frances berry and her 5-dollar sandwich.ll. i'm sure you will be coming back soon. facebook live thank you.s keep the conversation going. thank you all. give us just the few moments and we will have the signing line over here. if you want to get your book signed you can do that. if you want to purchase any copies they are available in the bookstore. thank you so much for coming out. we want to hear from you. where your post a comment on the facebook page.

good evening welcome to mrs. mrs. galloway. now would be a great time to silence your phones i just wanted to say that as you know the debates are over the world series is over and the election isn't until next week. we have this lovely window of time. what exactly do we mean by now. it has bedeviled modern-day physicists to the present. equally puzzling why does time flow. they have given up trying to understand and call the type of flow and illusion. so should explain reality not tonight. now he does more than a poke

holes poke holes in the past ideas crafts is on revolutionary theory. one that makes testable predictions. i even understood that part. relativity entanglement antimatter in the big bank which you have all just been talking about. the stage then set he reveals a starting way forward which i a mere mortal cannot begin to explain. his new book has gotten wonderful reviews from people like neil and the grass heightened. a remarkably fresh and exciting approach to the analysis of time. with his usual clarity and what he perceives from the principles but when he gets

the meaning of the flow of time and now he forges a new path. there are also cartoons in this book. can science shed light on the dark mysteries he makes his case in the clear it back but if and wide reaching investigation of how nature may generate the flow of time. must reading for all concerned for the why behind win. a legendary and popular teacher and lecturer. he is also the author of physics for future presidents for his outstanding work in experimental cosmology he was awarded the macarthur genius fellowship. and also as we were just saying a share of the 2015 breakthrough price in fundamental physics for the

discovery of dark energy. please welcome richard miller. >> thank you very much. i want to thank all of you for coming. at that turn out. this was scheduled on a day of the last debate. i thought the people who would read books for some self to watch the debate so i didn't want there to be an overlap. he changed the date. i don't know if the world series would have stopped you from coming at night. i was told what i should do is read some excerpts from my book i thought that does make sense. i picked out a few here. please feel free to interrupt me anytime.

i've taught at uc berkeley. you don't have to worry about this. or of changing my flow. interrupt me when you have a question. going to begin with something and printed out i have this on a statement. in the statement is full it is not true. in a moment it will be true. independent on when you read it i don't know when it will be true. and maybe i won't know that. but here is my statement that i could write that is false now and it's about to become true.

if anybody in the back can't see that. how could i say the truth that i did not know. it's no longer true. 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 relatively -- relatively to my class. and my goal was is not difficult mathematically. that is not what makes it challenging. it is conceptually difficult. sometimes i think it's easy to

teach to children than it is to adults. it's variable, it's strange. they know when they're having good times when they're having having a bad time it goes slowly. children are ready for that. they run at definite rates. that makes relatively -- relativity difficult. it is a conceptual problem is not a math problem you don't have to understand einstein with the highly mathematical equations to understand the basic features and how this will all tie together. let me read some expert -- excerpts.

i begin the book with what we just showed you. here is a fact about you won the very few people know maybe no one other than you yourself you're reading this right now. i could be more precise you are reading it right now. it's something you knew was true but i personally didn't know and still don't know. assuming you're reading this book at home and not here. we are completely oblivious of that fact. now is an extremely simple and fascinating concept. you know what it means yet you find it difficult to define without being circular. now there's a moment in time that separates the pass from the future.

and what you meant by the past is constantly changing. now most of it is already in the past. now the entire paragraph is in the past. this is from the introduction. they're supposed to have introductions but sometimes it begins when the book begins. and you can read the introduction at the end. the elusive meaning of now has been a pummeling -- stumbling block. from a velocity in gravity. clocks run fasters up stairs

they compare them sometime later. as a small effect. but it is measurable. even the flipping of time we understand that. these are the things i teach my class. what i mean is this. it occurs on the move. if you were sitting on a moving object which one comes first. it depends on what you are sitting on. than this one will be first. this is absolutely part of relatively. you had been taught probably by your parents get there on time.

everybody knows what time is. the basic drawing board of physics is known as a space time diagram. you've come across this. they ignore these issues. and sometimes they perversely tweet this absence. that is backwards. as long as the meaning of now eludes us for the advances in understanding time the key aspect of reality continues to be stalled. my goal is to bring together the essential physics until a clear picture of now emerges. we also had to remove the jigsaw pieces that have become mistakenly jammed in their own

place. it was the only jigsaw puzzle. it just didn't fit. and that then i have the brilliant insight that maybe something is placed in the wrong part. it all came together. the puzzle piece jammed into the wrong place can prevent you from completing the picture. and over the years that have talked about time there were several 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 the error of time that sounds pretty trivial. it's a sort of thing that they worry about.

