perpetuate about him. so i got to not only admire him but to see him as an advisor to me when i made decisions about where would we like to end the school, he would weigh in on that. what did he think about the infamous teachersstrike that i didn't strike in during 1968 when i started my high school teaching career ? and what did he think about that? so it was fascinating as to a lot of what's going on right now was what was going on then and that's pretty terrifying so if anything we need to do morethan we ever did . >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> good evening, welcome, i'm mrs. galloway. now would be a great time for you to silence your phones. and i just wanted to say that as you know, the debates are over. world series is over.

and the election isn't until next week so we have this lovely window of time in which to prepare professor mueller. >> he crashed his own revolutionary theory. when it makes testable predictions becky begins by laying out a remarkably clear explanation of the physics building blocks. i even understood that part.

relativity, entanglement, antimatter and the big bang which you all just been talking about. with the state said he reveals a startling way forward which i a mere mortal could not begin to explain. his new book has gotten wonderful reviews from people like neil degrasse tyson says it's a master class in what time is an outline why we proceed with the way we do. saul perlmutter the nobel prize winner in physics said a remarkably fresh and exciting approach to the analysis of time. his usual clarity and weight he perceives from established principles but when he gets to the meaning of the flow of time and now, he forges a new path. there are also cartoons in this book. quite fun. tim ferris, the author of coming-of-age in the milky way said, concise shed light on times dark mysteries rex richard

muller makes his case in this clear, provocative and wide reaching investigation about nature may generate the flow of time. must reading for all concerned with the why behind when. richard muller is professor of physics at uc berkeley, by all accounts a legendary and popular teacher and lecturer. he is also the author of physics for future presidents, and energy for future presidents, copies of which are right here. his outstanding work in cosmology he was awarded in 1982 macarthur genius fellowship. also as we were just saying a share of the 2015 write their prize in fundamental physics for the discovery of dark energy. please welcome richard -- richard muller. [applause] >> thank you very much. i think all of you for coming. good turnout.

this was originally scheduled on the day, the day the last debate. i thought the same people who read books probably force themselves to watch the debate site didn't want there to be an overlap. we changed the date. i don't know if the world series would have stopped you from coming or not, but i watch one baseball game every year. the game of the world series. i watched last night. it was a great game. i was told what i should do is read some excerpts from my book. i thought that does make sense. so let me do that. i have picked out a few. please feel free to interrupt me at anytime. i have taught at uc berkeley. you don't have to worry about discombobulated me or of changing my flow. just interrupt me when you have a question. i'm going to begin with i think

i printed out. on this i have a statement. and the statement is full. it is not true. but in a moment it will be true. and depending on when you read it, i don't know when it will be true. maybe it won't be true and i will know if it will because maybe you won't read it. maybe your eyes don't work that well, but here is my statement that i could write that is about to become true. if anybody in the back can't see that. the purpose of this, the bottom part says, this is an excerpt

from content. how could i see the truth that i don't know? this was simply an introduction to a quandary about time that has bothered me for decades. i would teach about time in my classes. i would teach relativity to the members of the football team. my class physics to future president. i taught half of the cal football team. my goal was the theory of relativity is not difficult mathematically. that's not what makes it challenging. it is conceptually difficult. we will come to that in a moment. and i sometimes think it's easier to teach to children that it is to adults because einstein was saying time is valuable. it's strange. but it's not strange to children. they know when they are having good time, time goes fast.

when you're having a bad time, time go slowly. children are are ready for that. we teach ourselves at different rates. that makes relatively difficult. relativity itself is conceptually and everything talking about today is fundamentally a conceptual problem. it is not a math problem. you have to understand einstein elaborate and highly mathematical equations of general relativity to understand the basic features of the general relativity and now this all ties together. let me read some excerpts. i begin the book with what i just showed you. here's the fact about you, one that few people know, maybe no one other than you yourself, you are reading this book right now. in fact i could be more precise.

