because so many different action guidelines which are not necessary scientific, including like ukraine waiting for the end of the world. so these are called psychosocial epidemics. so, the facebook and twitter, all this social media had its own beneficial, i mean potential benefits. but at the same time it can be looked as accelerating media for this psychosocial methods. >> great. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you very much. >> now on booktv, lisa randall looks at the contributions that physics and scientific thinking have made your understanding of the universe. this is a little over an hour.
>> good evening. we will get started. if you're just coming in there some seats appear to my left. irsty or you can stand up to the corners or find an open seathorg oward the back. welcome to politics and prose. thank you all for being here. i want to start just by h welcoming you and saying thankso being here, on behalf of our new owners, bradley graham, anda thed staff here, just a staff h collective things are supporting ents here tonight, beingings wee here for lisa randall enter second book, "knocking on heaven's door." ained for. we are excited to have her here to talk about this book. if you're new here, welcome and i would quickly go over the format of what's going to happen. lisa is going to present her boat virtual talk about her book using visual as well.
but we are going to do is leave the light of because we are recording. if you want to connect it to the corners, you have a pretty good view of it. will i be little time for q&a from u.s. courts. we look forward to your input because we recorded as i said, we are going to take questions from the audience think vote in the middle aisle. if you can get to that, that would be a of a multi-questions remain. afterwards while the book signing. lisa will find both her books, trained for available in the front of the door. it's always a good idea to silence cell phones, too. and that's how wilco. so again, above all, just like to say thanks this is a nice turnout and a great crowd, so welcome to politics & prose than welcome to lisa randall. as i said, her new book is walking on heavens door, how science and the modern world.
lisa is a professor of theoretical physics at harvard university and the team expert on critical physics, cosmology. she is one of the most highly cited and influential theoretical physicist. she has appeared in discoverer, the economist, "newsweek," scientific america, among many other publications. she has been a fun time at magazines 100 most influential people. as i said, "knocking on heaven's door" is her second book. her first book, warped passages is about the universe is hidden dimensions. "knocking on heaven's door" is that scientific research today, specifically at the large collator and the author's own investigative particles into strength. and cosmology into modern physics from the core knowledge, the smallest objects to the outer boundaries and outer threshold young understanding. this is her book to present and
we are happy that she's here to do that. thanks to you for being here. please welcome to politics & prose, lisa randall. [applause] >> welcome. >> thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be here. so first of all, a watchmaker that i don't necessarily think this book is just a book. it's a book about the nature of science. the hydro collator is an example of the kind of science they want to talk about, but what i'm trained to do is explain a little more what are the elements of thinking that go into science. that's not to say i don't spend time talking about the hydrocodone later and dark under searches for example. but there's a lot of more general element. it's funny because i haven't been to politics & prose before
an economy going to give a political top class and i do speak, so i had that part covered. but really i do think even not send, i think it's really important for people quite generally to start thinking a little more scientifically and understand what it means in terms of what the rule is to take place in terms of what it means to be right and wrong come in terms of the rule creates unity plays in what we do come in terms of a lot of things we don't often associate the science. we often think of it is something we something and you get the answer. there's a lot more going on and when science is happening, there's a lot more back-and-forth going on an understanding rule is really important are the aspects of what i'm going to talk about. not because it's only a short talk we don't have time to get the entire book, i actually have two different talks i've been giving her that i'm going to be kidding. when it's about to march high
point writer and once about the concepts really important physics and that is the concept of scale. and so i'm going to begin to talk by talking about scaling and we'll see some of the exciting physics on the way. keep in mind what they want to get across is by thinking in terms of scale is important not just for physics, but all science and really more generally. so with that, i will actually begin the actual top. again, thank you for having me here. so the title is "knocking on heaven's door." i think my friends pulled nine out of 10 low like the title. really what i want to get across in the title is what we're doing. i wanted to convey the fact that we have this very established base of knowledge, but were trying to go beyond in trying to prove this edges. so we're trying to get beyond the nuts of science is doing. so is trying to get a little beyond. so what i say how physics and
scientific thing that it's really both physics is relevant for understanding nature of writing for, that scientific taking has a much better application and for deeper understanding. so i'm just going to begin with a quote from a song, suzanne vega. what's so small to you is so large to me. less than regular on the pc. i guess the gourmet top. the part of what i'm talking about is why there are very small objects that are against it in the kind of physics a few. i'm a particle physicist primarily. when objects are relevant to understanding nature of growth but also by focusing on small issues can sometimes eliminate your things and how as to your i'm going to start with a nice photograph someone gave me.
it's a photograph from paris as you might've guessed. and you can tell because it has a lot of iconic paris features that has the eiffel tower in the background. it has a kiosk advertising performance. and it has cars on this tree, which is very typical. so it's kind of your typical. c. so what do i want to get across here? the thing i want to get across is what you see depends on how you look at, what resolution you have, what skill you choose to focus on. so if you think about the eiffel tower, you can look at it from very far away in which case if you just how they map you'd hardly notice it was there. i would not be a way to know about the eiffel tower. you would know its existence in the same way that many aspects of ethics we don't do without
until we really zoom into that scale. and of course, i could look very close and then i went seen nothing that conveys sort of beauty intelligence and the greater the ironwork to be a lot to study the detailed structure. but if you want to study the eiffel tower there's an appropriate scale for that. i don't necessarily want to take into account all the little details. of course i could zoom in even closer into the iron and look at atoms and molecules, but that's not relevant. and thinking on a particular scale. but what i really wanted you to see in that site, which is a much more is if you zoom in, you would see my name on it. [laughter] so when i'm going to spend the time it is getting to you to the point of understanding how my name ended up in paris. it's actually a bit delayed, but if you look great here, that's my name right there. last night okay.
