of other studies that can show different things you can do that makes you confident that this universal rule book is true but your sampling things you never sampled before. it is a new kind of exploration. the other thing, anomalies are not just how you learn a little more about things like dark matter or dark energy or how you test the theory of relativity.

anomalies are the lifeblood of science. when something doesn't work the way you expected to you know you need to do something more so you can sort of read backward the major history of science that people used to have great models of how the planets moved based on the idea that planets ronnie's crystals fiers and the earth was the center of the universe. you can put together a pretty good model with that. turns out the people were very interested in how planets moved. they want a really good model and it turned out to be very hard to make a really good model like that and eventually those anomalies kind of built the case that you really need to go to a different system. newton came up with the idea of gravity and kepler came up with the idea that planets were moving in bubbles, illnesses,

not a perfect circle. that was one anomaly that led to the idea that earth goes around the sun and planets move freely through space and the universe is vast and maybe infinite. all that grew out of anomalies, little tables of the planet's not showing up where you expect them to be. when you hear something that sounds kind of small you don't know where it is going to lead and that is so exciting about these kinds of things. completely interrupted your train of thought. but return specifically to two things we hear about all the time, dark matter and dark energy. may be to explain what they are and the difference between the two of them and why we think they are out there. >> the first thing which is worth noting is that this point we have we think an accurate energy management of the energy

budget of the universe. if you debate box of the universe, i am talking millions of light years across an average how much stuff is in it, how much is neutrinos and adams and whenever you would find the total budget works out to something like 4% adams, something around 26% dark matter, that number is a little influx but roughly fat size and the balance, 70% dark energy and we infer that by a lot of different ways which i have board my students with and i will not bore you with but we have studied this again and again, everything points back to the same set of numbers and especially when you bring up these changes of how people thought, copernicus and things

like this it is amazing because we still think we were the center of the universe. we thought peer is the center of the universe and then it is not the center of the universe but pretty close to that and then we thought okay, the galaxy, the milky way, still pretty great but now the galaxy is one of billions of galaxies out there and not only is that true but most of the stuff out there is not even the stuff we are made of. we are not even the center of the universe in terms of what makes it. and conceptually that is a pretty big deal. most of the universe is something else. we are a rare saying in a number of ways in the universe. peoples a difference between dark matter and dark energy, dark matter is the much more pedestrian of the two. it acts with vaguely like ordinary matter, close together in bad it -- in galaxies, more dark matter in the milky way

than outside the milky whereas there kennedy appears to be completely uniform throughout the universe, totally the same. stock energy appears to be energy of space, empty space itself actually has a certain amount of energy said that affects the dynamic of the rest differently in that causes it to expand more rapidly rather than slowdown so dark matter is stuff that has been around as long as we controlled, part of the building blocks of galaxies, dark energies energy of space which is at this point in the history of the universe pushing the universe apart faster and faster and faster. there are a lot of things we don't know about both of them. we don't know why they have what they have, why there's as much darker matter is that is, we don't know what it is made of. stock energy we are good at calculating if you go to any graduate student of particle theory connects kenya calculate how much our energy there should be and they will let the engine

will be infinitely and that is wrong ended slightly smarter graduate student will come along, they will get an answer which is 10 to the 120 times larger than what is observed. he really did graduate student might get 50 but that is it. we don't know what dark matter is. we know is out there. we don't know where dark energy comes from the we see its effects and think there should be much more than it is. if you think of it from a scientific point of view if you knew all the answers then that would not be any fun. is a good situation. we are very ignorant but have a lot of known and unknown. there are a couple things that always make my head spin. one of them is this idea that 70% of the universe's dart

energy. if you cleared out every single thing in the universe, not only the stuff we are made of but all the weird stuff we are not made of, clear out every particle of the universe, that the universe still be here, in terms of the total mass more energy density of the universe most of it has nothing to do with tangible stuff, most of it is is intangible thing that seems to be embedded in the fabric of space that we really have light deal what it is. the other thing that is interesting, the breakdown is the numbers out that people are throwing around, 4% our kind of matter, 26% this mysterious dark matter we haven't found yet, 70% are kennedy and those numbers sound pretty different but when you think of that they can be