you reading the word now right now. or if i stated something that you knew was true but i did know it still don't know, assuming you're reading this book at home, not here. you're reading the word now right now. i am completely oblivious of that fact unless of course i'm standing over you, over your shoulder and you're pointing with your fingers as you read. now is an extremely simple yet fascinating and mysterious concept. you know what it means yet you find it difficult to define without being circular. now is the moment in time that separates the past from the future. okay, i try defining past and future without using the word now. what you meant by the past and future, it's constantly changing. a short time ago reading this paragraph was in the future. now most of it is already in the past. now that entire paragraph is in the past.

this is from the introduction. you're welcome to skip when you're first reading the book. books are supposed of introductions, but sometimes the fun begins when the book begins. you read the introduction at the end. the elusive meaning of now has been a stumbling block in the development of physics. we understand time dilation, such relativity, from velocity and from gravity. by the way clocks run faster upstairs. it's been done. people get really sensitive clocks. they put the upstairs, put them down here, they compare them sometime later. so is everything else but you wouldn't notice it because you would be running faster, too. it's a small fact that it is measurable and it has been measured. we understand that.

these are the things i teach in my class, physics for future presidents. what i mean is this. it occurs on the moon and one occurs here. we say their simultaneous. if you were sitting on a moving object like the moon, they would no longer be simultaneous. which ones comes first? this one of this one? it depends on what you're sitting on. if your rocket is going this way, then this one will be first. if the rock is going this way than this one will be first. this is absolutely part of relativity. if it bothers you it's because you have been taught probably by your parents when you were a kid that simultaneity is an absolute thing. get there on time. everybody knows what time is. that's the reading. the basic drawing board of physics is not as a space-time diagram.

you have come across space-time and diagrams. it ignores these issues and physicist sometime perversely treat this absence as a strength and conclude that the fall of time is an illusion. that's backwards. as long as the meaning of now eludes us, further advances in understanding time, the key aspect of reality continue to be stalled. my aim of the book is to bring together the physics assembly pieces like a jigsaw puzzle until a clear picture of now emerges. for this process to work with also have to remove the jigsaw pieces that to become mistakenly jammed in the wrong place. have you ever done a jigsaw puzzle? my father-in-law was a jigsaw puzzle and he just, just didn't fit. and then i had this brilliant insight. i said, maybe something is placed in, maybe this, look, i

found a piece that maybe that should move down there. and then this moves up there and it all came together. the jigsaw puzzle piece jammed into the wrong place can prevent you from completing the picture. and over the years that i've taught about time several sober things that really bothered me. i was convinced they were wrong. one of them is a pretty standard picture, if you've ever read any book about time you probably read that, why we remember the past instead of remembering the future, sounds pretty trivial but that's the sort of thing that physicists worry about. if you know the future you can predict the past. if you know the past you can predict the future. a classical physics anyway. so why why this time to move forward? entropy.

most books explain entropy in a mysterious way. i was convinced the entropy theory was wrong and to convince you that it's wrong i had to make entropy theory really clear so you would understand what it's all about. i try to do that. yes, please. [inaudible] >> maybe this is wrong timing but have you ever had the experience we turn on the light and off the light and just where your hand is back year and it's actually over here? there something about the mind that's very tricky. i'm wondering if it has space-time of its own? that are times, maybe i'm crazy, i have trouble turning off the light. did it go off? it clicked. but i know my hand was down here -- >> that's a well-known effect and if they convinced of it in japanese television. so in japanese television they have three d movies for kids but there just too deep. still have object moving like this.

now if you wear glasses one side of this is darker than the other. then there will be a time delay in the one that doctors. you don't see it as quickly. as a result you will see it in a slight different rush as i can give you 3-d effect. >> there something else also going on? do you think there really is an abstract instinct we had some other throws us off? is there something in her early -- and hartley, basically different that were not aware of that we have about time? >> i think there is, but i think it's the effect i just talked about. that the time that you see something depends on the signal getting into your eye but not just getting into. i does a lot of processing. figuring out what it is and then turns it to the brain and in the brain figures about. that processing takes longer for dim objects than bright objects.

that could explain what you're talking about. >> when you try to make it conscious it's one of those things that's so elusive spirit i love optical illusions spew i'm just wondering if it's better left laid unconscious spirit my feeling is, not be unaware of things. now, here's what einstein said. this was written in a book by a philosopher, physicist, and what, he quotes einstein and saying since science in principle can say all that can be said -- i'm on the wrong place. here we go. albert einstein was troubled by the concept of now. i did know this until i started writing the book. he was bothered by the same thing that bothered me over most of my life. einstein said the problem of the now worried him.