so welcome back to bed at the end of the talk. for now, let's just think about deal because i think it's an important concept. one of the reasons i want to focus on this is when i talked about were passages, a lot of people who are extremely interested are kind of the misconceptions sometimes about how to does relate to the kinds of things we see, the exotic ideas of extra dimension. but how can there be a continuous transition from these very exotic ideas that apply a very tiny scale in our intuition is of course guided by what we see an human scales. we think about the types, a lot of people think it's almost magical or not though because it's not what they see in their daily lives. anyone who is seen and not the coalition knows that you can't always trust your eyes.
in fact, we can trust are things you can measure and record and make measurements and it consistently get the same answer. it may not be with intuitive in the sense that it isn't what you see every day would be wiped on the street but that doesn't mean it's not there. it just means it's not obvious to us as human beings. that report to get across with the physicists in the world, whether or not we as human beings hit and our challenge is to get that information out, to be able to interpret things as technology advances to understand what's going on. so what i'm saying in this light is our vision is relatively narrow. and of course if you go to scale that are smaller than a few hundred nanometers were talking about come if you go to scales holler, you will be able to literally see something. you're visible light is not going to have the sensitivity to see things. so that means when we see things that particle class, it's, it's not the way they traditionally
do. it has to be something we considered more direct measurement. the history of measurement going from direct to indirect is really interesting, even at the time of galileo in the hunt for telescope and microscope. it's the first time people were using lenses as an intermediate device. even the precision measurements were not using intermediate devices. since then we've had more and more distance in some sense from what we see, but there's nonetheless a very rigid connection between that these devices are measuring in what we see. in fact the physical universe evolves in enormous range of sales for critics in the milliliter to kilometer to rapper heads around. many different fields and many interesting things happening on them. before i go on, i want to take a brief tour so we can set the landscape. of course we can start to very large scale. in principle, scales can be at large.
we have no idea how big it is that we consider the size of the known universe, the visible universe, the universe that we can see given the speed of light and given the length of time the universe has existed. and that's at the top about 10 to 27 meters. when you talk about the universe come you have to be careful as there's two ways things can be smaller. one is looking back into the earlier universe and you have them outside the universe went when radiation is emitted when it was smaller, but of course we have objects in this kind of the subjects are various sites. the contact about galaxies, solar system, earth orbit, many different sizes and spending a huge range of scales. one thing interesting about all the scales is this really the same watch of physics apply never the sales. we're not trying to adjust the physics as we go to different scales. if we go to high density we may need to use general relativity.
basically we use the laws of gravity, laws that were all familiar with. it's different in principle if you look at smaller scales because we think of going out there, but you can also go inside. of course a lot of that is much, much harder to actually visualize. it's much harder to visualize small scales and that's a challenge to me as a writer to convey what's going on on the small scales because it isn't as intuitive as a unique ways to think about it. what's also interesting is you can see -- you fail you to scale, but then you get to scales for a time of physics or quantum physics might be a better description. so you've really changed the nature of the way you're going to describe things using classical physics to quantum physics. when they got to get across is what that means. does that mean one is right in what is wrong? was going on there? one skill i want to focus on here is the scale for large
hytrin collator measurements. if you're wondering what that is, there's a big ring underneath the ground. we'll come back to that later, but that pictures are presented and then it kind of the frontier scale in terms of what we can actually look out his experiments. that is the frontier energy scale for experiments and 9010th to 19 centimeters and that is far smaller to anything we can imagine seeing. nonetheless were about to learn about those distant scales from high-energy experiments performed there. in this chart, i also talk about some other scales. the series is smaller than the scales to large high jumped collator can scale. many smaller scales even think about. those are not explored in a time in the near future as far as we know. nonetheless there can interesting physics happening there. it's probably even a limit to this here we can talk about to
the distant scales we can talk about and i'll come back to that later. there's this enormous range even below probing this incredibly small scale, 10 minus 19 meters. but that's not even near the end of scales and might have principle explored. some unquestionably want to keep in mind is, how can we talk about things with all these unknowns? how can we enjoy physics with all this stuff not yet known? so there's things straight in there one is that that's a lot of information. we're covering 62 magnitudes of scale. how can we keep track of everything going on? that's a lot of information. furthermore we saw different physical description center. besought classical mechanics for some scales and quantum mechanics at other scales. if we kept going going down the scale we might each have something called quantum gravity which could provide gravity in a way that would work over the
entire range of scales. so what's going on? what we mean by this? we want a theoretical tool for organizing information and that's what we associate says do. we have a tool known as an effective theory. so i want to get across to you what i mean benefit of theory. so the solution sounds kind of obvious is dense. there's all this stuff out there, but let's just keep track of what we need to keep track of your thoughts keep track of the effect that quantity is relevant to observations. if i can't measure something, maybe i don't have to use that in my description. maybe i can absorb it, bundle it up into the quantities that i can measure and that turns it into a trap bull problem we don't get caught with the necessary details. so i think this is kind of a generally obvious concept to use all the time without realizing
it. if you want to find politics & prose starting from sufficiently far away, you might want to find washington d.c. you might have a map of politics & prose isn't showing up on the left. so that's a very different scale you look at. and when you click on the right-hand side when you want to know what to do on military road. so what you want to do is focus and peered in some cases you keep track of each individual street. but in my description you're not keeping track. you're just keeping track of the larger mark global structure. and that's how we can do it. if we try to find a way across the country is in the street now, that would be kind of a part to go. nonetheless we all know we can get there using a map on the love. when we need to, zoning in on the map of the. and i think i'm sure many of you come from different backgrounds. it's a very general way of thinking. you identify the scale for the
