>> funding for charlie rose was provided by the following.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our sdios in new york city, this is charlie rose. . >> rose: a university professor of art history and history at columbia university, a prolific writer, and keen observer of just about everything from a perfectly cooked egg to the politics of the moment. i'm pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: often some of the keenest observatioof us is from someone who is not always with us. >> well, you know, i feel moreith us, as it were than not that is truly the way i spend my time but it true to say pie passions are evenly divided. between the two but it does strike me with all my kind of american side of me,

operating, we're an extraordinarily dangerous and difficult and worrying moment. because ver possly since the civil war, ctainly not since the new deal have two utterly and unreconcileable philosophies or ideologies of governmen really been, you know, in the boxing ring with each other. one of which, the one that gets the most press and the one which gets the headlines, e republican side. and certainly the most eloquent airing in right wing talk radio, wants to do nothing short of liquidating american government. the answer to our economic woes. it is not even libertarianism t is a kind of an arcism, don't you think? >> rose: the leading candidate on the republican side now is obvioly governor perry. who said the one thing i hope to do is make washington as irrelevant as possible. >> yeah. i know. it's been happening, i suppose. i mean i think you know even ronald rgan couldn't have

dreamt that when he said government's not the answer, it's the problem, i mean he now looks like trotski mpared to the common republican field really, he raises taxes three times, expands government. he couldn't have dreamt of this moment, of a kd of utopian belief that if you actually liquidate government in every respect, except for defense, except for national security, then naturally somehow the hitherto rees press blossoming of the american economy will take care of itself. and you say to yourself, actually, is this a fabulous, in a sense of fan toss call version of the last 50 years of o history, and indeed of the catastrophe that began with credit default swaps, you know,ot actually steered-- engineered by the government. and how is it, actually, that those have been victimized by the calamity of 2008, into a notion that if we actually liquidate entirely restraints on the ccaneering econo, life is suddenly, magically going

to get better. what's been forgotten, don't you think, is, and there was an extraordinary column with dad brooks who i occasionally have disagreements, almost all the time. >> rose: occasionally have disagreements almost all the time. >> exactly. that the way it goes. he said this morning, he talked as if it wag a truism about the new deal dealing withhe depression as a myth. it certainly is correct to say that the war ultimately, actually, was the answer to very high unemployment. but yoknow, whether or not actually the new deal had no impact is to be argued. the point being, actually t whether which is right or wrong, but the united states had an astonishing period of sustained prosperity after the war, under all these crypto socialist constraints and regulations. we had social security. we had the glass-steagall act, we hadegulation through republican a

democratic administrations alike. it didn't seem to exact a choke holdn the natural entrepreneurial dynamism of american economic life. on the contrary. you know, it looks like the golden age of a mixed economy and, you know, tolerantlyngaged debate between two different sides. which is utterly collapsed at the present moment at a dangerous point. >> rose: and how do you think it got to this point where this narrative became so strong? >> well, i think reagan's eloquent-- el consequence about this which was at that point a kind of conservative nostalgia. >> rose: and likability. >> yes, all those thins are were extraordinary on his part. and the-- who will loom large in i think the long-term historical pan rama that would answer your question is lyndon johnson. lyndon johnson really ultimately was the kind of

ac mark e of sustaining the notion that government had a part to play, a benevolent part to play inamerican life. >> rose: and he called it the great society. >> indeed. in some ways kind of an unfortunate phrase. but he was civil rights act, voting act, medare, wherever you look, he really kind of was unem brarsed about redeeming the promise of the new deal. >> rose: based on franklin roosevelt. >> exactly so. >> rose: in more ways than one. >> but the destruction of lyndon johnson, the vietnam war left a murmur where it was matter of liberal con placeence and offense certainly in the center left that t case for gernment, the hamiltonian case for government did not need really to be argued. or if it did, it only was argued among and between the high minded. the matter of greater or lesser, tinkering with the social fabric, in the matter of health reform and so on.

and built into success, really, was to also, the certain sense of embarrassment about being part of the new deal legacy n respect of welfare, built into wanting to move, towards the center. so there was no moment as there was no a very eloquent to the-- horrid of conservative rhetoric about the evil of american government, demonizing american government, no one was prepared to say let's look at what alexander hamilton had to say in the report manufactured since '96, with government, strong government was not to be, you know, extruded from american life. no one as yet even the current president has yet to make a case that to feel that government can have a role in economic life withoutbsolutely straling it to death. that case has not been made. >> rose: and to your great disappointment in him. >> in presidt obama. >> rose: yes, of course. >> absolutely. >> rose: you said the current president. >> absolutely, yeah.