here's a guy who took time, which previously was simply a way of describing events and said we can study time itself. to me that was his great genius, to put -- i say, he gave physics the gift of time. he made it a part of physics. before that it was like the stage on which the acting takes place, but after einstein, we were studying the stage, too. einstein said the problems now worried him seriously. he explained the experience of the now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics. the physics page cannot be grasped by science seem to have a matter of painful but inevitable resignation. so he concluded quote that there is something essential about the

now which is just outside the realm of science. wow. einstein. [inaudible] spirit the initial statement, i'd like to hear that one more time, please spirit einstein said the problem of the now worried him seriously. the experience of having something special for man. he didn't have an answer. he was looking for something. i'd like to dream about what einstein, i don't think einstein had the physics known at the time that was necessary for the elucidation of now. i think since einstein, the advances we've had in quantum theory, the advances in understanding the big bang, these are what make time and the flow of time once again part of physics. now, to get to the end of the book, let me simply say that i bring time into the realm of

physics. i had an experiment that will test my theory of time, and yet the reason that now, that moment is so special to us lies outside the realm of physics. it has to do with our consciousness. i could talk more about that or you could read the book. let me go on with some more quotes. despite its appearance of all does not come from a children's book. the question is where does this come from? the clue is it's not from the children's section back there. here's the quote. if for instance, i say, the train arrived here at 7:00, i mean something like this. the pointing of the small end of my watch 27 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous.

so that quote sounds like maybe something to do with -- that sentence appeared in the premier physics journal of its day on june 30, 1905. the article was likely the most profound and important article in physics since 1687 when isaac newton effectively jumpstarted visits with his publication. the author of those words was a man who would later become the icon of genius of scientific productivity, a man named 95 years later designated by "time" magazine properly named as the man of the century. that's an honor that you dispute. these words about the small end of the watch were written by

albert einstein. why is he getting back to what you teach a six-year-old? and the reason was his relativity theory was not difficult mathematically, was conceptually. he had to get people thinking about what they really mean by simultaneous. and he wrote his article and that was in the annalen der physik, the premier science journal. for example, if i say the train arrived at 7:00 i mean something like this. the point of a small bit of watch points to a seven. okay. that's just wonderful. the same thing is true, everybody who can understand everything in my book. i put in some equation for people who want to go further, mostly they are in the appendix. you don't have to look at them. in fact, you could jump around the book. go to what you want to read.

if there's some term the lexus and chicken i did a really good index. most book these days have wrote several indices. i insist on doing my own index. very good. okay, what are we? this is something original with me which i have taught in my classes many, many times. i call it the tacky on murder. so tacky on is hypothetical particle that travels faster than the speed of light. wait a minute, nothing can travel faster than speed of light. it's not a law of physics. what the physical law says is nothing can travel at the speed of light unless it has zero mask. you can have anything that moves slower than the speed of light, get up to more than the speed of light but physicists speculate that might be something they call a tachyon. and tacky ons would travel faster than the speed of light at about three years ago there

was a report, an observation that the observation of a tachyon from geneva at the institute. and he later they were, it was in this observation. it was going less than th the sd of light. so the people who search for tachyons knowing that if they see a tachyon it will establish their credentials in physics. let me read a little bit longer accept here but it's interesting. a tachyon has a surprising role in our understanding of free will. at that point that out in this book, i think this is the first of this is been in print, this concept. let me read a deeper the tachyon murder. the strange relativity result that the order of events can be opposite for different reference prints. remember the mood and here, which have been first depends on which way your objects are going. latest in aspect of reality. the deeper issue of causality

and free will. these issues can be traumatized by the story of the tachyon murder. a tachyon is hypothetical particle the travel faster than the speed of light. and then i say relativity doesn't rule that out. discovered tachyon it should exist and you make physics history. yet despite the upside of such a discovered i decided many years ago not to bother searching for tachyons. my reason borders on the religious. i believe that i have free will and existence of tachyons would violate that. let me explain. imagine that mary is standing 4e has a tachyon gun that fires tacky and bullets that move up four times the speed of light. she fires -- skipping a few

words here -- and john is killed. mary is brought to trial. she doesn't ignite any of the facts that were described the chances on an unusual change of venue. she says she's right to argue the case in whatever reference frame she chooses. they are are valid as of the judge so he allows her to proceed. she chooses a frame moving at half light speed. that frame is valid. in the earth frame the two events are separated by 10 nanoseconds. but as i show in the appendix in the frame she picked, john died before she fired. so this you think of as the paradox. this physicist, people like richard dawkins, would say that's not a paradox.