problem at hand. if you're doing literature, you might be very close reading refocus on individual words what's going on or you might focus on the big picture at the big story. in biology, we are now seeing the own people to molecular biology, but then you integrate the information into some sort of larger picture picture. you might have some sort of system and every kind of mode of thought you might focus in on these individual elements or you might try to put it together in this big picture. and it wouldn't hurt to think about what's going on in the world today. so let's just take a physics example, a simple physics example. suppose i threw a ball and went to figure out where the ball ends. i'm not going to think of the ball in terms of its atomic structure. absolutely not going to worry about the court and electrons inside you going to think of it as a ball and now works. and that worked fine and that's the way physics works. you're doing it without even
knowing it. i mean, he just figured out what would happen if he threw a ball of the measurements made at the time would never be able to distinguish the fact that he was a ball from the fact there's atomic structure. it's completely irrelevant. even now when we know about the underlying structure, we don't use it when they calculate the trajectory. the form of anonymous, we as quantum mechanics. but were not going to use trajectory of the ball. it just doesn't make a difference. so in some sense, though theories are correct. you can see the quantum mechanics is the more fundamental theory that is really what's going on. in fact in principle, classical physics is an approximation of quantum physics, but in some sense it's entirely correct for the uses that she would want. you can send them into the using classical physics. so it works. if so country if you don't
measure anything to tell you the difference, you want me to use it. at the history of physics is making progress. so what happens is you come to a point where it breaks down, where you do need to do something different and that's how you advance. what happens when you do that as fuel. get absorbed into the new theory. it's not necessarily wrong, but it won't apply over the entire regime of parameters you can think about. and that's really how it works. mms, what is important is stating moneymaker measurement, what is the accuracy with which i think that measurement and over whether she doesn't apply? because it's a little uncertainty that leftover where there's room for something new. if you don't have the measuring tools, if you're not looking at scales you might not care, but at some point o. get there and find out the new going on and that's the way physics progresses. i want you to think of physics today in that context. so this is what i just said,
that distant in this case, just as careless essential as an organizing tool. it way we can make calculations. again you would never want to calculate reva ball based on atomic physics. you'd never get it. you'd never get the answer. so as i said, the effective theory idea is really the key to progress and that's always what we have in the back of her mind. actually everyone is using effective theories all the time, just as is his given name. and because for physicists it's really a systematic thing. i can say exactly what uncertainty is, what that allows on a finite number of parameters to make predictions within the effective theory and we can also tell when it's going to break down. so it's a very systematic way of doing what we all do intuitively. and as i said, sometimes the theory on a smaller scale is known in which case he might be what to do right within your
effective theory for more fundamental physics and sometimes not and you can just work in terms of those quantities themselves. you always want to keep the old ideas as long as they are correct. and things can turn out to be wrong, but if you have a disestablish over time that is made in a successful predictions, they are right and it ends. and then you can advance and you find something new, when they cease to apply, in this case is more distance scale. so we said atoms inside the ball, but within the animus is also an excuse to make sure every knows what is inside an atom, you find smaller structure. when you probe inside an atom, you find despite its name is hope is not fundamental. of course we know it's neither nuclei with electrons going around it and those nuclei are not fundamental theater. they are protons and neutrons and protons and neutrons are not fundamental.
they are objects called courts, which are inside the proton and neutron. in the courts are held together 34th known as a strong force and that's what we have to antiproton renew tran. i just want to point out when i wrote my first up i realized i didn't actually read many of these kinds of books. at that i should glance through and see what people do. so i looked at one book by george pmo and it was written in 1947. there's a fantastic quote and i'll let you think about it and see what a fantastic. it's about a large number of individual items of classical physics, were left with three different entities, protons, electrons and neutrons. the things we have actually hit the bottom and a search for the basic elements of which matter is formed. so i hope some of you see the ironing.
they just discovered new elements of that okay we have the answer. somehow we found a smaller scale. and it's very unlikely i would say that any of us are living at the time when they really got two of the there's. as we develop tools to look inside, we find that there's new structure and that keeps happening. it would be rather critical if we found the bottom. so i do find it ironic at a time when we're so excited about having found this new structure, you could does is the idea there could be further structure we just don't have the tools you can find. of course such an outcome not only are their neutrons, but there's also quarks inside as we just discussed. it's kind of interesting because they are theoretical motivations that are verified by experiment. again, that's the other important thing that gets lost because the physics is remote. even though it's abstract, we believe that when there's a connection between a theory and
experiment we have a unifying framework, economically unifying framework to make any predictions that were. that's what the particle dust with quarks, particles like the electrons and forces through which the interactive there's many ways it's been tested at very high level of proficiency. we look not to go beyond it. so i do we go beyond it? with a frontier energy scale now. this is where we're looking at something called the large hadron collator. large means large. how tron is a general name given for objects that interact via the strong force like proton and it's actually collating together bundled with protons at very high energies and it is collating and that's one of the collator. so it's not a pretty name, but it is the name. and so what you have is this huge underground tunnel. actually 27 kilometers in circumference is actually a few
reasons in successive waves and they finally collide together a really high energies and they really -- in my book i joke that i don't wise to use perl it is when you talk about the highest energy machine, the highest intensity machine. everything that went in is the coldest it's been in place on earth. it has an amazing vacuum. everything about it is reaching extremes to try to get to his high-energy and is hanging tent because we could do with the available technology. on an industrial scale. so i'm just going to show you a little bit about what happens to you. so come and accelerated and those from other rings and then the lhc beam at the protons go down the tunnel. you can actually walk around. i walked around it. you go into them here the proton center a collision region and around the collision region have