anything. it could be ten million power to energy to one part matter or the other way around, pick a number between one and infinity and three people said 4, guy said 26, another person says 70, that is where. why are they all such low numbers, why isn't one of them kind of a million or billion or google or something crazy. this is another mystery. >> to build on that, dark energy, the ratio of these numbers is not constant. not ordinary matter to adam is the same. when you go to the early universe the ratio should be something like 6:1 but dark energy, the ratio of that dark matter changes as the universe expands so if you did go back to much earlier in the universe ratio would have been some ridiculously large number to one

where ordinary matter would have been far more important. it is a very interesting question because if we have been doing these experiments eleven billion years ago it is not obvious that dark energy would be detectable. and conversely if we did these experiments 1 hundred billion years from now dark energy would be dead. the average would be dictated by darkening except local gravitational local galactic and cluster dynamics. >> glad you came to see me. >> what fascinates me is have you done these experiments 20 years ago, you couldn't because we weren't quite there. every physicist, every astronomers believe what you said, 20 years ago none of the day. this dramatic revision in how we view the world, the existence of dark energy is very recent and

for a very good reason and with good evidence but interesting how quickly scientists can revise their beliefs, at the parable of the scientific method working as advertised which it doesn't always do. >> how science is really done. we are constantly revising what we know based on new observations and with all due respect to journalists it is opposite the way science is often reported in terms of results. and it is more of a moving target that gets provided all the time. >> building up to something more tangible, speaking of famous,

there was this big question until the 1990s are there planets around other stars? is the earth unique in the universe or are there lots of other places like this? there was the naive assumption from those watching star trek and sort of 50s science-fiction movies that of course planets are everywhere but nobody really knew. how did we find out and how is that changing the way we think about our place in the universe? >> the amazing thing about the search for planets around other stars is the first planets we found, the first planets around stars in the middle of its life like ours were extremely different than our solar system. we talked to jeff murphy who is one of the better known astronomers who has done a lot of planet hunting, decided to take his career with him.

he is the guy. the first planet we actually found, very large planets similar to jupiter but huddled in close to their stars. until that point, we had our solar system as an example. and terrestrial planets that are like earth, seen as contrary, and the larger planets like jupiter, neptune out further. and household assistance form, and that you didn't have large planets that are like gashes atmospheres. >> an example of what we assumed. >> and the first planet which we know is hot jupiters that are

anomalous in the sense that they are relatively rare and they are out there in other solar systems. something be an average makes the we never thought worked. the past couple years to keep us on our toes, and we were not able to detect planets like earth, the reason these first planets that were found, these large planets close to their stars is we were using, the doppler effect to look for the tug of planets on the stars. if you have a rally big planet is better at bullying the star gravitational the speaking so you conceive the wobble lot better than you could otherwise but for many years the ability to see release small planets like earth that might be the

places life would form in the universe was beyond our technological means until four years ago when kepler launched which was the first mission that was really able to find planets like that. now it turns out the universe is teeming with planets that are like the terrestrial planets in our solar system. we can't observe them in detail but we know percentagewise they are the dominant thing out there. the first planet we found are relatively rare. >> this certain assumption which i say as a journalist is something i've put all the time in my stories even though in my heart i know it is not true, there is an assumption -- i never do that. we are laying and all on the line. when you leave don't mention this. as long as it is not on c-span

nobody will ever -- if you read popular science stories and i have been guilty of this, the term precise planet or earth like planet, it is another earth, again, a certain chauvinism at work here which is now we are finding planets that the only thing you know about them is very roughly you know airmass approximately and you know their distance from the start generally very precisely so you can sort of save this one is about -- is a little bigger than earth and about the distance, earth's distance or equivalent of birth's distance from the start so it is probably 72 degrees. if you apply the same model you look at the solar system and it is a good place to live because it is a very earthlight planet.