john dies, she fires, she had no choice. we are simply the result of lots of little molecules bouncing around. we may have the illusion of free will but she couldn't decide not to fire. those two events are linked. which happened first hardly matters. that's dawkins pointed, about atheists. okay? i draw a different conclusion. if someone finds a tachyon and approves possible to do this then i will admit that my understanding of free will is wrong, that mary doesn't have free will, and we have thrown free will -- i think free will is testable, it's falsifiable. that's fastened to me. that's never been said anywhere in print. i have said that in my class many times. it's never been set in print. it shows there is a relationship when we're thinking about time

and thinking about free will, that you are late to each other. i delve into the book after you establish all of physics. you have to read it and if you don't like that kind of stuff but it is in their. spirit is there a part of you that has free will something that physical, chemical and something extra? >> that's what i think. i talk a lot about that. there are many things that are a physical, a chemical. i'll give you an example that you understand, the fact that the square of two is irrational. could never have been discovered from physics, from chemistry, from any of the experimental sciences. it's an abstract truth that exists independent of the physical world. i get lots of other examples, too.

i started, this book is an interesting genesis. it started when my wife it was here, rosemary, say hello. and i were watching a tv series called outlander about time travel. time travel use to be, there were a few books about it. the first book i ever read on time travel was mark twain, connecticut yankee in king arthur's court. that came out six years before wells came out with his time machine. go back to the time of king arthur. i've read that when i was a teenager. now my six-year-old granddaughter almost every book she has, something that really has become caught on.

there's a dozen tv series that depend on time travel, none of which i particularly like. i always give new series a try. [inaudible] >> having some twists. >> i will enjoy. i suspend disbelief when i get into these things and i think okay, my book has been proven wrong. one of the conclusion i reached is that time travel is impossible. that's odd when you have movies like interstellar in which people can travel through wormholes. they don't go back in time in that movie but they do slow down time quite a bit. it was kip thorne who wrote a book, an article, a scientific article that has the word and time travel in the title in which he talked about possibility going through wormholes to go back in time. i discuss that in your because

it turns out that article says so if we can change wormholes so that they violate the laws of physics in the following way that maybe something to will be discovered and maybe we can go back through time in wormholes. everybody uses that article as a reference for wormholes make time travel possible if we create a wormhole. it's not true, that's up with the article said. i read it and i describe in your what it actually does say. so that somewhat interesting. in the end the theory of time has to do with general relativity. general relativity has a description of space that seems on physical. i'll give an example. you were sitting there. i'm standing here. the distance between us is a certain number of feet or meters. suppose neither of us move. cannot distance change? it turns out the answer is yes. put a black hole right in

between you and me, and it turns out the distance to the black hole is infinite. and then from buckle to me is also infinite. so the straight-line distance between you and me has become infinite even though neither of us moved. what's happened is in general, space is flexible. he has something called the metrics, einstein, and the metric describes the flexible space. you want to know how much space there is between us, he have to add that all the cubic centimeters in the metric and that will tell you. what of the things i knew was around a black hole there's an infinite amount of space. if you go a little bit out there's a lot of space. some black holes are drawn like this indicating to get to the black hole there's a lot of space in there, even though relatively it's close, a lot of space. well, one of the things i do from a work in general -- general relativity, you increase

the amount of space. by an amount when it hits the newspapers, i read about this, i quickly worked out the numbers and it turns out that when these two giant black holes can each what is 30 times the mass of the sun, wind is 29, the the other is 36, huge black holes. nobody ever gets that such black holes existed. and they come together and the amount of space between them increases by the number that turns out to be out a million cubic miles. a lot of new space. like the space between us with a black hole or we create a black hole. space does not conserve energy, not space. not time. when that new space is cratered according to the three i had worked out, that would create more time. and i calculate how much it would be.