rdz they should have taken the fight to those -- >> you know i felt that for a long time. >> rose: and said it right here. >> yes, yes, i do. and i still do. the speech on jobs was a little feistier but the feistiness seems to be, really, reactive rather than proactive. and you know at the moment they are having discussions, i guess in the white house, about the strategy and the economic campaign, the truism which i wouldn't want to repud at. the american elections are from the center will be recited again. the nervousness. we don't want an angry black president really alienating independent voters. but it's the case that if you simply f they are simply going to let republicans whether mitt romney or rick perry, you know, disqualify themselves from the presidency with extremism without making the case for the restoraon of a kind of social contract in american life, ihink would be terrible-- people need t believe in something

something that obama stands for, other than simply occasional managerial skills >> rose: why do you thk he is the w he is about taking the case to the opponent? >> in his-- in the marrow of his bones, believes e pluribus unum part, he believes in that deeply. from the harvard law review onwards. >> rose: from many one. >> well, yeah, i don't know, he believes in what i am saying is conciliation, essentially. he believes in things get done, essentially, by having people step into each other's shoes. that's the way he succeeded, you know, with lar vard, in illinois politics it. he wod much prefer that to be the case that sounds like more constructive. but there comes a time, actually, wher that instinct of consensus

building has to yield to the raw instinct to prevail. to prevail. >> and do yobelieve that other forces in the society have failed, not just the president but media and no media in terms of being advocacy journalism, of course there's plenty of that. but media in terms of being able to say, you know, there is an absence of evidence in the discussion of government. >> yeah, no, that's right. yes, i think -- >> that's right. >> and not a point of view. >> and the words you use, evidence, is exactly right. because actually it's not a kind ofpawns lot ideology. it's really an issue of a set of assertions, mainly government was rponsible for the economical amity, the stimulus had no effect at all. take that, for example. bipartisan congressional office of the budget has said, very clearly, that the stimulus did have an impact.

without it the recession would have been a much more catastrophic event than it's acally been. that's evident. has the center, you know, of really argued its case with el consequence and passion in a way that is accessible to regular americans, no, over the last two years, an utterly pathetic job in communicating that iny view. >> rose: wherever it comes from or wherever you find it, whether it is media writers or pundits or politicians or businesspeople or the range. >> yeah, well, that would be too sweeping a judgement, actually. >> rose: really, okay. you think some have, like but just the president, because of the power of -- >> i think also the democratic party and congress. harry reid is too worried about actually losing what limited control he has in the senate, really, to make grand eloquent statements. but actually some-- i tell you what i think we should have. it's pie in the sky to wish for it. is not to wait for the

actual presidential election campaign, the general elecon campaign to have a debate between these two utterly contradictory philosophies but actually-- . >> rose: the president said exactly that in his jobs speech. he said we cannot wait until the election. we have to address this now. >> but actually want a debate. as in television debate. you ll be presiding betweedo we hate government or-- i mean it's not hate and love. it government actually a cancer on the buoyancy of american economic life or actually is it something since alexander hamilton that has been a part of american life. you know, we're tauk being theore roosevelt, not franklin roosevelt as well. we're talking about a continuous strand in the american dna that was not always crazy, hostile to the notion of not the heavy-handed of government but that government should actually have some sense of benevolent vigilance, really about.

theodore roosevelt was a trust buster because he saw the market was not capable of regulating itself. and it's impeccable reb can view. i would love to see an all-out political debate on television, mod vate-- moderated by you in t's say next spring. next summer. >> rose: i'll make the request right now. we'll do it at this table. >> good. >> rose: and we're about to find out who is as good articulating their poi of view as you are in articulating yours and we'll have have at it. and our question is as simple as what is the role of government in our soety. >> how much governme. nor, the great question i think from the federalist paper, from the profound division that madison and jefferson on one side and hamilton on the other add was not-- a wonderful thing. madison's more or less on the same side of jefferson. not quite as trench antley

utopian about the virtues of the american society. t more or less. the issue is how much government is acceptable in american life. actually how much government. and but it was a real debate and hamilton was prepared to say i do not want-- the reason the phrase general welfare is thereant and the preamble to the constitution and in article 1 paragraph 8 is because i do not want to tie, i do not want to prevent congress from actually addressing whatever economic and social issues may during posterity's time arrive. what congress should and have the right to address. and so it's a question, actually, of not a sort of prelaps arian utopian garden of eden view of the constitution at all. but seeing that absolutely embedded in american life is a continuing argument about when government ought to