the thing is venus is 900 degrees and covered with sulfuric acid. other than that need is a great place to live. if you look it venus around another star i would be reporting the planet, we found the great crash like planet where life could live. we have no idea, all these things we are finding, and all of this is from basically take a bag of gas and dust and let gravity do its work and it makes all these different things and it turns out we don't have the e imagination to figure out the things nature can make. >> once upon a time we were working with a sample of one solar system. now we are looking for life in the universe working with a sample of one. but we have exactly one place in the universe we know there is life. and you are sitting in at right now. it is really, we go out and try

to construct our experiments in such a way that if there was life like us we would perhaps be able to identify it especially in systems where we can't go to many of these planets but it is a difficult question. are we the anomaly? >> how would you look for life? >> what kepler has done essentially is find the real-estate in the universe. we found there are lots of planets. and how big they are weather their rocky or not, and whether the temperature is, the analogy where we sit from the sun, and warm but not too hot or too cold. if we want to figure out there's life on these planets we need to be able to make measurements of their atmospheres so for example here we modify our atmosphere, we have an oxygen rich atmosphere, ozone layer, these are things we can detect and

this is basically life in the planets or in some cases life in the star sunshine through the planets and start out into component colors and as it turns out different elements leave a fingerprint on metlife and that means you can identify what elements are in a distant planet based on observations we made from earth. and which are the right distance from their star if we're looking for places we might want to point a future mission that can make these measurements and measure what the atmosphere is made of, we would be able to distinguish between venus and earth if we make that measurement but it is a challenging thing to do and they will be coming down over the next several years a number of other missions that will be able to find very close planets to earth, not around a corner close but relatively close that will

be good targets for additional future missions as to try to measure what these planets are made of and we have a hope of detecting biosignatures around other stars. >> the short answer is we don't know if there is life around other planets, we don't know what dark matter and dark energy are but we do maybe know what the anomaly is. are you going to give me an answer? >> i think i will make a couple observations, this question of searching for life on other planets, goes to a statement you made earlier about our having confidence that the laws of nature are the same everywhere which is something, confidence in basic physics that gravity should work the same here, it should work the same in another galaxy.

it is something as we move towards more complex interaction, we have less and less confidence, we should have no real reason to believe the way biology works on earth is the same way biology works elsewhere. venus appears to be very inhospitable to us from what we know of chemistry. is there a sort of very basic reason that life would be impossible in the 900 degree cloud of sulfuric acid? i will give you a detailed answer why things wouldn't work and you would be correct, or sheep, but nonetheless one could posit that could be something we have foreseen that under these circumstances that appear quite inhospitable. coming back to the question of the by a near anomaly, it is a much more constrained problem which is why it was an interesting thing to write about and worked on because you could

work for the definitive answer. i believe, people i wrote about believe they have granted that question. john anderson, the person who discovered the anomaly. does not believe that. which is something i talk about in the book. one of the things i want to get at having two scientists in front of us, and as neil was mentioning, understanding of the vacuum is off by a factor of 10 to a very large number, many billions of billions of orders of magnitude. the reason for it that is fundamentally we don't understand quantum mechanics.

and in cognitive dissonance, they believe one set of things and another set of things. and it is something it punctures, how science works. the way science works, and more complicated. ended is strange to a wave person, you have a scientist with did -- detailed evidence with contradictory theories. and you get used to this and something you deal with. >> and bend the morning. to und

everything the best you can. what is funny is we are discussing kepler and an earth like planet, and an interesting point when these come together. one of the effect of having our energy larger than you think should be, and it is accelerating. once the universe started celebrating, galaxies become harder to form. and as soon as the universe starts accelerating, structures are forming. if we had much more dark energy, the galaxies would not be here. we wouldn't be here. when you come to this discussion of kepler and planets there's an

interesting point, why do we live on earth? why do we live here? such a nice place to live, why don't we live somewhere else? the answer may be is you don't live on venus because you can't. you don't live and jupiter because you can't. you live on the planet where you can live. you don't get to ask the question why do you live on such a nice place because of such a place where not there you would not be around to ask that question. you simply wouldn't be there. there would be no observer to say what a nice place. might be that the question of dark energy, what reconcile the, is that maybe if it had been so much larger we simply would not be here to have a conversation and be able to say isn't that amazing that it is so small. in the context of planets saying you live on a nice planet because where else i you going to live assumes there are a lot of planets out there which we did know. if you want to say you live in a universe with very little dark

energy does that also assume there are many of the universe is out there that have different dark energy? now we are starting to get out of a question of physics because we can do kepler and look for other planets but we can't look for other universes. >> there are people trying to figure out how to do that. >> joking aside, there are theories from two different directions that accommodate the idea of others universes. not quite predicted. one comes from the theory of how our universe formed, how it a originated and the other comes from the other end who tried to understand how particle physics and what happens to the smallest scale. both of them kind of lead you to interesting and may be persuasive the reddick reasons to think there are other universes out there, maybe 500,