experiment. when the protons collide to go outward through the experiment ends of the various players as you go out transversely or measuring various aspects. so not only is the lhc and amazing machine, but within it are amazing the type to. the one i am most interested in are known as allison ems coming general-purpose attack is. the idea is that there's something you don't find it a matter what it is. so differently is measured as as much as possible about particles to measure charge, momentum, energy, whether it is strong force and that's what these detect is due. so we're excited about what's going on. this is the frontier energy scale. or trying to answer some questions that go beyond the standard model. what are those questions? what we think we might learn their? well, one of the things we're pretty sure sure we will learn is how to particles acquire maps on the fundamental elementary
maps? that probably sounds like a very strange thing. we think of things having maps, but it turned out a theoretical description of the particles, if you didn't have this extra mechanism from which you might've heard it called the higgs mechanism, if you didn't have that and wrote down massive particles, you would make nonsensical predictions at high energies. it just wouldn't make sense. the theory can't possibly be that simple. with fundamental masses. there has to be something more interesting going on and the more interesting thing is called a higgs mechanism, which i won't ask for a detailed in the whole chapter or explain what it means in terms of particles acquire enough. in addition to that, there's another puzzle which is particles get enough, but why are the masses what they are quite what sets this deal for the masses? in fact, it's a real puzzle if you just use quantum field theory, which is what we used to
combine together quantum mechanics to do physics is what we do and we believe it's ready. but if you were to calculate how heavy these should be, you would find a discrepancy of 16 of the magnitude. to make the theory work, it looks like you have to do an enormous budget for what they call fine-tuning. now, i'm glad you're laughing at it because we think it laughable, too. we don't think it's really what's going on. we didn't have to be more interesting structure that they are in the more interesting structure is what i talk about in a previous book as an extension based on supersymmetry or could be something ethics topic as an extra dimension of faith. we can find evidence of that if it does answer this question of why masses are but they are should have testable as peers of these are two things he really think will do a particles. one is understand this hate
mechanism, what it is that implements it. what is it that gives particles and mouse? it seems very likely to be something rather interest and consistent theories we have thought it certainly had the theory interesting aspects that could tell us more about the nature of space-time. the other thing you might do at the large hutch and collator his son about the of dark matter. that's not necessarily true, but it does turn out. so what is dark matter? dark matter is stuff like we have aggregates that columns, but it doesn't interact with light. so it interacts gravitationally, but not with light which makes it hard to see. because dark matter, but it's really transparent manner because we do see dirt things. they absorb light. dark matter really doesn't interact with light at all. that is the distinguishing feature of dark matter.
nonetheless, maybe it has a little interaction with the stuff we see. in fact, there's a compelling reason to think that if it has a mass that we are talking about the lhc is exploring, it looks like you might have the right amount of dark matter. and right now there's experiment that they're looking for that kind of thing, that has the large hadron collator. the collator has the potential to tell us quite a bit about the nature of what's out there. and also it's not just looking for particles. it's really looking for four saves and descriptions. it could be something more interesting. what are the interactions that govern the operation of our universe? but of course many of course many of you have also heard about other questions. i want to emphasize questions that won't necessarily be explored at experiments. in fact we don't have to explore in most cases. people nonetheless are studying it to theory and one of the questions is, what with the
consistent eerie to combine together quantum mechanics and gravity? if it's a theoretical puzzle for the following reason. any experiments we do we can do without answering this question. again, go back to the effective filter idea. string theory is not having any impact on the experiments were doing because it's the fundamental underlying structure that we are not yet measuring. so that means that we can use quantum mechanics. we can use relativity to predict things what they were looking a large or small deals. it's only when we get to these very commemorate tiny distant skills, which is far beyond the 17 centimeters lic is exploring them to get too high energies that he would need to really know the answer to questions if you were to do an experiment. nonetheless the fact we don't how to make addictions there tells us at least a theory that
underlies the pc. it's still a puzzle. but it's not a question i would have is that at the experiments were doing, which is in fact this ability which makes it hard to see that an effective theory can't tell a different of its fundamental are fundamental particles. that means it's hard to measure, but it's also why we should go ahead into the next airman and interpret them in terms that are effective theory, which you understand now. and i'm just going to mention for the fun of it that it even seems like there could be a final defense frontier. it looks like a this point, there is a distant skill known as the planks you, and it's also a skill you associate with quantum gravity. but we also don't even know in principle how to go, even if i were to do an experiment and ayes i can make an experiment
smaller than the planck scale, how they do it? ordinarily when we think about going distance scales, we think about high energies. why did he do that? if you think of a high-energy way that oscillates a lot. it has a very short wavelengths if you have high-energy weight because there's many a solution. the short wavelengths, you can probe small structure. you need some variation in order to be able to provide structure. if you have will energies, you wouldn't be able to measure anything in it. so generally we think in high energies we can prove short distance structure. but the planck scale that breaks down from a different reason. if you were to look at a high enough energy to be able to probe small event the planck scale, you party for so much energy and save such a small scale do you have a black hole. if you have a black hole and had more energy, it gets bigger and bigger. even in principle, we don't
understudy to short distances. it's not relevant to anything going on today, but it's an interesting thing that seems there is a limit or could be a limit to where we would actually talk about space than conventional terms. if you're completing the story of scale i should tell you that little nugget. but let's come back to what were doing today. we know how the standard model works, but we expect more lies beyond. there's questions regarding his two necessarily. by the masses what they are? so we hope that by studying at higher energies in your machine with not yet have explored at greater precision reducing uncertainty would be what you see these little telltale signs that tell us what lay beyond the standard model. so we assist tech is theories that what is known to tv scale, the large hadron collator is it going. tv has to do with electron volts come a funny unit of energy and