assertitself into the otherwise kind of raw meat grinder nature of american economic -- >> do you brief that the president is close to a point where people are not listening to him. >> yes, i think he might be close to that point, actually. partly because you know the horse race naturof the nomination process on the other side is in a weird way kind of sexy and fun and not complicated by philosophical issues. and it happens, you know, it happened in george bush's presidency after katrina, of course. i remember going to oklahoma giving a talk. and there were a lot of military families. absolutely rock cb conservative republican families. and one gentleman came up to me and said i don't think there's anyone there in pennsylvania avenue. you know, it absolutely happened in jimmy carter's presidency. within the idea then in part was the president's too big for one man and all of that. >> yeah. >> and there is a danger of

that. and i ink it's-- i mean to be absolutely fair to the president, he has tried on a number of occasions simply to set out the story, the narrative very simple way. about what actually happened in 2008. i mean it's partly in order to exonerate himself and make it clear. >> he will have to do that again. will have to find a punchy way that will not have people yawning and turning to the x factor of saying actually it's not an issue of me sayg i'm not george bush. it's an issue, do you want under the egis of nominee perry, romney or-- to actually reinstate the economic way of life in respect of having no regulation that brought us into this shocking place. we have tried that. we tried it and it ended in catastrophe. is that what you really want? he will have to walk people through tha again. in a way that's dramatic, compelling, honest and clear. he haso do that.

he has to, you know, i rather think will, actually. but goodness, you know, i mean he's playing it very cool at the moment. with the exception of the jobs speech which was gratifyingly warm rather than cool. i thinkhat actually come campaign or at some point now he really has to -- he has to give a version of what the opposition, republican opposition really wants, ich is in effect actually to kill american government. the issue we know from reliable polling that a very large proportion of the american population is not averse to raising revenue. raising revenue on the top 2% of earners in america. about 60 to 70%. so as of today, i think, certainly yesterday, and john boehner was still saying we cannot pass the job bill if there is any

element of raising renue, raising taxes whatsoever. >> even though john boehner probably was for some kind of grand bargain at the beginning before he grahn to take it back to the caucus an find out that it won't sell. >> yeah, he's the second biggest woos negotiation this entire-- he's frightened of eric caor. give me a break, you know. >> rose: well, make your case for mr. cantor. >> wl, i think eric candor is simply, he is essentially sees himself as rioting to power on the coattails of the tea party, actually. and how much conviction and how much is opportunism, i suppose we'll find out. >> rose: i'm interested in where are because you have made me interestedin is by what you wrote. and this idea of fundamentalism, radical fundamentalism, the rab spring, and the idea of where tolerance is, in terms

as a part of ideology and philosophy. >> right. where you wanto srt. >> rose:herever you want to. >> well, what you have said, for example, that the idea of tolerance is an antidote to whathe taliban and al qaeda and other-- >> yeah, no i mean-- . >> rose: part of their makeup. >> this again part of our history that is completely the-- the issue is, it was the death which mi certainly not going to agree, but extraordinary actually in europe. people expect people like me on the center left to have some reservation approximates about the way in which osama binladen was disposed of and i have absolutely none whatsoever. none whatsoever. very shocking to them and irritating to me but the sense in which oom quitea is emendously defence.

every day there seems to be another successful decapitation, good. don'mind that at all. >> rose: youean by -- >> however they are doing it. they seem to be knocking off a lot of the al qaeda leadership. this sort of distintions-- distinction, really, between the possibility of a culture one which tolerates and actually encoures different people of different faiths or those with no faith wrb that we put in the first ame of our institute. >> indeed. and fundamentalists and is now irrelevant seems to me much to relaxed a view. because if al qaeda is indeed-- the taliban is most certainly not. when i lost checks, t taliban was a war against educated women, a w against most bitterly adamant religious fundamentalism. and there are different-- the other vi is the arab spring is possibly going to bring to power islamist governments but they'll be like turkey and they won't be like iran. >> rose: how do you know

that. >> no, i am's saying that the view out there. we actually don't know, but the notion is well, there are kind of really kind of phoning i mans but they are all in yemen or places or somalia but it's not the case at all, really. my sense is actually if we are going to stay in afghanistan for a bit even though we are going in a draw down moment, an even if we don't, there are certain things actuallyhat the united states can stand for other than simply a very expansive and rather sometimes constant view of what freedom is. >> rose: go ahead. >> well, do you know that kind of freedom when you see t u see in lia and in egypt. what we stand for is, indeed what basically talked about if in that lecture. what jefferson stood for and i made the case that he was the heir of john milton, namely that finns can never be a crime. ought never to be a crime. state should never prosecute anyone for a lack of belief

or for having the wrong belief. there should never be anything like church courts. at's absutely deeply anti-thetical to the american and more generally democratic liberal tradition. that's a flag we can run up the pole in afghanistan, actually. but also anywhere else. we feel engaged with cultures that really lock up people for having the wrong faith, repressive, professing the wrong faith or having the wrong opinion. and there is a very honorable line going essentially i think back to milton's -- >> you were saying something about different countries that i have been in the last year from china to turkey to all over the place. >> china is very good case. >> yeah but i'm just thinking about places where there is not this respect. >> no, that's right. >> for the idea of toleration. >> it's true. some element of that in one of the arguments against the government, the secular government of prime minister