maybe not. talk about anomalies, this is stuff where whenever anybody tells you we pretty much know everything there is to know and science is coming to an end, start thinking about this. even before you get to thinking about other universes think about how to reconcile the kind of gravitational physics that rule the pioneer spacecraft and quantum physics that rules the electronics in your cellphone. we don't know how to make those work together. we can describe them very well and have a lot of understanding of what they do, the deepest theoretical level, we don't understand how they fit together. >> not speaking of the end of time but from the perspective of a historian of science which i enjoy reading, one of the things

that is interesting to me is the sort of increasing levels of abstraction and interpretation. you used to have a scientific experiment that consisted of looking at things and then you would make increasingly precise measurements and talk about kepler, not your kepler but the one hundredth of years ago who was an astronomer who didn't -- he made very precise and yeller measurements of stars and planets in the sky. then you have sort of this intermediary of galileo and the telescope where you are no longer just looking at the sky but you are looking at the sky through something. it is still kind of an image so you are using the same senses we evolve to use and you see jupiter has moons. what he is doing when he is doing that is something fundamentally different and also

fundamentally in common with what kepler, the satellite, does when you look at the distance to other planets. similarly you could talk about the neutrino detectors buried underground. no one can see a neutrino but you conceal flash of light in a pool of chlorine and infer the existence of neutrinos. this is something that we like to avoid. we gloss it over in science. no one will write in the science journal about the detection of a flash of light in the pool of chlorine and why people should be excited. we read about the detection of neutrinos. away sort of we use laypeople and scientists use language, try to obscure the good reason because it gets unwieldy, to talk about the layers and layers and layers of abstraction involved in gaining new knowledge. that is something if we try to

speculate about how science will be done going into future decades and centuries there's something fundamentally different about what many scientists, this isn't universally true, due today compared to what you're sort of average astronomer, biologists or physicist did 100 years ago. that change was gradual and there is every expectation things will continue to change which is an interesting thing to think about. >> especially when we have an observer here, the kepler observatory is finding all these planets essentially doing a very simple experiment, looking for overshadow of a planet moving in front of its stock. assemble a geometric idea as you can think of. watching that. watching for the little blip of light. but the process is not quite that simple. in terms of how kepler finds

planets were found planets when it was still operational, how does that work? it is not just a thing where you look at a picture and say there's a dog moving in front of a star. how does it actually work? >> if you look at galileo's drawings it is literally a drawing booking at the moons of jupiter, these marks where the moon is, planets around other stars you really can't see the planet basically. very few cases, we are becoming able with other technologies to see planets that are orbiting other stars directly but generally what we do is measure the light from the stars very precisely and we look for them to become bigger and dinner. dep affect that a planet like earth passing in front of the sun would have is the equivalent to somebody shining their headlights at you from across

the football field and apply to those headlights. that is the incredible tiny change we have to measure to be able to find these kinds of planets and because the transit as we call them of the planet moving in front of the star lasts only a couple of hours and repeat on the order of however long the planet's year is if you want to find an earth in the same morbid as another star, you would have to wait to see if that little blip occurred again. >> windier for a fly to go in front of the headlines again. >> it is multiple years long. if the plan that goes around many times on offshore orbit with a very short year you see the dimming of the star happening again and again and you know with greater certainty that it is there but if you want to see something that is further out, you have to wait. you may not always have enough

signal to actually be able to detect what you think is fair, and other sources of noise as well. kepler is a physical instrument. much like sometimes you see artifacts in pictures you take with an additional camera. astronomical telescopes are not that dissimilar, digital cameras with very nice lenss. just let you see artifacts in digital photography you would also see artifacts in cutler data so we do a certain job cleaning the data, make sure we are not obscuring the signal that we are looking for and we have to wait and actually wait for the signal to repeat and make sure it is fair. not only are we a step removed from not seeing the planet, but we also have to take a careful accounting of all the possible errors that might be there, all of the noise and might be in the signal and that determined if the plan is there that way. that is all the things that are