if you know the future you can predict the past. most books explained in an interesting way. i was convinced that it was wrong and convince you that it was wrong. they will understand what it's all about. they will understand what it's all about. maybe this is a wrong timing have you ever have the experience where you turn on the light and you swear your hand is back here and it's actually over here. there's something about the mind that is very tricky. maybe i'm crazy. it clicked.

i know that my hand was down here. and they take advantage of it. so they have that. now if you wear glasses there will be a time delay in the ones that are there. there is something else that has also gone on. do you think there's something basically different they are not aware of that you have about time. it's the effect that i just talked about. the time that you see

something not just getting into it and figuring out where it is. and it takes longer for a dim object than a bright object. when you try to make it conscious it's one of those things that is so elusive. that is so elusive. i'm just wondering if it's better left unconscious. my feeling is i want to understand everything. not be unaware of things. see mac here is what einstein said. this was written by a physicist and what they're saying is they concern all the can be said he was troubled by the concept of now.

i did not know it until i started writing the book. einstein said the problem of the now worried him seriously this is a guy who took time which previously was a way of describing events and saying we could city time itself to me that was his great genius i say he gave physics the gift of time he made part of physics. it was like the stage on which the acting takes place. but after einstein we were studying the state as well. the problems now worried him seriously. the experience of the now need something special for man something essentially different from the past in the future.

but at this important difference doesn't and cannot occur within physics. it cannot be grasp by science a matter of painful but inevitable resignation so he concluded that there is something essential about the now which is just outside of the realm of science. wow. that's einstein. wow. that's einstein. the initial statements i would like to hear that one more time. the problem of the now worried him seriously the experience means something special for man he didn't have an answer. he was looking for something. i like to dream about what einstein had. i don't think have the physics known at the time that was necessary for the elusive age of now. then the advances we had had

in understanding the big bang these are bag these are what make time once again part of physics. now to get to the end of the book you say i bring time into the realm of physics. i will have an experiment that will test the theory of time the reason that now that moment is so special to us lies outside the realm of physics. let me go on with more quotes. despite its appearance the following quote does not come from a children's book on telling time. the question is where does this come from. it's not from the children's section back there. here is the quote.

if for instance i say the train arrives here at 7:00 i need something like this. the pointing of the small hand on my watch to seven in the arrival of the train are simultaneous. that quote. sounds like maybe something to do. it appeared in the premier physics. the article was the most profound and important article in physics in 1687 when they jumpstarted the physics. the author of those words was the man who would later become the icon of genius a

productivity the man named 95 years later designated by time magazine appropriately named as a man of the century. that is an honor that few dispute. it was written by albert einstein. why is he getting back to what you teach a six-year-old. his relativity theory was not difficult mathematically it was conceptually. he have to get people thinking about what they really meant by simultaneous. and he wrote his article in that. it's something like this at the point of the hand. it's just wonderful.

mostly in the appendix you could jump around in the book. they have terrible indices. i put a lot of time in that. it's very good. this is something original with me. which i taught in my classes many times. it's a hypothetical particle that travels faster than the speed of light. the physics law says nothing

can travel at the speed of light unless it has zero mass. they would travel faster than the speed of light and there was a report. from geneva. a year later it was attracted. there are people knowing that if they see it it will establish they have a surprising role in our understanding of free well. i pointed out. it's the first time it has been in print with this concept.

the moon and here which happened first. depends on which way your rocketship is going. the deeper issue is free well. they can be dramatized by the murder. it is a hypothetical particle that travels more than the speed of light. they will make physics history. despite the up site the reason is on the religious. the existence would violate that belief. let me explain.