i-- is perhaps they are not very 208 rant of their critings both from the academy as well as from the military. >> no, they've given right an eremely bad time, that's right. >> rose: that is the kind of thing are you talking about. not the ability to eage being circumscribed. >> no, that's absolutely exacy what mi talking about. >> rose: it's hard to imagine that there are people who areot prepare to reject e monopoly of wisdom. >> right. yes, you mean it's hard to imagine there aren't people. >> rose: yeah, exactly. >> well, i do that it's been a tough fight, actually to have that view established. tough and honorable fight, you know to say none should actually use the power of the state to coalesce people into their particular version. these two which is actually a live american issue is the war between revelation and reason. you know, it is disturbing.

i'm not suggesting that rick perry is turning into an ayatollah but who knows. he did start with a prayer meeting but de say the other day in respect to his own personal view, i don't need to have all the arguments because in due course they will be revealed to me. and the worry is, actually, we talked earlier about evidence, is whether or not assertions that derive essentially from revelation, revelations that you know, stifn principleses, you know, vaccinating against sexually transmitted diseases, must necessarily produce mental retardation, irrespective of the ct there is absutely not a shreof evidence about that, assertion revelation, conviction, sort of passionate conviction which cannot be argued rationally against, those are really two embattled fights. in the 18th century of which

the american commonwealth is the most glorious product, believed in rsoned argument and evidence. >> rose: there are those who look at the united states today and say the dysfunction at the centre of government is a thing that will more than anything contribute to america's decline. that in fact, because america cannot in its present washington circumstances with this president and that congress and perhaps that congress becoming even more so, it puts us in a kind of paralysis that willot enable to us address the most pssing issues of our time. and you were talking about values. valu dollars. you're not even talking about, you know, particular programs and investment in science as our previous guest ma. you know. >> do you believe that some how that if you take the case that you are guing having to do with government and having to do here with respect to tolerance, that

yocan prevail and that that will, in fact, is the answer and the hope to making government more functional and making it more able to address the pressing needs having to with both social welfare, the economy and our role in the world? >> theres no other choice. the choice is simply to roll over. and accept the fact of american life which would be a shatteringly fatallistic thing to do the disconnect between political noise and rationally demonstrable results in our economic life on the other hand, there is this extraordinary disconnect between actually what drives the kind of adrenaline engine of politics. that's what i said at th beginning. it was very dangerous, going into an election season that that dominates, again, when we're back really on the edge of a cliff. so both in respect of employment and respect to the kind of blowback effect

that the financial meltdown in europe might have. so the answer to your question is you better hope it will prevail. but it will only prevail if those of us who believe in actually arguing the case about a morate enlightened, intelligent, discriminating government can find a passionate way to mmunicate the indispensable role that it has in american life. it has to start withhe president. but it has toe-- there has to really be a community of passioned arguers on that side, on the side of the case that i'm trying to make. where doest come from? i don't know. but "the new york times" editorial page has been fantastic, actlly. today, but i mean often. i thought my god, you know, someone's given him a shot of testosterone. it's corre, right, as

fierce as you actually could want. sometimes it -- but somehow i think kind of translated into planting the flag for the kind of case i'm talking about. >> i will see you again soon. >> i hope so. that would be vy kindf you. >> rose: we'll have someone here as well. thank you very much, good to see you. >> it's a pleasure. lisa randal is here, a professor of physics at the harvard university. he's has done ground breaking work on the impact of extra dimentions. her current focus is on the implications of experiments taking place at the large head ron collider. she writes about this and more in knocking on heaven's door. how physics and scientific thinking illuminate the universe and the modern world. mi pleased to have lisa randall back at this table. welcome. why do physics appeal to you? >> that is an interesting question. i always liked math. i liked path because it seemed to be predicting and have answers. but the idea of just doing

abstract math wasn't as interesting. the idea that you can explain to the university that you can actually test some of the ideas that you have, of course mathematical they areup can be true whether or not it's realized in the world. but the idea of using formulas, using math to actually explain and predict and be rational about what is going on in the universe and the fact that youcan explain and predict things, it's a wonderful thing. and so it's really nice to put puzzles together, just to have disparrate elements that you realize ultimately are connected and to be able to see how things work. >> rose: knock on heaven's door, why did you choose that as the tight snell. >> well as anyone who read may 1st book knows i sort of have lyrics that go ound in my head. >> rose: and bob dylan's lyric. >> the first book, song lyrics, just beginning eac chapter this one has a song as the title. and it really was because i wanted to express the idea in sort of aye fun way, of what science does. that you have some base of knowledge that you know. but what science is doing is exploring the edges.