in physicist terms it's a lot. it's an entire 11 thousandths of a second. come on, your iphone has a clock in at that goes one a second. tick tick tick, a million of these and a thousand of the second. it has made gravity waves. you can see these things oscillating around each other from the ways there, as they come in and do what's called a chart. the church should be delayed by that time because the additional time that was created. so i was going to verify the tapered it turns out i was really lucky. i cannot verify the theory from the gravity wave. why'd i said i was lucky? because if i had i would have published it, people would've said that's great work, can you make any predictions? it's not considered a prediction in which you publish it before

it is absurd. so it was just barely unobservable. the uncertainty was about what our 2000th of a second i make the following prediction. next time we see something like this, if it takes place closer so we get a stronger signal, then you should be this additional delay in the chart that should be observable. in fact i predict it, and if it is not observed, that there is wrong. i had this daydream of my phone rings, not now because i have, i have a turned off. maybe i just missed the call. so i take out my phone -- what did they do with my phone? hello? oh, yeah, hi, kip, how are you? you're kidding? you have observed a new gravity waves event with 30 and 45 masses, and became together and this was closer than -- you really could see -- oh, so my

theory is wrong. okay. thank you. it was fun. and i will have felt good. then again, maybe he will say and we saw exactly the delay you predicted. question? >> i am a layman so might be a stupid question. my question is, reading that the sun, that the sun is getting closer, you know, there will be extinction by getting too close to the sun, and you were talking about two huge black holes that are larger than the sun that in the future we might be able to control and bring together, can we save the earth by doing it

between us and the sun? >> the sun is expected, we understand the way the sun works and it is actually expected to grow in size until it reaches out right where the earth is about the death and i think that is supposed to take place i forget the exact number but something like 15 or 20 years from now spirit -- in between if we ever at that time will be in that spot where we can actually create merger black holes that are as big or bigger than the sun, will we be able to create space between us and the sun to change the prediction of speeders i suspect that yes, we will be able to do that, but whether we can do that without extinguishing the heat of the sun is a separate question. i suspect that if you so with the black hole and bring it into the sun that you create that

space but you will also turn off the sun spirit no, not to swallow the sun but to merge in between us and speedy so put it between us and the sun. my guess is it will get much easier to move the earth. move the earth further away. spirit so we are creating the space to move everything -- >> you are creating space when you move the earth. >> how far in the future to put something like that? >> the numbers are well known but i don't remember it but i think were talking about tens of billions of years. billions spirit the sun has been around for 5 billion years, and so far changing very slowly right now but that is expected to happen, as the fuel is burned up in the sun, then the heat that keeps the sun from collapsing gets weaker.

the inner part of the sun collapses, the outer part of the sun is what comes out. so the will be a harder core of the sun but the service of the sun -- >> going back to now, the idea of balcom some time and space, equally being created. >> what would say is that the amount of time goes up locally when you create more space locally. the reason time flows in the universe is because the universe is expanding that's what's called the hubble expansion spirit so i one point we won't see other galaxies or anything else, just growing all apart. so what happens when there's nothing moving if you're in the middle of all that space as it

is nothing left to measure against? >> so the question is asking is what happens very late in the big bang when the universe has expanded so much that you're sitting there all by yourself. and that's actually got a lot of attention. and there's no consensus on what it's going to be like. the standard understanding is that things will just get colder and colder as we radiate heat, but can't generate anymore because we have burned up the sun, and they have what will call the cold death. freeman dyson analyzes that some years ago and he always thinks more cleverly than other people. he doesn't fall into any of these crochet traps. what exactly was as the universe gets less and less interesting,

the earth when what's left over of the sun actually will develop more and more structure, and that human timescale will change. he went through this in great detail in his paper by his conclusion is something that can be stated very simply. he said the universe will continue to get more and more interesting. now, it is a great dispute between him and larry krause who says his competitions are wrong and i don't know what the status of that is, but the fact is it's not necessarily true that as these billions of years past that life will get dull. spirit what do they mean by changing the shape of the earth, when you say as we get further and further away? spirit change the shape of the earth? i'm not sure what you're referring to. there is the spinning and because it's spinning the equator is a little bit further out than it would be.