and she has attack young gun that fires four times faster than the speed of light. and john is killed. mary is brought to trial. she does not deny any of that. on the unusual change of venue. she said she has a right to argue the case and whatever way she chooses. they are all valid as a judge knows. they choose it. the two events hit hard separated. as i show in the appendix in

the frame she picked this you can think of as a paradox. people like richard dawkins would say that's not a paradox she have no choice. we are simply the result of a lot of molecules bouncing around. she couldn't defy side not to fire. this two events are linked. that is the other point of view. i call a different conclusion. if they find it. and if it was possible to do this that they don't had free will the idea that free will is testable experimentally is

not testable but provable. it's never been said in print. it shows there is a relationship when we are thinking about time and you think about free well. i go to the end of the book. you don't have to read the end if you don't like that kind of stuff. it is in there. is there anything physical or chemical. or something extra. i talk a lot about that. there's many things that are a physical and a chemical i will give you an example the fact that it is irrational. it could never had been discovered from physics and chemistry from any of the

experimental sciences. it exists independent of the physical world. there's lots of other examples as well. i talk about how i started with an interesting genesis it started when my wife was here and i were watching a tv series called outlander. it's about time travel. egg is to be there were a few books about it. the first book i ever read was mark twain. it came out six years before wells came out with the time machine.

go back to the time of king arthur. now, my 6-year-old granddaughter almost every book she have has time travel in it. it's been a dozen tv series. none of which i particularly like. >> there had been some twists i will edge enjoy. i said okay at my my book has been proven wrong. i reach edit. time travel is impossible. we have movies like interstellar in which he could travel through wormholes and then actually go back in time in that movie but they do slow down time quite a bit.

they read a book that has the time travel in the title in which he talked about the possibility of going through wormholes. i discussed that in here. it turns out the article said if we can change wormholes so that they violate the laws of physics and then maybe we could go back in time. and everybody uses that article as a reference for wormholes make time travel possible. i read it and i describe and hear what it actually does say. in the end the theory of time has to do with general relativity and has a description of space that seems serial and on physical i

will give an example. the distance between us in the distance change. it turns out the answer is yes. the distance is there. the straight line distance between you and me has become infinite even though neither of us is moved. what happens in general space is flexible. he has something called the metric. you want to know how much space there is between us if to add up all of the other little cubic centimeters and alitalia. one of the things i knew was around the black hole there was an infinite amount of space. if you go a little bit out it's a lot out.

they indicate that you should get to the black hole there is a lot of space in there. one of the things i knew from my work in general relativity that if you had two black holes and they come together you actually increase the amount of space. i read about this i quickly worked out the numbers. when these two giant black holes it is much bigger than the sum. nobody ever gets that such black holes existed. and they come together in the amount of space between them increases by the number that turns out to be about a million cubic miles. a lot of new space. if we create a black hole there not space.

when the new space is created it would create more time we talk about how much that would be. in physicist terms is a lot. my iphone has a clock that goes a billion times a second. a million of these. a thousand of thousand of the seconds can be measured. amid gravity waves. you can see the seam oscillating around each other and the chirp should be delayed by a thousand of a second because i jeanette was really lucky.

what i said i was lucky? if i have i would have published it. that's great work. it is not considered a prediction unless you publish that. it was barely unobservable. about one or 2000's of a second. next time we see something like this if it takes place closer we have a stronger signal than there should be this additional delay in the chirp that should be observable and in fact i predicted and if it's not observed the theory is wrong. i have this daydream my phone rings. maybe i just missed the call. i took out my phone hello, hi how are you.

you have observed a new gravity wave event with 30 and 45 masses in the came together and this was closer than the last one. so my theory is wrong. okay. thank you. it was fun. at least i would've made a theory that was justifiable. maybe he will save we saw exactly the delay you predicted. i'm a layman so my is to be questioned my question is i'm reading there will be an extension by getting too close

to the sun. two huge black holes in the future we might be able to control and bring together by doing it between us and the sun. we understand the way the sun works is expected to grow in size. something like 15 or 20 billion years from now. marie can actually create the merge of black holes will be be able to create the space between us and the sun i expect that guess we will be

able to do that but whether we can do that without extinguishing the heat of the sun is a separate question. ice suspect if you take a black hole and drain into the sun you also turn off the sun. >> to merge it between us. my guess it would be much easier to move the earth. it's the way we are creating and. you are creating the space when you move it out. the number is well-known. i think were talking about tens of billions of years. the sun has been around for 5 billion years. and so far it is changing very

slowly right now. is expected to happen. as a fuel is burned up in the heat that keeps the sun from collapsing gets weaker the part of the sun that collapses there will be a hot core of the sun but the service will be out to the earth. idea comes from time and space equally been created what i would say is the amount of time goes up locally when you create more space locally.