going to happen to develop a list of what we call candidates. this is before you get to calling it a planet. candidate just means you see a certain number 8 you're pretty sure stars are getting dimmer on a regular basis and it looks like the dimming that would happen if you have a planet around that starr. >> you are looking at large numbers of stars simultaneously. >> around 160,000 or so. we measure their life every 30 minutes or so. >> every single dip is an anomaly. you have to figure out which anomalies are interesting. >> you wait for certain anomalies to occur at regular periods. the plan is going around in a very regular fashion. once we get the list of candidates we end up doing a bunch of other analysis including pointing additional telescopes to see if we can back it up with additional measurements that would help us confirm there actually is a planet there and it comes to the

point where with some of the planets we are actually able to detect, they are so small that even our other methods, sensitivity to actually make those measurements we wish we had and again a careful accounting and we make the statistical argument that of all the things that could possibly be causing this signal we are 99.99999% sure that this is actually a planet. this is a different way than we did a couple years ago where all we could find were so big the we could make multiple measurements. >> one personal experience, when i was editor of discover magazine we did an article on kepler observatory, an interview with one of the prime movers behind the mission and we did a companion article about the new plan that looked like a very

earth like planet and the fact checker got the story and called up sources and fact checked the planet and said we have and actually verify that. give me a couple days to go through the data and the researcher called back and said that planet is gone. i end up writing about how he destroyed this planet by making those look harder. i happened this one time to see the process in real time. it happens all the time. the idea that you are fact checking things to find out whether a planet is there or isn't there, not the we traditionally think of how science works in is very mechanistic way but i want to open up to questions from the audience because we have a little bit of time left. i would love to hear what people in the audience wonder about.

what kind of anomalies are on your mind? question back there. >> i was fortunate back in undergrad to be able to do a first course in general relativity and i remember when we were first constructing the metric for the cosmological metrics and the two things i remember in particular were homogeneity and i sought to pre governing the universe. i am not sure i convinced myself homogeneity, here's your chance to convince me of both or leave doubts in either. >> this is often referred to as the cosmological principle. the universe is the same everywhere, no special direction. >> the second of those.

>> that is right. >> experimentally that appears to be the case. you can look out, there does not appear to be a special direction aside from the motion of for instance our solar system, the local motion of the galaxy. and it is true the universe is not totally homogeneous. we are here, empty space is empty, galaxies have something in them. outside the galaxy you let them. it is homogeneous once you get to scales that are millions of light years across and at that point you can start averaging but if you start going and looking, now you have many surveys, cosmological surveys, the digital sky survey which colleagues who worked on that, you can look at it and you can

go out and look and there are fluctuations but these fluctuations are consistent with starting with a homogeneous universe that then has structures that come to be informed within it. experimentally we have a pretty good study of this that looks like the universe appears to be the same everywhere in every direction. it is an experimental -- is a convenient way to solve. >> mr. chairman. do you want to address the recent issues with kepler, the fact that it might be broken forever? >> that is true. kepler was designed originally for a very specific amount of time, before 3.5 years and the reason for that is if you want to see earth around a sort of solar twin tight star, you need

to wait and see three of those little dips, those transit's to build up enough signals to detect it and so we got to the end of what we call the primary mission of that initial three year, we got an extended mission that would end of running an additional four. unfortunately what kepler uses to point of the telescope and maintain stars in this, reaction wheels. it was launched originally, required to point with the precision that it means, and if one fails we have an additional one to swap out. unfortunately, there were -- one of the reactions that failed extremely on a mission. that left us with three working

reaction wheels and earlier this year the third reaction stopped operating and kepler is now not able at the moment to be able to point with this very fine precision that allows them to make these precise measurements of life in these stars so at the moment we are essentially doing cpr from the telescope, the telescope is in a stage where you can imagine if you don't have a way of stabilizing it might be tumbling through space. what it has is a couple little maneuverable thrusters and one side of it faces towards the sun and has a solar array. kepler is in this sort of drinking bird state where radiation of the sun pushes on it and it does like this and a thrusters point back but that is not enough pointing for us to be