as the spin slows down and will change the shape although do. we are also affected by the sun spirit this is a little off but i can't see that the big bang, i don't know how we will ever get about that thing about time. we know that before the big bang there had to be time. there had to be time. >> -- was there? >> yes. i think so. i think that -- >> why? >> because i think the big bang is very, very come as a highly physical process of course, and physics of course but -- >> time and space are a part of physics now. let me give you an alternative. which is what i think about it. at this point i'm departing from what i know into since we don't really understand the big bang, let me speculate and come up with the speculation that's completely 100% consistent with

what we know but i have no way to test it. this is departing a little bit from physics. here's my hypothesis. this is everything we know. that the big bang was not an explosion taking place within space. the big bang was an explosion of space. prior to the big bang there was no space. [inaudible] >> there was no time. the big bang was the creation of space and time. and to say what happened before the big bang is like asking what happens if two points are closer to each other than zero? >> i think the effect of the big bang proves that there was something before because if

there wasn't something before, they wouldn't have been a big bang. >> that is speculation which is not accepted by most experts. >> at matches according to everything that we know since then. if everything that you know since then it's like something follows the other as a result of the other, something has two result the big bang which means -- >> that's a theory that some physicists are trying to see if they can make it work. that says it that the big bang was not the creation of time and space, was just a special moment in time and space. that's an alternative theory and it may be right but it's not obviously right. in the back. spirit yes. since we're talking about the big bang, this may be the first three minutes of the talks and maybe i missed it, but how is

time defined? >> that is part of the problem. time cannot be defined. i don't know if you took, when i was in ninth grade i took a wonderful course in geometry in which they start pricing we have this concept called a point and a line, and they are undefined terms. we explain everything in terms of those. always begin with undefined terms and postulates and that's how you begin any study. in the three of time you cannot define time because everything else is defined in terms of time. it is the most fundamental aspect of existence, other than space. those are the two most fundamental things. we cannot fight them because what could we defined in terms of? [inaudible] >> i started by talking about

how mysterious time is an effective many people think physicists understand time, and no, i have a theory. if it turns right then people will say we understand time a little bit better than we did before. yes. >> there were recent experiments in which they discovered gravitational waves are evidence of gravitational waves by determining a distance between locations. does that also change time relationships between those locations, or is it any way of determining that? >> it did but there's no way to determine them. there's a detector, this gravity wave observatory, all it did is it had two meters here and there suspends that it wouldn't be vibrated by earthquakes, bipedal walking by, it's really tricky. i knew about that experiment back when it was first proposed in the 1970s and they tried to

build it. it's been a long, long time to get that to work. and the people he did that our true scientific euros for sticking with this. they stuck with it against my doubt. i didn't it would ever work. i said that publicly, but it did. i was wrong. so what they do is you measure the distance between them and you do that by bouncing light back and forth. that distance changes. they had two observatories. one in the u.s., two of them and the u.s., one dent in the south, what in the north and they saw the same pattern. what you get, these things are going about this, black holes, big masses. anytime you shake an electron you get a radio wave or light. all radio waves come from shaking electrons. in an antenna, they are moving back and forth that generates radio waves. in an incandescent bulb it's the electrons vibrating at high temperature that generate those ways. if mass vibrates then you get

gravity waves. they are so much weaker than or to see them direct at huge masses, and they did in this. they are going around each other. they are generating these waves. one way that every time to go around and that's what was observed. they are pulling in and losing energy because they are generating waves. if we take the mass, 36 of the 29, that's 64 times the mass of the sun, 5% of that mass was turned into gravity waves. turning mass into energy. fantastic. that's what we could see. but as they were losing this energy they came in, suddenly, it's all gone. just one black hole. so you see this way that goes like this and then it goes -- that it's gone. that's what they saw. in the back.