that is what is called the hubble expansion. we won't see other galaxies because we are going all apart. what happens when there is nothing moving when you're in the middle of all of that space and there is nothing less -- left to move against. what happens when they have expanded so much that you are sitting there all by yourself. that actually has a lot of attention and there is no consensus on what it's going to be like. i think things will just get colder and colder as we radiate heat but can't generate anymore because we had burned up the sun and we have what will call the cold death they analyze that some

years ago and he always thinks different than other people in the field. what he calculated was as the universe get less and less interesting it will actually develop more and more structure in the human timescale will change. they will do this in great deal's help. it's something that can be stated very simply. the universe will continue to get more and more interesting is as a great dispute there. who said the congregations are wrong. and i don't know what the status of that is. but the fact is is not necessarily true that as the billions of years past that life will get dull. >> what do they mean by

changing the shape of the earth? do you mean i'm not sure what you are referring to. because of spinning it will be further out. and then it would be it will change the shape a little bit. i can't see that the big bang i don't know how we will ever get around that thing about time. we know before the big bang there had to be time. something was existing i think so. i think the big bang is highly physical process of course. they are part of physics now.

it is a way i think about it. at this point i'm departing from what i know since we don't really understand the big bang money speculate and come up with a speculation that is completely 100% consistent with what we know but had no way to test it. here's my hypothesis. it was not an explosion taking place within the space it was an explosion of space prior to the big bang there was no space. there was no time. it was the creation of space and time. what happened before is like asking what happens if two points are closer than each other than zero. >> when you say big bang there had to be a space in time for that to occur to begin with.

it usually refers to between the first 1 trillionth of a second and actually out to the first three minutes. >> i think the effect of it proves that there was something before. if there wasn't something before it there would not had been a big bang. i'm kind of a speculation. it was not accepted by most experts. then it's like something followed the other as a result something has to result in that. some physicists are trying to see if they can make it work. it was not the creation of time and space or does a special moment in time and space.

it's not obviously right. this may be the first of your talks. how is time to find. as part of the problem. when i was in ninth grade i took a wonderful course in geometry in which they started by saying we have the concept called appoints in the line. they are undefined terms. we explain everything in terms of those. with undefined terms. in the theory of time you cannot define time it is the

most fundamental aspect of existence other than space. what could you to do find them in terms of. >> i'd started by talking about how mysterious time is. i have a theory if it turns right and people will say i understand time a little bit better than we did before. there was recent experiments in which they discovered gravitational waves by determining a distance between locations. is that also changed with the time relationships. or is there any way of determining that. with the gravity wave observatory all it did was it

have to mears here. they would not be vibrated by earthquakes and people walking by. back when i was first proposed in the 1970s. it's been a long time to get us to work. they are sticking with this. they stuck with it against my doubts. i said it publicly. i was wrong. you measure -- you measure the distance between them. in the distance changes. one in the u.s. and they saw the same pattern. when he sings are going around each other anytime you shake an electron ..

plus 29, and 64 times the mass of the sun. that was turned into gravity waste. turning mass into energy. fantastic. but as they were losing this energy, they came in and suddenly it's all gone just one

black hole so it goes like this and then it's gone. that's what they saw. what is the speed of gravity >> we believe it is the same as light. we do know that gravity arrives at different times and it is small enough it matches the fact it is one first and the other. according to all. they move that. >> following on his question i've been back to your comment that also relates to your view

of creating time, what do you mean by that? >> for example even though we can't define it, einstein made some definite predictions he predicted for example if you put a clock upstairs it will move faster and then you can compare so there are differences in time even though we couldn't define the meaning of time. so we are doing the same thing. i can't define time but i will tell you this. it will be mistaken so you don't take into account that wartime was created. more time was created. so an experiment in the 1970s or 80s by two scientists and what the they did this to an accurate clock and put it in an airplane and when they came down the time was off by just the

amount predicted. these days it is built into our cell phones. there are satellites in knowing positions and they send signals. if we didn't correct for the fact that it's so high and this one isn't quite so i we would be off by several miles. so we have the einstein equation built into our cell phones. we would have found them running at different rates. people would say what is this coming and a theorist would come up with general relativity. but this theory came first.

it was an observation, if the speed of light that inspired the original theory of relativity. there's a physical intuition that turn out to be right again and again. did you know einstein is responsible for inventing the laser? he used the einstein equation and it means light amplification of radiation and it was a term he made up when he said molecules should behave in this way. he did so many unbelievable things. >> is a psychological aspect or scientific? >> it's both.