able to exit part of the mission so we're trying to revise the reaction but at the moment it looks like a mission is essentially done. there might be other uses for the telescope and but as precision planet hunting machines that part of the mission might be over. however, kepler already did all the things it was supposed to do and there's a vast quantity of data we have not thoroughly mined yet. is a entirely possible that you will hear about planets from kepler even though kepler is not operating at the moment for years to come as people come through the data and it is sad, i literally cried when i heard that, in a meeting. it was embarrassing. it is that in the sense that the end of one thing but it is the beginning of many other additional missions we will be able to make, some of these were

enticing measurements to characterize these planets. there's one coming down the line that will find the closest planetary systems to earth and those targets will be worked out with the james webb space telescope, which will make these measurements of planetary atmospheres and look for the fingerprint that we hope is there to tried to do that. keep your fingers crossed. >> we have time for one. >> i am only an undergraduate so correct me if i am wrong but i believe one of feinstein's contributions, he has very many but one was the realization the space and time are one entity as are matter and energy, that matter is condensed energy. what dark matter and dark energy, do they have a similar relationship and why in the pie

chart that has 4% mater, 26% dark matter and 70% dark energy, where does regular energy said in? is that in the 4% of matter? is that what that is? >> i find einstein had a famous equation that equals mc squared, mass is a form of energy but this is actually a limit of a different equation which you probably know that energy squared is mass squared times the speed of light to the fourth power plus momentum squared times the speed of light squared. a particle that energy is not just its mass but also motion. we know many, einstein's point was not just the matter and energy are the same thing but that mass is a form of energy.

with his theory of gravity was was that all forms of energy distort space time. that is our understanding of the current modern understanding of gravity, that it is not a force in a lot of the ways we traditionally think about forces in that you have some energy density that distorts space time and objects take a spin trajectory because they are moving in the best possible straight line they can put on a curved surface. so it is true that dart energy and dark matter are different forms of energy and they both affect space time. what is important about them and what is different about them is as the universe is expanding the dark matter is diluting and you get the same amount of dark matter but the universe getting

bigger and bigger so it is getting lower and lower. it is not by doing at all because it appears to be energy in the space itself so you have a bigger universe but more dark energy. the density of it within space is constant wear dark matter will buy. . they are different forms of energy. all forms of energy do affect space time but these seem to be acting in a profoundly different ways as the universe is expanding. they do appear to be fundamentally different things. many people including myself have made efforts to try to connect them. at least my efforts have not been very successful. >> just to get back to a couple -- the core of your question. the thing that we normally think about this energy, radiation, might, x-rays and gamma rays. because you can see it, you can

tally up how much of it is out there and do the same equation, and determine the equivalent mass of visible radiation and it turns out is quite a small number, something like 100th of 1% of the mass of the universe? >> energy density and photons is en to the-16 to the fourth -- >> we are getting a little -- i can get my calculator and remind you about your question. you drive towards the metaphysical duality of what einstein said, sort of pseudo buddhism, we are all one. sort of a tempting line to go down and it is not entirely wrong but i would caution against reading too much into

it. part of what you are saying, it is a purely technical result about how motion works and if you are trying to understand math, what causes the rest mass of an object, what is inertia? these are not questions einstein or any other physicist since have been able to satisfactorily answer, sort of much more philosophical sense so your questions sort of almost is a common one but a guarded half, it doesn't get you to that nature of things quite the way you might hope that it would. >> the higgs boson which the journalistic headline style often describes as this is the particle that explains why matter has mass and this is where all mask comes from, that

is true, it helps explain why particles have the mass that they do. it is part of a broader theory of physics called the standard model that tells you how things, how the world works at the subatomic level but the deeper philosophical level, what is mass and why does it affect space time, these are things that are almost outside the range of what you could call physics, gets into metaphysics. >> there is a wonderful video you might have seen, richard feynman, one of the more photogenic physicists, was asked -- >> he was charismatic, i don't know about photogenic. >> i think he was a good looking guy. >> i think we're all good looking on the best of days. >> to explain electromagnetism. if the interviewer asked is it like a rubber band, he points out if you are stretching the

rubber band out, the electromagnetic forces binding all these atoms together, these sort of analogy we try to use to explain physical forces by way of every day phenomena are inherently circular and you end the more confused and when you began. >> the world is an analogy for itself. >> calculate the energy density. >> i have to make o thermodynam.