maybe we'll find more fundamental description. maybe we'll find substructure we have mechanics work. so the challenge is to measure precisely enough that we the defect to theory sale. that's what i really understand the effective eerie when we understand that it's true limits are and reveal the more fundamental description of evidence for that. someone's going to to just say one. but i've worked on, but in order to do that i want to tell you more about the scale. i'm not going to go in detail but i want to give you a picture the exciting game we might actually hope to learn. and i'm going to go back and tell you why it ended up. okay, the first question since we're talking about scale, it means an absolute distance scale. , terry of general relativity tells us that. before einstein theory can we talk to the energy differences. that's probably what you learned
in high school. the value of energy is important because it tells you about the nature of space-time in miniatures-based time by telling you about the metric. so let's think about what the metric is. metric is meaning to scale. so basically you have the ruler. if i say something is too apart, that would mean anything. two miles, two kilometers from two centimeters? what do we mean? if i ever work it establishes unit. the metrics tell you what that number means in terms of an actual distance. but there's something else going on when you metric is the metric also tells you about the curvature of space-time which has to do with angles between things. is it like a sphere? basilicas sat on a horse? is it just flat like the tabletop? that is also very important information. of course it's very hard to picture the curvature of three-dimensional space so i don't recommend you do that
necessarily. but we can think about what curvature means by going down one dimension and looking at two-dimensional services in a three-dimensional base and see what it looks acc positively, negative and flat surface on the pictures. in the same way we have curvature of the curvature is important because it tells us about the nature of gravity. we can think of particles going to recurve space and following this are the most efficient path within the curb space and that mimics the effects of gravity. for example, they have things tunneling in here, to fight something coming and it would naturally be attracted to the center. so we can understand the attraction of a planet for us in terms of warping of space-time around the planet, for example. so the curvature, basically energy works for space or gives curvature and not curvature tells you how gravity will affect something moving through that space-time. and that's what this is showing. so if you've had some for
example, it will give a two-dimensional analogy. it's not really what's going on, but it's a flavor for what's going on because you can imagine of course it will be attracted towards the center. how attractive it is depends on how heavy it is. you're the very high mass neutron star you will be curbed much more in the stronger gravitational attraction. if you have a black hole, it would be even more. so the thing i'm going to tell you about briefly and probably will be a little confusing because i have to write an entire book to explain them, but i what to give you a flavor. what we consider is the idea that there could be not just the three dimensions we know about, but actually an additional dimension of space we don't see. why we don't see it could be many different reasons, but one, probably the most intuitive is it could just be very tiny. in this case it could be so warped we don't need the additional dimension.
nonetheless it could have physical effects in our universe and in particular could tell us something very interesting about gravity. they could be that space-time itself is worth your curved in such a way that how you measure things depend on where you are and that's why we depend on what the scale is. it could be things that very heavy use of gravity would have a big influence with the gravity brewing here. if they move through the extra dimension, it could be the scale changes. that's what the metric and tony and that's what brought asunder and i. we saw the equation of general relativity in this context it having an extra dimension beyond what we see a three-dimensional worlds at the end of it. so the brains at the end that sentence for membrane. so it's a lower dimensional surface in higher dimensional space. they can be balancing an extra dimension and it could be just on the weak brain so it looks dimensional to us, but gravity
could extend throughout the other dimension. and in fact, that could explain my masses are what they are because it could be we are living in the portion of extra dimensional space, where masses of men at being what they are and not this much bigger value we think we calculate when we use quantum field theory. it should be confusing, so don't feel badly if it's confusing. but it's a very exciting possibility that the loud when we consider gravity of extra dimensions. the thing i want to emphasize here is that as exotic and craziest idea might sound, because it is the doing this question about mass that the large hydrant collector's are in, we had a chance of knowing whether this is right by doing measurements at the large collator condescending as exotic as the work dimensional theory. and this is just to sayfrom the way to even bother airing extra
dimension? what have we got there? one reason it's just the spirit of inquiry. if you have a baby in a crib date export their two dimensions, but my older sister would always try to climb out of her crib because they want to explore the third dimension. there's a lot of nodding heads here. that was pretty obvious if they are, but there could be than other dimensions, other dimensions we don't see it will only know a fix for them. we don't know for sure they don't exist, so we can only find out if they do by entertaining the possibility they says insane what would happen if they did get einstein's theory of gravity works for any number of dimensions. to sum it up for three-dimensional space. so they know how to do the calculations and it doesn't cause the answer to how many dimensions there are. another reason is string theory. it combines together quantum mechanics and gravity, but it is actually only can still get their extra dimensions of space. so if you're a string terrorist, you're forced to consider the possibility there could be extra
dimensions. the other one is so i just gave you it has the possibility of explaining connections among physical parameters and that makes it worth exploring. maybe it's so hard to financier. people have been looking for the question and smart physicists have been looking for this answer for a few decades now and we don't know what it is still. there's no theory does so with simple and beautiful. so is for considering filing for added properties and telling experimenters how to look for it. that's one of the rules we play. we can say at this for the answer, this is what you should find ended experiments correct out so want to look for. and this is again the idea that gravity could be very strong on the gravity rain and very weak on the week grain where you live and you know that because my cousin is there. so this is where you live in gravity could be much weaker than it is on the gravity grimm.