i argue in this book that there are aspects to reality that we are all aware of and this gives us the ability to use our own free will to change the future. i think i've made a pretty good case for this in the buck. it is in that realm of the reality. so you've exist in the past. you know you do, remember where you were a year ago you exist in the past but it doesn't do any

good because you can't change it. now at this moment you can exercise your free will. you exercise real free will. so my claim is that now as a solid physics basis it is the new moment it is created when space is created mostly from the big bang but sometimes locally when you have two black holes but what makes it important it is the only moment in time you can exercise your free will. it's controlled by psychological memory. it is completely void of physi

physics. but it is very real. >> it is on the psychological reality and i think part of this came from the fact that i worked for several years being fascinated by the fact one of the amazing things you dig up an old bone and you can tell when that person died. that wasn't in my memory. we can export the past. but the fact is we do every day by reading books. so no, the past isn't completely in my head. there is a reality it's just an operative reality.

>> the philosophical conclusion, yes that is the philosophical conclusion. it's seen as a religious conclusion because -- it is not physics and 80 or 90% of the book is about physics. it fascinates me that and i'm really proud of it but i couldn't stop there. i have to thin had to think abos affects reality. and i make an argument that i give an example in the book when i was a kid, i was really bothered by the perception of

color. it might seem the same color as when you see color. and i asked my teacher and she said of course. when i got into junior high school he said of course. it's the single part of the brain. look what happens. that's it. they didn't understand what i was talking about. i have a chapter here called what does blue look like. when i see blue and you see blue are we seeing the same color. my teacher wasn't helpful and i told them the story and through most of our life, that story was

a quandary to me and still bothered me. half the people i talked to said that's really bugged me, too. i couldn't communicate to them what i meant by it but then i came across a wonderful article written by a fellow named jackson who was a philosopher and in 1982, an australian philosopher posed the question in a way i find particularly compelling. he created the story of a brilliant scientist raised indoors in a colorless environment with nothing to look at that wasn't black, gray or white. by the way, there's a great movement that my granddaughter

loves. but there is no colors. the. i can do anything i want. she has gone colorblind. jackson's imaginary scientist in the black and white and gray home he normally accepted that the absence of colors. she wonders what living in a world which color would be like and she finds the theory of the rainbow to be elegant and beautiful and th in the physicae but she ponders what would actually look like.

is it the same beauty? she becomes a master of physics and physiology and then the other you might want to draw and this is an imaginary story. they understand how the eye of some processing in different parts of the brain and she knows all about this, but she's never experienced it herself. then one day she opens up the door and walks outside into full-color world. what would actually be when she sees a rainbow? this is exact way that i expected from the science i studied. would she say that or i have no

idea? jackson asked what she learned anything or not and if she does learn something, what would it be? i tell the story to people and some say she would learn nothi nothing. each side thinks the other side is being very stubborn but to me this is another example i referred to is the kind of knowledge we have that is beyond the reach of physics which i think would always be beyond the reach of physics. it's incomplete but i'm not suppressed by that. >> did she learn anything when she's all the colored? sheeted, because the process

never happened in her brain before and when she went out and experienced the full spectrum of light, something happened that hadn't happened before. we could say the same word. >> yet he wouldn't be able to convince them. one more question. >> how does language, the fact we have most of the may be related to time and then the

comment i had that each of us is seeing the world differently in color and that's the one possible reason artists make art is to show what we see that we could never say by making it a picturapicture we are offering f showing how we see blue to someone else to see is blue. >> i agree enthusiastically with what you are saying. we can't explain everything to the language. >> hell does the fact i don't know what your process is as you contemplate time how much of that is in the language. >> anybody that has written a book knows we don't have the words to express what we are

trying to express. we use metaphors and figures of speech and art to convey those things that cannot be conveyed with words. the books we love are the ones that can convey through metaphor, not by adding just the right word. you learn when you write books rightward usually does not exist and excuse me for going back but he can only teach through parables. they would've told the stories and you were supposed to get it because you cannot describe in words what he was teaching so we teacthe teach in metaphor and at and music. one of my greatest mysteries is why d i love beethoven so much? i don't understand what it is he saying to me when i listen to it. let's put it this way it is outside of the verbal experience and expression.

i'm going to hang around for a while. [applause] [inaudible conversations]