Have you ever seen a picture so striking it just
sticks with you? Oh, yeah, tons of them. Well,
Bill Moyers was talking about this NASA picture.
Mm -hmm. You know, it's this picture of a supernova
remnant. Mm -hmm. So, you know, what's left over
after a star explodes? Right. And thousands of
light years away, too. Wow. He said it looks
like a giant hand just reaching out across space.
Huh. and get this, he mentioned that this happened
way back when humans were still figuring out
how to use rocks as tools. Really? I know, right?
Wow. So think about that for a second. These
cosmic events are unfolding over just unimaginable
stretches of time. That's incredible. While our
ancestors were just starting to scratch the surface
of technology. That's wild. It's mind blowing.
It really is. It really puts things in perspective,
doesn't it? It really does. When you think about
these cosmic events that occurred, you know,
millennia before we even started writing history.
Right. And the fact that they still have visible
consequences today that we can observe and photograph.
It's a powerful reminder of just how vast the
universe is. And that's what we're going to be
diving into today. Oh, this is going to be good.
We're unpacking a conversation. OK. Between Bill
Moyers and the one and only Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Amazing. And we've got excerpts where they explore
some truly mind -bending ideas. I bet. Like dark
matter. Yeah. And the possibility of multiple
universes. Oh. And even that like ongoing debate
about science and faith. Oh, that's interesting.
So our mission. What is it? Is to really extract
these captivating nuggets of knowledge. I love
them. There's aha moments that broaden your understanding.
Right. Without. feeling like you're drowning
in astrophysics. Makes sense. Like we want to
keep it light and fun. Exactly. But still really
dive deep. Yeah. So it's important to know that
even at the very forefront of scientific exploration,
there are still these profound fundamental mysteries
that remain. Oh, for sure. So right at the beginning
of their conversation, Tyson touches on dark
energy. Oh, yeah mysterious force that's causing
the expansion of the universe to speed up right
and dark matter this unseen Gravitational influence
that we just we can't directly observe. These
are the big questions that scientists are still
actively wrestling with Fascinating. So let's
dig into dark matter. Okay, let's do it. Tyson
described how it's visualized in his planetarium
show. Oh cool And so forget about bright shiny
stuff that we can see. Okay. He's talking about
these dark regions that have like a stronger
gravitational pull. Okay. And these regions are
actually pulling the visible matter towards them.
Oh, wow. And he likened it to like a web work
that has this almost organic feel. Interesting.
Like a map of connections in a brain. Like a
neurosynaptic map? Yeah, exactly. That's a pretty
striking image. It really is. But how do we even
know this dark matter exists if we can't see
it directly? Exactly. It's a great question.
It is. So as Tyson explains, our computer simulations
of the universe, which are based on all the physics
we understand, they seriously can't reproduce
the large scale structure that we observe. The
way galaxies cluster together and form these
massive filaments across the cosmos. Unless we
include this extra gravitational force in the
calculations. Interesting. It's like we're missing
a key ingredient. Like a recipe that's not coming
out right. Exactly. Because we don't have all
the ingredients. Right. That's a great way to
think about it. So everything we see, all the
stars and galaxies. Yeah. It's only a tiny fraction
of the universe's total mass. Oh, wow. In dark
matter. Yeah? It's like the scaffolding that's
holding it all together. I see. It's completely
changing our picture of what the universe is
made of. So it's like you see a finished cake.
Yeah. And even though you can't see the individual
grains of flour anymore, you know it had to be
there to make the cake. Perfect analogy. And
from there, things get really fascinating. Oh,
I bet. So Tyson brings up some truly exotic ideas
about what this dark matter could be. Like what?
He mentioned exotic particles that interact only
through gravity. Oh. And he even joked that particle
physicists see every problem as a nail if they're
holding a hammer. Right. So they're naturally
drawn to a particle -based solution. That's interesting.
And you know, that might resonate with you. Yeah,
for sure. If you've ever seen how specialists
approach problems within their fields. Absolutely.
They kind of tend to use the tools they're familiar
with. To make sense. So the idea is there might
be these fundamental particles out there that
don't interact with light or the electromagnetic
force, which is how we see things and how most
matter interacts. Oh, okay. So these particles
would be essentially invisible to us. Interesting.
But because they have mass, they'd still exert
this gravitational pull. Right. It's almost like
ghosts. Ghosts. Yeah. They're all around us,
exerting gravity. Yeah. but we can't see or touch
them because they don't interact with light or
regular matter. So that's a pretty wild concept.
I know, right? It is. But then he takes it even
further with this idea of gravity somehow spilling
out from parallel universes. Whoa. That's some
serious mind -bending stuff. It really is. So
the concept here is that if our universe isn't
the only one, if there are others existing alongside
it, then maybe gravity isn't entirely confined
within each universe. What we perceive as this
mysterious extra gravity dark matter could actually
be the ordinary gravitational pull from another
universe that's somehow leaking into ours. It's
like seeing a shadow on the wall and it's being
cast by something in another room you can't directly
see. And he used this great analogy of the blind
men and the elephant. Oh yeah, I love that one.
Each one touches a different part and comes up
with a totally different description. Exactly.
So maybe our understanding of gravity is limited
by our perspective within our own universe. It's
like we're only seeing part of the picture. And
this idea leads to the question... of multiple
universes. The multiverse. Exactly. So cool.
And Tyson points out this historical pattern.
OK. So we used to think Earth was unique. Right.
And then we discovered it was just one of many
planets. Yeah. Then we realized our sun was just
one star among billions in our galaxy. So each
time we've discovered, we're not as special as
we thought. So why should the universe be any
different? Exactly. If nature seems to favor
having multiple instances of things, why would
the universe be a single entity? It really makes
you think. It does. And there are theoretical
frameworks in physics. Oh, really? That actually
suggest the possibility of a multiverse, where
our universe is just one among countless others.