and here's the experimental signal, just to tell you're not cheating you. there could be particles that actually travel to the extra dimension. we don't see an extra dimension, so what would we see? over the air particles that have properties and ones that know about. but they would seem to have bigger mass because they would interpret this momentum of the extra dimension is mass because we don't see the dimension. so what the experiments are looking for are particles that are properties like the ones we know about, that they are heavier. so looking forward particles. again, this is a great mass for the large hydrant collator to ask you because he is answering questions about particle masses we know about. so in this particular scenario, if it is answering this question, the large hydrant collator should find particles known as decline particles, kk particles. so these are a lot of ideas, that's a lot of stuff. but i think for me was to say
how the sword is more conceptual ideas about scale, right and wrong, combined together with what we do all the time when were actually doing science. i think it's really important and maybe we'll even show it to the veil. he certainly has created injurious, but i thought of it and talk by talking of other applications of these ideas in our projects because there was a lot of fun. and i actually think it's a good time to be thinking about the intersection of art and i don't recall of it is great. some of it is terrible, but some is really interesting. it's sort of absorb the culture of the time and it's always interesting scientific ideas and is really interesting to do then. i will briefly mention the gallery show a co-curated and also combat to what i mentioned in the beginning. okay, so, the show we difficult
measure for measure inhibits the idea that we had. so a lot of the interceptors either take some science than with artistic or you try to take some sign with artistic idsa is there any science and that's really hard? what if we just took at the both artists and fans could about scale is to be one of them. it's very central to the radar to think and are central to a scientific thinking. so what we worked for the los angeles art association put out a call and asked them to incorporate some of the ideas and what a scientist at and about. for scientists when of the important ideas was the idea we saw earlier that if you look at small tales, things could look very different than they do in large-scale spirit when i look at the table i don't see atoms. i see a table. if i was able to probe inside i would see something different. i'm just going to give you a couple samples briefly what people cannot buy. one is coming up at the tree
itself. if you look at the park on the right, of course it doesn't really give you the feel of the large sequoia tree, sort of like the eiffel tower. i just like shyness because they they think it's fantastic. she had alice in wonderland. she took carving the pictures is like cutting out so they become one big thing. you have the ring and an integrated union about the little pictures. so you have individual pictures that turns into something very different when it put together. it looks like just some of our thing, but if you send them close come which unfortunately don't have comments actually pictures of her face, so it almost looks fake someone staring at you if you look close. it's all integrated from various features. again you see something different if you look at the tiny scale and stand right next to the resolution to see which we done this night or if you
look on larger scales. there were a number of other pieces which were fantastic. the other thing i want to sell you about is what we call the project developer that we had. hang on a second. so when i wrote my first book were passages come as an extra dimension of space idea. i just briefly outline. and he read it and he was a composer who works at aircon. he has wanted to do something about art and science and the science is the motivation and wanted to motivate sort of expanding his repertoire, so you like the idea of working in physical theory. i just finished writing this book were attacked her to to organize ideas into a linear fashion. it is such a liberating thought to say you could have many different voices. music, art, words and try to give an idea. of course you're not teaching a lesson, but give an idea of what physics is about.
also as important in this way are we doing this? like sport? why do you think there's more out there? we ended up writing the premier to the property center, which is why we have that speech there. that was about this question of the difference between someone who thinks they have all the answers who lives in a three-dimensional world than someone who thinks there's more for music and went down into the higher dimensional world. so i'm just going to end this actually plays a bit because it's fun. >> so, it's actually a stage reading that they moved around a little bit. and she is able to explore the extra dimension and he is in the lower dimensional world. and her voice is very different than his and that was one of the things he wanted to explore to be able to go next door. and so, he is in this sort of matthew ritchie did this bridge and itchy like to do. and so the baritone is really in
this lower dimensional world and she goes the next hours. and he doesn't understand why she would want to do that. why can't you just financers hear quite so it's also a little bit about what experiments to come in difference between someone who could go out and explore and someone who's staying home and has to see things directly and how they eventually pieced together the same information. how can you believe it when they can't go next door? someone wrote this sort of my black-and-white. she has this technique because there wasn't an orchestra pit for not rare, so we had screens where the orchestra was behind it. and you can see her world is green mayor. might be hard for you to see in this brave and his world is sort of more black-and-white. and so i'm not going to go through the whole thing here. so i have to say it was pretty fun writing this thing and seeing people and it was kind of beautiful to watch, to put
together the story. and you see, she's physically exploring this extra dimension he can't get too and she's fascinated by it. and they actually wanted the equation. a little uncomfortable putting equation, so i took a composer if you have to pick up some equation outfitted in there, so we figured out which ones he wanted. one of the things those kind of interesting about that as a lot of the time when you see art or music about scientists, they very rarely show them doing science. sutter was kind of fun to try to have even an abstract way a little bit of an idea of what the science is that it's going on.
so i will just appear to let let it play out as saying that i think it's pretty clear and this is really one thing i want to get across. why do we think there's more there? every time we look, we find there is more there. so we would be very unlikely there isn't. we have definite questions we know there should be answers to. it's really an exciting time because a large hydrant collector is working in exploring energies. dark matter experiments are probing some of the names you were trying to fill together enough that makes it so exciting. so i just like this picture happened to see on the tape one time i was there and i'd like it because it conveys the image of the lower dimensional world in which three-dimensional world that could be a tear and assorted rich world that was fair. i didn't know at the time, but it turns out the picture is the
château dion, which is very new to collator. so it seemed appropriate. so i will just let this play out and maybe even stop it and say thank you. [applause] >> thank you, lisa. but i think this will give 10 minutes to take a few questions at the night and then we'll let you, and talk informally. so about 10 minutes for questions. >> thanks, lisa. in a recent new scientist, lisa grossman talks about the small unexplored range at the lhc between 115 9145. >> you're talking about the hicks vulture? >> raycom at the hicks turns out not to be there, to satisfactory thought i made erie with an
extra dimension or two? >> well, try to separate out the issues. there's two issues going on. one is that it is particles mask. so one thing that's interesting interesting -- so let me focus on the issue first. what does it mean? right now people get a little worried or released as they were getting worried because we're closing in on the math range. that's a large hydrant collider is arranged to do. it has only one mass-produce out there and is supposed to find out what it is. if u.s. people before they turned on the large hydrant collector what they thought the massive econ memos would've thought it's a value that is not yet been tested. without any additional data, they would've said if he really believed that was right, you wouldn't be able to serve. you would say these are not the mass i thought it should be yet. they haven't explored it yet. one but still disturbing because until we have experiments, no one knows the answers. so you could say i think the mass might be 116 ged, but you know i could be wrong.