it's exploring the things you don' yet know. so you are trying to go beyond that comfort zone to go someplace else. and of course the lyric of the song were not rerring to that but i like the idea that you are sort of, you are trying to get to something just bigger than yourself. you're trying to get to something out there you that you believe is there and how do you cross that boundary that threshold to get to some bigger knowledge. >> feel like i'm a tiny boat in a huge ocean to use another song. and secondly that iam swimming in the deep water. so i want you walme througit in a way that i think mabe more closer than where i am or where they are. >> physics itself. we all are away of where molecular biology has gone it has shown the structure of the dna, that we have mapped the human genome. we have done all these thins that have to do with biology. have we made the same kind of strid and are we asking ba questions in the world of physics. >> it's funny because in some ways i would say that

we're in the reverse situation. it's true that we've mapped dna. but we still have a lot to learn about what that means for animals, for people. what are the implications. >> rose: they say the me thing, the urney is just begun. >> in physics we've actually, we at least know what the rules are down to a certain extent and what's really wonderful about this, a point that i think is really important s that it sort of systematic, the regime where we understand thing and where we need too beyond it. so we have this core of knowledge that works. and it could turn out that when you explore shorter distances, higher energies, you get to domains that you haven't yet explored. that you find out that fundamentally the rules are very different. but we still have this base of knowledge that works, that makes predictions. i think that we've never reached a point where we have all the answers. i mean it would be extraordinary for we to be the people that over the course of history just happened to live in the time where we got the theory that

works. but i think the other important point is that even if you have a theory of everything in the sense of you have some fundamental equations that describe some fundamental objects, how to get from there to the kind of pa we see in the universe is not a simple problem. to solve those occasion-- he cases to the-- what you find is that you can't even do it fundamentally in terms of the fundamental-- a lot of the times you need to go into new categories, sort of the way with in the analogy that we had before w throwing a ball versus quantum mechanics. one case are you looking at the ball as t fundamental on sect-- object. in the other case the atomic structure. if you try to predict a ball using the atomic structure would take you a very long ti so it is much more convenient to use the ball. even if you have the theory of everything that has the most fundamental structure, how that unit is into all the phenomenon in the world uld be very difficult. >> rose: two physics questions. take this glass. it has weight.

do we really understand weight? >> well, we understand sort of functionally what that uld mean. we understand what that means in terms of the gravitational force of the earth which is reall what we are referring to here. but then again, you could go deeper and you can say do we know where that mass comes from. >> rose: right. >> do we kw what gravity is, fundamentally. and the question of where that mass comes from, actually, the mass that is actually being attracted by gravity actually has to do with strong force and strong interaction, something in the standard of particle physics but to understand where the mass of those elementary particles come approximates from, that is what we are turning to the large hedron collider for among other things. >> rose: tell us about the large collider and what we are learning so far about it. >> well, it is this enormous underground ring, 27 kilometers circumference. >> rose: on the france and switzerland border. >> what happens is there are two beams of pro tons. and the protons are accelerated to extraordinarily high energy.

seven times the energy of the machines we are about to-- in illinois. the ghest energy we've ever achieved at a collider. and the idea is to have the elements of those protons collide. and when they do, tu into energy the e equals m.c. squared which tells us that itan turn into energy. >> rose: einstein's famous formula. >> and then that energy can, in turn, become other particles we haven't seen before. now that in itself is interesting. but what we are really trying to find out is what is the fundamental structure there. are there news fors r there new ingredients. could we find this new particle that's associated with us undstanding how partics aquire their mass. i mean we know that particles don't just have mass from the get-go. ere has to be this new mechanism, thi ingredient known as the hick mechanism named after the physicist peter hicks. and it has to do with some sense with the fact that there is essentially a

charge throughout space but not ode charge. sort of a charge associated with a different force. and when that happens, particles by interacting with that essentially acquire mass. but we know that's the way it should work. but is it really the way it works? and so if it's really the way that it works, there should be evidence, there should be experimental evidence, there should be a partic. that particle is the particle knowns a the hicks boson which has been in the news, people are look forward it. >> rose: beginning to raise questions about it. >> well, you know, they haven't found it yet. >> rose: right. >> if you actually had asked people before they started doing this experiment what is the most likely mass, according to what they would have said, we shodn't have found yet. so yes, we haven't found it yet but it no clear. what is interesting is that i think everyone in the back of their minds saiwell, i think it should be this mass. but i could be wrong. and there's a range of possibilities. what the experiments have done at this point is they have shrunk the possibility for what the mass of at

