Charlie Rose

In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:

itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/11893

Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.

• Comments 10
  Post new comment

  1. winter  10/27/2011 07:12 PM Report

     Theres Time Travel in here somewhere. Now take the much heard description that, the light your'e seeing, that IS some Universal artifact, traveled for hundreds of millions or billions of years at C to get to where they're stimulating rods and cones on your retina. If you were seeing them from a position half way, their traveled distance would be cut in half. So new and different photons emanating from a source exist at every interval of space/time, infinitesimally, along the way ...and in every direction . Everything everywhere does the same thing infinitely. I'm reminded of the zen koan of, is it the wind moving or is it the flag? The monk answers, neither, its your mind that is moving. Okay, got that off my chest, back to mowing my lawn.

  2. SharkswithfrikingLazers  09/25/2011 04:10 PM Report

     Charlie, perhaps a panel on gravity?

     Lisa said gravity is far weaker than the other fundamental forces but is gravity a force at all?

     Einstein's explanation of gravity differed from Newton's laws of gravitation. Einstein didn't think there was any force of gravity but rather a distortion in the space time continuum. So he defined gravity as a distortion in space and time. (This is what my college daughter argues.)

     There are other theories which explain gravity using particles and wave theory. Then there are the gravitrons which are the particles responsible for attraction between objects. But to this day we haven't really come to the point where we can explain this phenomena.

     Lisa says, 'How do we learn about gravity? Via extra dimensions of space if gravity is somehow different. Then there is a chance to learn about gravity at the Large Hadron Collider.'

     So do we really need extra dimensions of space to learn about gravity or is there a way to find these gravitrons if the exist?

     For me, all I am looking for is a way to take the pain out of my feet after using them all day. I can lower my mass which will help my weight but that other component--gravity--would be nice to adjust as well.

  3. SharkswithfrikingLazers  09/25/2011 04:08 AM Report

     We heard several times that the big question is: "how do particles acquire mass?"

     Mass is the measure of the matter or inertia in an object. So add particles, get mass.

     What are the forces that get particles to join--charge, gravity, collisions in space?

     Mass is also form of energy, according to Einstein, so when a particle loses its energy it transforms to mass.

     99% of my mass is the mutual attraction of quarks inside of protons and neutrons, the majority of the last 1% is the mass of the quarks themselves, and 0.05% of the total is electrons.

     So what specific data do you need to collect?

  4. wshows  09/22/2011 04:10 PM Report

     Dr. Randall's discussion of high energy physics was most interesting and her description of the process of physical inquiry quite helpful. She has given many excellent examples of the intuitive process of scientific discovery, what Michael Polanyi calls 'tacit knowledge.' However, when she begins to discuss the religious consciousness of man or in her case its absence, obviously defending the metaphysical position of analytical philosophy or positivism, she makes numerous assumptions which are not even defended. I am reminded of one of Dirac's students, John Polkinghorne's comments: "...the average quantum mechanic's knowledge of the metaphysical foundations of science is on a par with that of the average garage mechanic....'

     EA Burtt demonstrated unambiguously in the 1930's that there were metaphysical assumptions in science,in 'The Metaphysical Foundations of Science' an impressive exegesis of the metaphysical assumptions of the 'Principia' itself he establishes that beyond doubt. It was his dissertation at Columbia I believe. In summary, scientists need to be more responsible when they engage in philosophical speculation. If anything, I would expect the results of high energy physics of the last 50 years to humble the current theorists.

  5. charlizecourriers  09/20/2011 05:16 PM Report

     Can "deduction" lead to a paradigm shift in physics? Of course not! This is a kind of political correctness for hyerrationalists. It's amazing that Rose is still stuck in mediocre bifurcations-religion versus science-but given his formal education we should pity him. Watching the interview(?) closely suggests both participants are looking for something else...

  6. Harryj  09/20/2011 10:16 AM Report

     Lisa Randall for President..

  7. griffinfinity  09/20/2011 07:49 AM Report

     I enjoyed Lisa and her scientific enthusiasm. I learned from her elaboration on the LHC. I knew it's intent, but was not aware that they are doubling the power. Specifically, she placed the effects of this in terms even I could understand - we will be able to sort out what is and isn't true in regards to theories. In her words "those that are not (true) can move on". We do need you in D.C. Lisa! (The LHC ain't got nuthin' on the Large Hard-headed Collisions happening there!

  8. nerrawg  09/19/2011 03:26 PM Report

     Interesting how such an acclaimed and intelligent researcher can say certainly over and over again about something that isn't for certain, right after addressing how we need to understand uncertainty to truly understand fact. I don't mean this in any way as a criticism of Ms Randall, just to illuminate how these flaws in the way we communicate knowledge are so ingrained in the human psyche that even the best and most aware of us can still fall into the trap occasionally.

  9. winter  09/19/2011 03:24 PM Report

     "I'll probably never visit another planet but I don't have to, Earth IS another planet". Can't take credit for that quote and can't remember where I heard it but I'm onboard with its point of view. Sure that has marginally to do with the topic here, physics, the intended segue is science and the profundity of the existence we find ourselves pulled out of a hat into, especially Life on our planet. Been watching alot of nature themed video on my 55 in. w/blue ray and its given me the notion that I never want to die.

     "Existence is digital ...Nature is digital" as, at the currently understood most fundamental levels of it, it percolates in and out of our world via quantum tunneling to some nether world and back and makes us guess as to whether cause and effect macro experienced laws will be obeyed and they're everywhere at the same time or at least spread some shared consciousness universally. Unlike analogue where we can add or subtract -just a little more- chip makers understand that beyond a certain level problems of quantum interactions impose themselves interferring with macroworld expectations due to that they're waves and particles at the same time.

     It seems to me organized religion actually disrespects God since it points to text and ignores the details of this Creation all around us. Written by primitive sheepherders who claimed they were spoken to while access to Creation ought to be via the realities laid before us -- that buffet line forms at Science. When you begin to explore the various scientific breakthroughs and theories as to God's handiwork, metaphorically made only a little more accessible, the mystery and wonder of it frustrates that you're given so temporary a pass to the show of shows.

  10. REMant  09/19/2011 10:47 AM Report

      As I've said before, IMHO there are greater avenues to answering some of these questions by thinking about how we think about them than in measuring stuff such as dark matter, altho that helps somewhat by pointing us away from Newton. But we remain mostly confirmed Copernicans. I am not at all sure that the big bang isn't just another such egotism as much as a prime mover or creator. All of our notions are merely analogies taken from everyday experience, even those which suggest the absence of design. But to argue that things are unknowable is to argue against evolution, nature and science, (and, yes, even beauty, which figured in classical thought), itself. An example is this line from the book's publishers: "The most sweeping and exciting science book in years, Knocking on Heaven's Door makes clear the biggest scientific questions we face and reveals how answering them could ultimately tell us who we are and where we came from."

      Physicists these days seem obsessed with gravity or whatever they like to call it instead and that's why they've built the collider Prof Randall has made the centerpiece of her life and book. But I am not sure discovering what kind of thing we are familiar with will help answer any important question at all. They are largely mapping the different qualities they exhibit under certain circumstances, just like other compounds and elements, and it is more like chemistry than what we ordinarily think of as physics. The question becomes what is the most elegant map or machinery, but never lost in this is as operationalism pointed out long ago, that what we do is as important as what we observe.