so you'll feel a little safer if there's a little bit of a firm with more values. the fact is a lot of values are now not possible. so it is zoning in on the beach and we interesting. over the course of the next year we might actually know the answer to whether the conventional, simplest version of the hicks affair. one of things i talk about is why we did this search. we don't actually know if even if the hicks mechanism is by, we don't know what it is that implements the hicks mechanism. it could be the simplest mono because predictions that we can really know very well because the hicks interacts with nasa windows interactions for sites we have heavier particles more for example because they have more mass. but it could be something a little more settled that has to do with underlying the hicks mechanism. if that is the case, it's not clear the experiments so far would've been testing it. it could be something different
or could be heavier, that it actually has strong protection. so why is he are learning about the nature of what the hicks could be. after all right now we can say -- i can pretend that we don't sign the hicks of what it can give mats and nullifies and no one has been answered. a lot of people think the hicks mechanism is right, but the question is what it is precisely that implements unit. >> if i could ask another one, in the future, if at some point i guess the lhc will probably run out of things to look for, but what will be the argument for building a larger accelerator? >> okay, so right now i myself would feel much more sanguine that we revealed to answer all these questions about the hicks that you just ask him at the extra dimensions if we had three times the energy.
they made comments about argument and we know basically the energy afflicting should appear, but we don't know precisely the energy. for us it's serious, but that are of two is sort of the same erie. from an experiment to be found from a machine we definitely find the regime we don't have any hope at all. so the large hydrant collider will do a lot of exploration, but it is not clear that it will actually explore everything because you need a lot of energy. what we've seen so far -- the large hydrant collider started making 25 years ago. since then, we've learned a lot. we've learned a lot that seems to point to things in heavier than people might guess that. and so that the argument that real answers might even be a little bit higher energy. i'm not just doing a copout. all of it is sort of the same generation a minute just to
allergy as they talk a lot about in the book, it's the size of the company existed that determined what the energy would be for the large hydrant collider. sister with magnets attached to keep protons rotating around in those rings. with the ssc, they say but is the energy be some dairy? what is the energy we would really like to study? they decided to go to ring big enough that with existing technology we can get there. so here we resort to force. as a compromise between what we want to do and what we could do with technology. and no, that's the argument that they could be very interesting physics right around the corner. >> i'm having a hard time conceptualizing anything as small as short as 10 to the negative 17, so what does a physicist think she's looking not when something is that smaller dimension?
well, the first biggest let stop using the word look. because we are not looking i try to emphasize the beginning we are not seen with our eyes. .. me in a microphone, so we're used to that, but it doesn't mean it's not real. it just means we have to be careful when we interpret it. as we know now, as we understand biology better and better, after all, our eyes are, in some sense, a form of technology too. so we think of it as something that's just happening, but, of course, there's light rays going
into it, they're getting processed by our brain. there's a lot of processing going on.e in some of it's deceptive, in fact. again, intuition is guided by what we see, and that's what iud tried to get at in the beginning.d to but there's a lot of stuff that's out there that's real that we just don't have ourd intuition for. for. >> as the mother of my daughter was an engineer and the grandmother one who has expressed interest in the scientist could you speak to women in the field of science and are they going into that field in larger numbers, and about -- >> i think they are in your family. >> us president obama says what do you think is going to be the
outcome if we fail to do more investment in education and science as well as research and science. >> that's an easy question to answer. we can even to do little scientifically because we can look around the globe and say what happens in those countries with a don't invest in education and i think most of us would not like it as a result so we even have to in many cases we can to the measurement and see what happens, so i think it's incredibly important we do that. i think there are more in physics that change as in some other fields and i don't have a great answer why that is. i didn't know i wasn't supposed to do it. people know they are not supposed to do that's very helpful so i don't really have
an answer. spikelet encouraged you -- >> i liked it. wasn't supposed to do it so why did it. [laughter] [inaudible] >> i was wondering has there been anything that has shown up? is their anything you know now? >> a lot of things are wrong and this is something that's important because when you do experiments they really do help and even giglio new when he started doing experiments showing things are right you can verify to the progress rolling out theories in some cases it is ruled out and in some cases it is just ruled of regimes of parameters to the mass of
interaction but all of that is progress telling you can't get away with anything at all so we know a lot more. we should be borne in mind and people don't seem to realize this isn't running at full energy it's going to close down for a year or so so right now we are not in the energy where we are confident. it's remarkable how much it's done given the energy and more and more events and the fact we will be able to cover the entire regime is a possibility is a surprise doing incredibly well and when it comes in and high year we will be able to start looking for discoveries >> is there a nonfiction author or book you'd like to see features on booktv? send us an e-mail at email@example.com or tweet us at
twitter.com/booktv. >> ms. donahue, what made you write this book, "slave of allah," and why was it important for you to write it as an anthropologist? >> well, i've done field work in france before 9/11, and i did field work in an area nearby where zacarias musa by grew up. this was over in the east of france, and in october of 2001 i read an article about somebody who'd been picked up before 9/11. he was at a flight school in minnesota, and i realized that he had grown up in this area which i was quite familiar with, and he had a background that i knew something about. he is the son of moroccans who had moved to france before he was born so had difficulty growing up in an area of france which was not always totally