>> what is the speed of the gravity waves? >> we believe the speed of gravity waves is in the same as the speed of light. according to theory, we don't have a very good measurement of the speed, but we do know that from these two events, gravity waves arrive at different times, and the difference in time was small enough that it matches the fact that it's come with the speed of light in his the other. we know it is approximate right but according to all theory a move at the speed of light. a question over here. >> following on his question about, if we can't define time, then i went back to your, which i think also relates to your view of now, which is if we are creating time, what do you mean by that dan? >> well for example, even though we can't define it, einstein made some definite prediction that he predicted for example,

that if you put a clock upstairs it will run faster. and then come back down, you can compare. he could define differences in time even though he couldn't define the meaning of time. so i'm doing the same thing. i'm saying i can't define time that i will tell you this. their predictions will be mistaken if you don't take into account that locally closer to these black holes more time was created. it's a wonderful experiment that was done in the 1970s or 80s by two scientists, and with it is they took a really accurate clock and it put in an airplane and if up in the air and when they came down the time was off with a clock of slipped on the ground by just being out einstein predicted. these days we have general relativity and time dilation built into our cell phones. [inaudible] >> it was built then because we

have gps. we tell where we are because their satellites in known positions. they sent signals. we look at the time of arrival of the signals. if we didn't correct for the fact that this satellite is so high and this one isn't quite a lot, if we didn't correct for that we would be off by several miles. so we have the einstein equation built into our cell phones pick up einstein had not predicted this predicted this we would have discovered it since we build gps. we would defend clocks run at different rates depending on if they're in order, running at different rates. people would say what is this? then some theorist would come up with general relativity. there was an observation having to do with the speed of light that inspired the original theory of relativity, but this is a case where einstein with this unbelievable physical intuition which turned out to be

right again and again and again, he is a few failures. i do know about you but einstein is responsible for inventing the laser. he and charlie townes who was a professor here, but towns use the einstein equations for cynical statement in innovations, a laser means light application -- radiation, a term of einstein up when he said molecule should behave in this way. so einstein just did so many unbelievable things. [inaudible] -- or is it a scientific one? >> okay, is now a psychological aspect or is it a physical one. it's both. i argue in this book that there are non-physics aspects to reality that we are all aware of, although some of us deny it.

and that this gives us the ability to use our own free will to change the future. arguments are hard to make quickly verbally. i think i would make a pretty good case for this in the book. but the only time that you can exercise your free will is in that realm of reality which physics has not yet acted, and that's now. so you exist in the past. you know you do. think about it. you remember where you were a year ago. you exist in the past but it does you no good because you can't change it. but now, this moment, you can exercise your free will to come to mrs. dalloway's bookstore and listen to a lecture on time. you exercise real free well.

my claim is that now as a solid physics space, a new moment that is created when space is created, mostly from the big bang which is still expanding. we are still create more space but sometimes locally when you two black holes, but what makes it important to us is that it is the only moment in time when you can exercise your free will. unfortunately this rule -- we are all moving for in time but we rule out time travel backwards in time. >> it's all controlled by a psychological memory. it is completely devoid of physics. it's all in our head. it's past but it's very, very real. and -- >> i tend to think of the past beyond reality of psychological reality. part of this came from the fact that i worked for several years

as radiocarbon dating. i remember being fascinated by the fact that, what an amazing thing, you dig up an old bone and you could tell when the person died. that wasn't in my memory. we can explore the past spirit that's the presently we discovered that spew but the fact is we can learn more about the past, and i do everyday. by reading books. so no, the past isn't completely in my head. there is a reality. it's just is not an operative reality. that's my opinion. >> your conclusion is very poetic and philosophical. >> my main philosophical conclusion is philosophical. that's the philosophical conclusion.