paicle can be. so i hasn't ruled it out in any sense. but has narrowed the possibility of where we could find itor what it could be. is it's a very important question right now >> we understand things like the black hole more f this does its work. >> well, so people love to talk about gravity. >> right. >> but here's the thing. gravity is far weaker than the other fundamental forces. if i just have elementry particles, say two pro tons, i would say the force of gravity is many, many orsd of magnitude smaller. which means that if i had particles of physics experiments, i can usually ignore gravity all together and i won't learn anything about it. the only possibility for learn approximating about gravity is if gravity is somehow different than we conventionally expect. and one possibility which we have talked about before is if there are extra dimentions of space. if there are extra dimensions of space and the extra dimentions are related to explaining phenomenon in particle

physics, there is a chance we can learn about it at the large hedron collider but we would need that extra ingredient. >> beyond hicks and his theory, if this turns t to be ten times more successful and providing ten times more information or confirmation, what would it tell us? in other words, if you dream big, wha the results might come out of all in. >> that's a great question. so we're lookingor -- >> probably the first one. >> no, it's all been great. okay. but we've been looking at, we are talking about the hicks boson, that is exciting because they are looking for right now, they already have enough energy to look for it. they will have enough event its to look for it but that's not the only thing the large hedron collider is designed to look for. there are really two big questions that it really should answer. and there are other ings that it might do in the process. one is this question of how particles acquire their

mass. but another question has to do with why masses are what they are. why are they enormously bigger. why is gravity aseak as it is, an in that sense we'll be addressing gravity. why are particles light so gravity appears to be weak, this weak force. and in answering that question, there is a possibility that we can open up new doors. that o of the possibilities of explaining it has to do with a theory known as supersymmetry, which is an exotic they where there would be many more particles, that quantum mechanics tells you is different. but one of the interesting things about it is it is be actuallyn extension of the symmetries of space an time. so we can actually see the theory potentially that is an extension that tells us quantum particles we thought were different are actually related. another possibility, for explaining why masses are what they are, is thisxtra dimensionaidea. and if that's true, could learn something phenomenal about the nature of space. we can learn there is an

exa dimension of space. another thing people think they might find out pockly is something about dark matter it could be that dark matter has the right math to be produced at the large hedron collider. and certainly if it turns out that there are extra dimensions and gravity gets strong, we could even learn about black holes. i mean it really is blue sky. and we don't know how much more energy we need to get to that point. that's the interesting question. >> in knocking on heaven's door is also certain items about the role of science. the power of science. >> yeah. >> rose: what science can do it for us. what dow want us to understand about the field of science? >> well, more than what science can do for us, is more what scientic thinking can do for us. >> rose: as a matter of reasoning. >> as a matter of reasoning. i think you know one of the things that i realized when i was talking about more

passages was there are some ndamental scientific conceptshat even people really interested in science don't know. and it is helpful to have those in mind when i talk to my friends, i realize its useful to havehese ways of organizing information to understand this role of scale to understand what uncertainty means. >> this about process >> it's about process b the ingredients that go into making a logical, rational decision. it's about understanding that every fact you have comes with uncertainty. and that uncertainty isn't a bad thing. it's part of the statement of the information. it's actually you understand something only if you understand the uncertainty in what you are saying. and if you listen to debates that go on today, you realize that would be an ingredly important thing for people to understand because there is sort of a shame of uncertainty but that part of knowledge. and i think it would be part of going towards a more rational discussion of scientific facts but just facts in general.

>> some science i know and philosophers i know are worried that in this cntry, the least, they're worried that somehow we have forgotten that. we have forgotten what science delivers for us, which is fact. that certain things, are overwhelmed by the absence of respect for the scientific inquiry. >> well,. >> rose: and that's the beginning of a decline in the civilization. >> that's a grand statement. and it pite even be true. but i guess that part of me that wants to believe that people haveaccess to the formation at they have access to understanding the method, that they will think in a meational way that it won't be the decline of civilization. and part of what i wanted to do was get across some of these ingredients. how do we think about risk. i mean we've seen nonsensical statements about risk, we've seen interesting statements about risk. but certainly we tend to be irrational when we talk about risk.