receptive to north africans. >> and what was your relationship, you know, with the people who were involved in this trial? how did you go about covering the trial? what was that process? >> well, curiously, i was the only academic to think of going to this trial. i have a friend from graduate school who had told me she had a connection to the trial, and i learned quickly that anyone was able to go, any, any person could go to the trial as long as there was space for you in the courtroom. so i thought, okay, i think i need to go there. and the trial actually was in alexandria, virginia, in the eastern district court. that site was chosen, actually, because the pentagon was in that district, and they were trying to have the trial somewhere in the same area where one of the attacks had happened. it got to be at the trial, i was at, actually, the initial jury
drawing and then at the two different phases of the trial. so i got to know the members of the press. there were no other people who were there as academics attending the trial. i really got a good eyesight -- insight, actually, into the way in which the press was writing about this person. >> and what role did the media play during the trial? did their coverage affect the outcome or affect the way that people were thinking about it? >> you know, i've been thinking about that, and, of course, the journalists were told not to -- the jurors were told not to read any coverage when they got home. they did go home at might, they weren't sequestered. they were told, however, read nothing, don't talk about anything, don't talk to your family. if you go to work, because they would go on friday, they could go back to their own jobs, don't talk to anyone there. but there were a few people on the jury who said when they were being interviewed i don't do news, you know, or i don't want read the news. so i think there was a big
attempt to keep the jury separate from the press. on the other hand, the nation was reading the coverage and, actually, was being covered bilal jazeera in the air rick-speaking -- arabic-speaking world. the french media was particularly interested, especially as it came closer to the time to decide whether he would get the death penalty or spend life in prison. >> and you write about the unexpected that happened. there were a lot of unexpected event in this trial. it took longer to go to trial than people thought, there was some witness tampering. did the public perception change because of that? >> well, it was deemed a circus for a while because there were so many attempts to start the trial, and then they decided to, you know, put it off. there was an attempt to get witnesses such as khalid sheikh mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, to either be able to come to the trial to give testimony or to interview him through some
other means. and that was prevented by the u.s. government. there was no way that those people could be interviewed. and so there was a legal fight in which the judge threatened to throw the whole case out. it went up to the supreme court, came back down. and then there was a decision, actually, to have the interviews with people like khalid sheikh mohammed be rewritten into a format that both the defense and the prosecution could allow to be present inside the trial. >> and you're writing from the point of view of an anthropologist, and you raise the question of representation. so there's national and there's personal identity. what can we learn about representation from this case? >> well, he, i argue in this book that he had three different -- was attempting to represent himself in three different ways. one was legally. and, actually, for 17 months he represented himself. he n a sense, fired his attorneys, his defense
attorneys. so there was an issue of legal representation, did he have a right to do so? well, the judge decided yes. he, actually, did quite a good job for a while, and he for a while stalled out the proceedings. he would actually write his own pleadings. he would do it in handwriting, and he would write these remarkable things which you can read online at the court's web site which were full of jokes and plays on words and, finally, the judge had had enough. so that was his legal representation. then there was his social representation, who was this guy in terms of his nationality and religion. and he was at that point beginning to say i'm not french, i have nothing to do with them. i'm a member of al-qaeda, and he was trying to make that clear to the public. he knew the public was reading his pleadings. and then there was his own personal representation. who is this person? and he was feeling, i think, somewhat thwarted in being able to explain who he is and how he thought.
so the way in which he managed to get around that was to as the judge left the courtroom, he would wait until she was halfway out, and then he would stand up, and he would say something like, you know, god bless allah or long live osama. and say whatever he could before he was then taken out of the courtroom. and the media would all, the press would all sort of press forward, and they would all try to figure out what it was he was saying and duly write it all down and publish it in the newspapers. >> 9/11 was a day that affected most people in america in some way, so how were you able to separate yourself from the coverage in the news media and whatever feelings you had to put together this book? >> uh-huh. well, one thing was that it was, the trial was in 2006, and so it was five years after 9/11. i mean, i had not an immediate family member, but i knew of people who had died horribly.
but you got a hint of the courtroom setting, and somehow there's a way of removing yourself from those personal feelings. i think courts are designed to try to do that. on the other hand, the prosecution would try to bring back all of those memories, end when mayor giuliani, former mayor giuliani came to testify. he was, he was determined to personalize the impact of 9/11. i wasn't in the courtroom at that time. but certainly the web site has coverage and footage of horrifying images, and you just, you know, figure out how to find the person behind this excruciating experience and who was this man. and that's really what i tried to focus on. >> and it's been ten years since, um, september 11th, so have we learned anything from this trial as a country? what can we still learn from this case? >> well, sadly, we haven't learned that we can actually have a trial in the civilian
court. instead, you know, there's going to be this move to try people like khalid sheikh mohammed in guantanamo. yes, this trial was extremely expensive, and the government as far as i know the amount is in the millions of dollars so, yes, it was very expensive. on the other hand, some of the reporters covering this case particularly for the arabic tv press through the bbc said to me that he was amazed at the fairness of this trial. he had the right to speak. he had the right to express himself. he had the right to make pleadings. he was not taken out and hanged or executed. he could speak. and the judge, i think, to her credit bent over backwards to make sure that he did have those rights. and there are certain rights in the court system, and i hope that people will realize that in the military commissions that similar rights need to be
afforded to those people. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> over the next several months booktv will travel to various universities to talk to professors who have published recent nonfiction books. this month we speak with authors from george mason university in virginia. next month we head to the university of texas at austin. for more on our booktv college series, visit booktv.org. >> here are the best-selling nonfiction books according to the los angeles times as of october 5th.