there is a religious conclusion because -- [inaudible] >> but it is not physics, and 90% of the book is about physics. i do all this wonderful physics and its fascinating and its testable and it really proud of it. but i couldn't stop there. i had to think about how this affects reality, and i make an argument that, well, i give an example in the book, i could read this to you, you know. when i was a kid i was real bothered perception of color. i wondered whether i saw color, am i seeing the same color when you see color? and asked my teacher and she said of course. it wasn't of course to me. when i got into junior high school i asked a teacher and he

said of course. the signal goes to the same part of the brain. look what happens when it leaves the brain. when i see it. what? it just goes to the brain and that's it. he didn't understand what i was talking about. so let me just say what does blue look like? i have a chapter here called what does blue look like. when icy blue and when you see blue and icy looking are we seeing the same color or could it be that when you see blue you are really seeing what i see when i see red. this bug to me in fifth grade. my teacher was helpful and i tell the whole story. and through most of my life that story was -- it still bothers me. half the people i talk to knew exactly what he meant and said that it really bugged me, too. the other half of the people said of course you see the same color, just like my fifth-grade teacher. and i couldn't communicate to them what he meant by it, but

then i came across a wonderful article written by a fellow named jackson who is a philosopher. frank jackson. in 1982 australian philosopher austrian philosopher frank jackson posed my childhood question in a way i find particularly compelling. he created the story of mary, a brilliant scientist who had been raised indoors and a colorless environment with nothing to look at that wasn't black, gray or white. she always reads books without color pictures and watches black-and-white television. there's a room that my granddaughter loves and it has monochromatic light in which everything is the shade of yellow. dark yellow, light yellow. there are no colors. [inaudible] spirit my granddaughter? no. she wasn't. look, this is a hypothetical story.

i can -- she was not color blind. jackson's imaginary road scientist mary in a black and white home grows abnormally except for the absence of colors. she reads about color in her physics books. she wonders, she wonders what living in a world of color would be like. she finds the theory of the rainbow, she knows this, to be elegant, beautiful in the physics since. but she ponders what would a rainbow actually look like? would the beauty be different from the physics beauty? i know the physics beauty of a rainbow is really quite beautiful, but is come when you see a rainbow is it the same beauty? ultimately, mary becomes a master not only of physics but neural physics, philosophy and any other discipline you might want to throw in. remember this is an imaginary stripper she understands how the eye works, how light statements

different senses of the eye and how it does some essential processing in different parts of the brain. she knows all about this but she's never experienced it herself. then one day marry opens the door and walks outside into a full-color world. what will her reaction be when she finally sees a rainbow? remember, this is a thought experiment. we are not worrying about whether all those years without color atrophied her visual ability. when she looks at the sky and the grass and a sunset, what she say, oh, this is exactly what i expected, from the science i studied lex will she say that? or will she say wow, i had no idea. jackson s, will she learn anything or not? and if she does learn something, what will it be? i tell this story to people and half the people say she will learn nothing.

half the people will say she will learn what the color blue looks like. and inside things -- to me this is simply another example of a kind of knowledge we have that is beyond the reach, and which i think will always be beyond the reach of physics. the physics to use unsigned terminology is incomplete, but i'm not depressed by that. i am elated by that. [inaudible] >> did mary learn anything when she saw the colors? >> she did, because those processes had never happen in her brain before, and when she went out and experienced full spectrum of light, something happened in the brain that had not happened before.

>> a reasonable position he is taking spin however, we don't know about -- we can say the same work and none of us actually really mean the same thing. >> that's right, that's right. this is a great topic for you to discuss with your friends. you will find is a great difference and yet people, you won't be able to convince them that they are wrong. one more question. you didn't have a question, did you? >> i have a question. i have two things. one is how does language, the fact we have mostly maybe thinking in language, we like -- the comment i had a similar thought for a long time that each of us missing the world differently in color and even what we choose to look at, i think that's why, one possible reason why artists make art is to show what we see that we

could never say. .. the >> it's not the language. anyone has written a book no-space-on up the words to express what we are trying to express. we as metaphor, simile of speech, art to convey this thing that cannot be conveyed with word. the books we love are the ones that convey it through metaphor.

not by having just the right word. you learn when you read books the right word usually does not exist. and in religion, excuse me for going back, but he could only teach their parables. they would tell stories and your spouse to get it from the story because you cannot describe in words what he was teaching. was teaching. so we teach in metaphor. we teach in our every teaching music. one of my biggest mysteries in spite of a token so much good i don't understand what it is he's saying with me when i listen to it. we can't articulate in the words because it is outside of the purple experiment, just like radars out of the verbal expression. so at that comment thank you offer coming. i'm going to hang around for a while. [applause] >> if anybody wants to buy a bo