and what is going into that. >> re: you travel around the world a lot. dow find there is more of an emphasis on science and more of an appreciation of science in places, take the easy example, china. >> so i actually was in china this summer. it is interesting because it's traditional. i mean of course there is a way in which they are investing but i ink they are still investing in sort of the big man, in some sense. the big person. they haven't yet invested very heavily in experiments, for example. they are starting to do that. and it will be very interesting to see which way they go. >> rose: they have made a commitment to have two of the great universities in the world by 2050. >> rig. and there certainly is a way in which they know the experience of this and they want to build up. but i don't think it's simple. but they certainly are going in that direction. and they certainly do recognize it. and certainly the things they are saying t goingo be very interesting to see how it plays out. but i do think that even in the old world, in europe,

they still see. i was just visiting cern a couple of weeks ago, and i had thopportunity to talk to the director, the science director. and it was so reassuring that you know because they have to shut down and then turn on as a new machine, essentially, or as the real machine. they're going to double the energy and it's a big deal. and you know i was concerned. there is all this upheaval in europe. will this affect it? no, it will happen. and there's something very ce about being able to know that the european community has invested in 24 and they intend to follow through. >> how much of scientific inquiry simply trial and error? >> well. >> the idea of how do correct scientific ideas ultimately prevail? >> well, how correct ideas prevail is actually interesting. because of course any time are you working on a theory you don't know if it's right in the beginning. and again it's a really

interesting-- this is something that again gets misrepresented about science a lot because we thin of science as you know it's all established. and of course eventually thingsre establish. >> basic laws are established. >> basic laws are established and they get established over time and they get tested and finly you get the regimes where new things might happen. but in the beginning, i mean right now what the large hedron collider ll do is it will tell us which theories are right. and it will tell us which theories are wrong. i mean everyone has ideas about wha we might see ere. but weon't-- there not all compible. and that's fine. it's okay for us to be working on a large number of ideas because the experiments are difficult and they need to know what to look for. but was's wonderful about having the data is it will tells who is wasting their time and who should move on. >> what is the smallest phenomenon in the universe? >> what is the smallest -- >> phenomenon in the universe, the smallest, you know, what is the largest? >> well, there's the observable universities.

>> right. >> and we don't know if that's the largest. it's just that we know the universe that we can observe has been around pore 13.7 billion years and it crosses about 100 billion light-years because it expanded over that time. so tre is the size of the universe. but that's not even necessary the biggest size then in term of the smallest size, we,here is a smaller size that we can experimentally go for and then there is the smallest size that we think might exist. and the smallest sides we are e moring is actually at the large hedron collider. high energy lets us look at short distance and that's why going to -- >> can we define those short distances. >> absolutely. the way we do it essentially is if you imagine you have a certain amount of energy t can create a wave with that energy. and higher energy is shorter wavelength. so basically to be able to probe short distances you need something that has structure on that scale. so you need high energy so

you need this high energy wave and that lets us go the short distance. and that's why we go to these high energy because it ra laws to us look at the short distance structure that doesn't mean that nothing can exist beyond them. there is a difference between what we request think about, what theories tell us or what theories suggest or might be possible and what we can actually observe. >> what does all that you know and all that you have learned tell me, how does in inform your instinct as to what is out there that might blow our mind? >> i'm going to take the-- the fifth on this one. >> rose: why are you taking the fifth. >> i don't know the awer but actually the most interesting things often were the things none of us thought about in advance. i think quantum mechanics is mind blowing toveryone at some level. the idea that-- . >> rose: why, because -- >> it's such a fundamental notion that i should be able to say something is herend i can tell you exactly where

it is going to be. the idea that fundamentally there should be probability, i think is a ver big deal ani think it is always deeply disturbing it. it's not that it is wrong but i think everyone who learns about it is a maced and no one would have thought of i unless the data told us that's the only way things work. and i think in general, even the theory that we came up with about warp geometry, in some sense we found out that in principles you could have an infit-- infinite extra dimension of sense. we didn't set out to say that, it just came out of what we were looking at for entirely independent reasons. so sometimes i just think that the most interesting things, i mean sometimes the fact of science is more interesting then science fiction. >> the argument to be made that the most powerful force in the world is in fact science and not religion. >> oh, that's-- it depends

over what time or for whom and in wha sense. i mean again it's a really interesting question. because if you ask how, what has affect our daily lives more, i would say for most of us, in some sense it's science. i mean just everything we do. everything. >> the technology which is part of it. >> exactly. and everytng, every aspect of our lives, i mean technology-- you know, we're not living life beyond. our lives are very different. >> right. >> and our medicine and our health and everything else. i mean obviously scnce has contributed to longer life spans, et cetera. >> but on the other nd it is true that relinl ons have lasted ove thousands of year >> with considerable force. >> with considerle force and certainly at a social level ey are certainly an ganitional force and so it's a different kind of influence. and i think one of the frustrations of science is that it doesn't necessarily have that immediate emotional gratification that people tryo get out of