>> we didn't process 5 away. >> the one to talk about neutrino oscillation. in that the belief that there are three times -- types of neutrinos and through experiments deep underground we can infer how one neutrino unchanged to another kind which is a strange thing to happen when we think these things are one or the other end in fact they . maybe talk a little bit about how we make that inference and what it means when something at one moment really was a cow neutrino and another moment is the muon neutrino and how does it make sense, to going to the

dressing room and put on a different pair of jeans. what physically happens when a neutrino changes from one kind to another? >> the first thing we have to frequently mention is there are three different spaghetti elektra's which you all know and love and there is a similar one called the new one that looks like an electron but is much heavier, 200 times heavier and another particle which is 17 times, 18 times heavier than a meal on so they look the same but have different masses so electron neutrino can come in and when it scatters it can convert into an electronic. a muon neutrino converted to a new lawn, that is essentially the operation of what we mean when we say electron you to know or cow neutrino and different types of neutrinos and was funny

about ray davis's experiment -- >> cleaning fluid experiment. where he had to extract -- i shouldn't say handful of atoms. very small number of atoms with regularity to accurately measure the flux of the neutrinos and found that the number of neutrinos was very small, smaller than it should have been. the standard solar model you calculate how many neutrinos should come from ed day. and then you calculate how many you can convert into argon and a quarter of what it should have been and it turns out it is because electron neutrinos were converting to different neutrinos. and so the chemical conversion process inspires the presence of an electron and it didn't happen essentially. produce a new one would have

been not energetically possible. that was the first time you thought you were looking at how many you see a you see too view and that is the first time -- now we have these neutrinos that match up with different types of leptons. are there more neutrinos? are there other things these particles are also leading into? and that is one -- right now is not clear. there are some hints, some anomalies that indicate there might be yet another type of neutrino that is not part of the standard model but something entirely different that might be -- those are not conclusive at this point so it remains a really active area of interest because neutrinos through this conversion process of changing between different types of neutrinos can change into something but you did not expect him to change into and that could tell us that thing is

fair. it has been a long time. it will take a bit more time. >> it is part of the rich weirdness out there that you can make a person -- the whole idea that you can build a world of three particles, protons, neutrons and electrons is all you need to build the world but turns out a whole helluva lot more than that out there and what we are and what we are made of in that larger family, part of the struggle has been to make sense of all that and the program, a lot of physics over the past century is trying to understand, who the hell ordered that? why is the world's so complicated? all these things in addition to the stuff at the simplest level? >> can i ask -- >> i was going to invite you. >> i want to know what is the most exciting you are waiting

for from the kepler data? what are you most excited about? >> there is a vanilla answer that is so exciting. there's also something i am hoping to discover. one of the things we are working on detecting is actually a true analog. because the mission died or broke after four years, that means we have relatively few transits of planets in at a yearlong orbit where we have to wait multiple years to see that transit. i am waiting for the thing that is true analog. we found planets in the habitable zoned that may be larger than earth, of class of planet called superearths but we

don't know anything about them. we don't have them in our solar system. we don't know whether those are truly considered to be scaled up purses or not. the other thing i am hoping to discover because part of what i work on is the phenomenon of new forms of stellar variability. they also, the cloak of measuring all the things that start, actually hoping -- pulsating slightly, stars that or around each other and occasionally do what we call eclipses, one star passes in front of another, and analog to the stocks that the sun has so we see many and varied very abilities but we have already

found there are forms of variability in the data that took us totally by surprise. even though kepler is a relatively small datasets, hundred two thousand stars is not that huge bet is standard. even though a tractable sample, i don't think we actually formed called the kinds of variability that might be there, i am interested two reasons. number one, i am doing a sort of cause agnostic version of the study where i am looking for stellar variability you can't explain, actual tampering with the stock buyout postulated civilization but honestly like you found something inexplicable by start variability that you knew would be interesting in itself even if it was not a quarter reflector, like water.

i am really excited for the stuff that is buried in the data. >> it is. >> i am going to deal with you. we have detection of the higgs boson. i am confident it is close to the edge. there is some indication that with the standard model, there is some indication with additional data, maybe there's another particle, i would like to know your prediction for additional data. >> predictions. i have done -- make one prediction, the great statement that furies have to be consistent, not theorists.