religion. yet it is so important to our lives and it really is the way forward in many ways. >> most is a kind of religion, with religious aspect to it do most scientists you know and you know the smartest scientists in the world. do most of them believe that there is no life after death? >> most of the ones that i know do. but there actually are will i believe-- religious scientists out there. and truly religious scientists which i always find very confusing. but th exist. >> swhat should we take away, after reading this book. >> i mean in my ideal world, people go away maybe thinking a little bit differently. >> about. >> just, about where they have been. >> about the world they live in. about how to make decisions, about what atements mean if you read a statement. what, how did they get to that point, where do they come from. what is the evidence for that. how well do we know that. what can i deduce from that. just to be able to think a little bit more like a scientist about all this. >> that is even more important to you than understanding particular

scientific questions and aners, it seemso me, it's part what you were making this book, athe heart of this book is that very observation you just made. understanding the scientific process to appreciat you know, the role of science. >> i think that's richlt i think -- >> or respect for the role of science. >> and i pretty much say that there are some -- in there in some sense. i mean one understanding this. but i think part of that understanding particular type of skeins and of course i'm going to talk about the science i do which i think is exciting and important. sohat is important. but i agree. what i really wanted to do in writing this book was also get across some of those ideas interweaving some of the things that really go into, how do we come up with a model. how do we come up with this idea. what are the guiding forces. >> right. >> what is the role of creativity. just how are we thinking? >>f i could have the-- your colleagues in your department come here and sit around the table and say okay, men and women, boys

and girls, tell me what is the most important you guys are asking tay wa, would be the top five questions. >> i think there would certainly be questions about quantum gravity, aside from the question we talked about. how to combine together quantum mechanics and gravity. and again it's really important to realize tha this is a estion that will have implications at energies very fferent than any we can actually observe so in some sense it's most likely, its some sense a that he receipt call estion. but that's definitely one. i think the question of understaing the questions of math and how math is acquired, is certainly there and we have a chance at answering it whi makes it really exciting. the question of what is the missing stuff in the universe. i mean in terms of what's out there. >> missing stuff. >> is what i want to know. >> what is the missing stuff. what might be missing stuff be wou be pie question. >> so, we know that in the energy and the universe we

know that only 4% is stuff that we're familiar w the tough that you and i were made of, the stuff that we see is made of. but there's this other 96% that is called dark stuff. either dark energy or dark matter which are two different things. so i don't know if that counts as two different things that we are looking for. >> we talked about that in one of our previous interviews, dark matter. >>hat's right. and dark matertificate also very exciting now in the sense that there really are experiments being set up to really probe some of the interesting regimes and maybe find it and also some interesting theoretical ideas but understanding what dark matter is something we have a chance of doing both theotically and experimentally. dark energy is a much more serious thing. it's just out there. it is a good fractn of the energy, 70% of the energy but we don't know what it is. so i would say that's another very big question. >> rose: and which one interests you the most. >> which one-- well, right now because there are experiments happening, i'm excited about these questions about mass and

about dark matter becaus there are experiments handing and we have a chance of learning. >> rose: how many dimensions are out there and things like that come out of which of those questions. >> i think i have a so we can say what the nature of space and tape out there in terms of not just how many dimension there are but this could be a theoretical question but what is out there beyond our horizeon r there extra universitieses, other places. and so i think also understanding extra dimensions, sweeping all of these into the nature of space and time. i think another question that i will add one more,. >> rose: we can get to ten. >> another question related to the quantum gravity question which is sort of what is fundamentally the nature of space and time which again is something well beyond anything we can do experimentally but certainly theoret chro-- toretically interesting question. >> rose: and the one that interests you the most? >> that's a good question. i think it's a really, really question. i think it is very difficult to attack.

i tend to look working on things that i think i have some chance of making progress. so we might get to that. it is a question in the back of everyone's mind t i think right now the questions are more about how particles acquire mass, why do they have the masses they do. are there extra dimensions. >> rose: this is what steven said about this pec would. many-- there one explains the general scientific endeavor in history, one that is exploring the earlst, largest, and most porful phenonon in the universities, the question i asked. and that may answer the deepest question about the nature of physical reality. the-- her own dazzling ideas are illuminating and her defense of reasoning science say welcome contribution to the world of ideas. read this book to understand the science of tomorrow. and larry sorms, former president of harvard, now back teaching at harvard, lisa randall is the rarest rarity, theoretical fisic geniuses without can write

and talk to the rest of us in both ways we can understand and enjoy. the book takes nonspecialists as close as they will ever get to the inner working of the cos moss. thank you. >> thank you >> funding for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company, supporting this program since 2002.

>> and american express. additional funding provided by these funders. and by bloomberg, a provide provider-of-multimedia news and information services worldwide.

>> from the editors of cooks illustrated magazine, it's america's test kitchen with your host christopher kimball, featuring test kitchen chefs julia collin-davison, bridget lancaster, becky hays, with adam ried in the equipment corner and jack bishop in the tasting lab. discover the secrets of america's foremost food testers