but actually, what is amazing is the higgs boson was postulated 50 years ago and since then we have not known one thing about it except that it was real and had mass but from that you could calculate all these properties and the with the ford is the higgs boson decayed. you make it goes on it decays into two photon's or decays into four electrons or two electron corp. two muons, your favorite combination of particles and add up the energy that is in that and you see that it can reconstruct to be the energy of a single particle, the higgs boson. you calculate the ratio of two photon's or four electrons and they are very close to what the standard model would predict and there were some indications that it was maybe a little bit off financially. those things seem to have been settled down so it is more normal.

i really would love -- i won't predict because that would be jim king it. i would love it it ended up being different because anomalies like that would be the first sign that the standard model is incomplete. if the standard model is complete and that is the end of the story, then it is a beautiful and amazing pherae that we as and species have been able to come up with but it has a lot of unanswered questions into would be sad if there were the end of the story. that wraps up the evening. toomey the most important message from all this is anomalies of the first indication that you are going to get

answers, you have new questions and get some new answers. i encourage you to go out and look for anomalies in the world and thank you for coming and joining us tonight. [applause] >> we would like to hear from you. tweet us your feedback, twitter.com/booktv. >> this is the southern town with slavery throughout the colonial period until the emancipation. i didn't realize how bad the jim crow movement had been after the war in the nineteenth century and this was a real shock. an apples was one of the two cases in the supreme court of the united states in 1915, the grandfather clause. if you google grandfather clause you get win versus oklahoma. this was an oklahoma case

dealing with restrictions in voting. in that case as well was a case involving a lot passed in 1908 by the maryland legislature changing the charter of the city of an apples to restrict voting by african-americans. they are free and have been voting and applied only to the city, not the state elections. they tended to vote republicans said democrats in power in the state government and in the city wanted to restrict this. you couldn't vote in an apple was under this 1908 law unless you had $500 worth of property in the city, unless you were naturalized, no women voting all in 1908 so it didn't matter or the sun or descendant of a naturalized citizen or less your

grandfather could have voted in january 1st, 1868. eighteen 68 voting in annapolis is tied to the 1860's 7 constitution of maryland so if your grandfather was in the white male you couldn't vote. in annapolis, if you couldn't vote in 1868, if you could vote in 1908. >> more about maryland's state capital as a booktv and american history tv look at the history and literary life of an annapolis, on c-span2 and 3. >> you are watching the tv on c-span2. here is the prime time lineup for tonight. starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern, kevin cullen and shelley murphy

talk about why the bolger -- whitey bulger. we start with collision 2012, obama versus romney and the future of elections in america followed by the author of collusion:all the media stole the 2012 election and how to stop them from doing it in 2016. at 10:00 p.m. eastern of elizabeth greenspan joins booktv on afterwards. it an interview with the former special master of the federal september 11th victims' compensation fund, mr. greenspan talked about her book battle for ground 0, inside the political struggle to rebuild the world trade center. we wrap up the prime time programming and a 11:00 p.m. eastern with the united states of paranoia:a conspiracy theory. visit booktv.org for more of this weekend's television schedule. >> when you write a book, a lot

can go wrong. that is the way i approach the world. i am somewhat neurotic in my writing and reporting a lot can go wrong in 110,000 words. i have been pretty shocked. if there has been criticism from inside it is mostly in the vein of how dare he, how dare an insider give away the secret handshake, how dare an insider talk about other insiders in a way that perhaps might not be in keeping with the code the we have in washington and people keep asking why people uncomfortable and i welcome that. this is journalism this is will we do and we should invite this discomfort. >> will tv book club returns with this town. read the book and engage on our facebook page and on twitter. look for the early post starting september 3rd to get the conversation going including discussion questions, lynx

interviews with the author, reviews of the book, video with the offer from our booktv archive. >> next from the new roosevelt reading festival in hyde park, new york, alita black discuss eleanor roosevelt's tomorrow is now. .. [inaudible conversations] good afternoon. i'm the director of the franklin d roosevelt presidential library and museum. it's my pressure to welcome you to the keynote address of the tenth annual reading festival. when he dead rated the library in 1941 he declared the purpose to be bring together people to learned from the past so they can gain in judgment in creating the future. we think there is no better way of fulfilling his purpose than the roosevelt reading festival. it's showcasing how complete his vision for the libar