That's incredible. Perhaps with slightly different
laws governing them. Whoa. But Tyson cautions
that. What does he say? This also introduces
a lot of uncertainty. OK. Because the laws of
physics we know might not apply in these other
universes. I see. It's a fascinating but speculative
area of research. Super cool. Now, Moyers asked
Tyson why his planetarium show felt more authentic
than even the most imaginative science fiction.
Interesting. And Tyson compared it to seeing
the Apollo 11 command module in a museum. Okay,
versus looking at a very realistic replica. I
get it So even if a replica is visually indistinguishable,
right knowing that the object you're seeing actually
traveled to the moon Yeah adds this like profound
layer of meaning I bet and so Tyson argued that
his Planetarium show because it's grounded in
real science. Mm -hmm offers that same sense
of authenticity Interesting. It's like the difference
between imagining something right knowing it's
real I see And he brought up this quote from
J .B .S. Haldane. Oh, okay. The universe is not
only stranger than we have imagined, but perhaps
stranger than we can imagine. Wow. That's deep.
It is. It makes you consider the limits of our
human intuition. For sure. And it makes you wonder
what else is out there that we haven't even begun
to consider. Exactly. Real astrophysics is full
of phenomena that are just... Far more bizarre
and awe -inspiring than even the wildest science
fiction. Black what? Black holes ripping apart
stars. The potential for life forms in extreme
environments that we can barely conceive of.
Crazy. Sometimes reality is more mind -blowing
than anything we could invent. That's incredible.
It is. And speaking of mind -blowing, if the
universe is expanding at an accelerating rate
because of the dark energy, why don't we feel
it? Like in our daily lives. It's not like you
feel yourself stretching out or anything. Good
point. So Tyson's explanation is all about the
time scale. Okay. So our human lifespans are
incredibly short. Right. Compared to billions
of years. Yeah. That's a huge difference. It
is. So he uses this helpful analogy. Think about
clouds. Right. They look pretty static to us.
Yeah. But if you watch a time lapse, you see
them constantly changing. Right. Moving. So it's
all about perspective. Yeah. And the limited
window of time that we humans experience. Exactly.
That makes sense. And he extends this to geological
time scales. OK. The slow process of mountains
being built, the shifts of ice ages, the long
process of evolution and extinction. They're
too slow for us to perceive directly. So we need
computers to help us. Exactly. For simulations
to visualize these vast stretches of time. He
gave the example of galaxies colliding. OK. We
used to think some were just irregular. But simulations
show that many are actually the result of galactic
collisions. Oh, wow. Cosmic trainwreck. That's
a great way to put it. He even quoted Gerard
de Vaucouleur. What did he say? A wrecked Lexus
is still a Lexus. Ha ha. So even though they're
all banged up, they're still galaxies. They still
have the same fundamental component. That's a
good one. So what might seem like a static snapshot
can be a dynamic process unfolding over millions
or billions of years. When we can simulate it.
Right. Amazing. Now let's talk about some myths
getting busted. Oh, I like this. Moyers brought
up twinkle twinkle little star. Classic. As a
child, you just accept it as a property of stars.
Right. But the scientific reality is different.
Oh, is it? It is. So that twinkling effect, it's
actually caused by turbulence in Earth's atmosphere,
distorting the light as it travels from the stars.
Interesting. Planets, on the other hand, appear
as tiny disks. So their light isn't as easily
scattered. I see. And they don't twinkle as much.
So people wishing on a star. Yeah. might actually
be wishing on a planet. That's funny. It is.
Yeah. So does Tyson ever feel bad about debunking
these myths? Right. Like, does he feel sad breaking
these illusions? Moyers asked him that. And he
doesn't feel bad at all. Really? He views it
as respect for human intellect. So he used a
powerful example. OK. Epilepsy. Yeah. It used
to be interpreted as demonic possession, but
now science understands the neurological basis.
We shouldn't cling to old explanations for things
we now understand scientifically. We should direct
our imaginations towards the vast unknowns of
the universe. Not the things we already know.
Exactly. I like that. It's a good perspective.
It is. Now, their conversation shifted to the
Big Bang. Oh, cool. The beginning of everything.
Right. Moyers mentioned Edwin Hubble working
backward to a single point. But Tyson corrected
him on that. Really? So while Hubble's observations
were crucial, the initial calculation came from
a Belgian priest and physicist named Georges
Lemaître. Interesting. And he found that combination
particularly intriguing. Physicist -Priest, that
is kind of fascinating. It is. And the term Big
Bang itself, I've always wondered about that.
So it was initially used in a negative way. Oh,
really? Fred Hoyle, a proponent of the steady
state theory, he coined it to mock the idea,
but the name stuck. Wow. And now it's the standard
term. Funny how that happened. And Robert Jastrow.
likened the Big Bang to the explosion of a cosmic
hydrogen bomb. That's intense. But even that
image falls short of capturing the scale of the
event. It's hard to comprehend. It really is.
So does Tyson give any credence to those who
try to reconcile faith and reason? By suggesting
the Big Bang implies a creator. So Moyers asked,
does Tyson give an A to those who are trying
to reconcile faith? and reason regarding a provoker
of the beginning. I see. And Tyson was very clear.
He doesn't believe those are ultimately reconcilable.
Oh, wow. So throughout history. Religious texts
have made claims about the natural world, but
those claims have been consistently inaccurate,
as our scientific understanding has grown. Like
the book of Genesis, describing creation in six
days and stars falling to Earth. Those are not
how the universe works. And so Tyson argues that
the reinterpretation of religious texts as metaphorical
often comes after scientific discoveries. have
contradicted the literal interpretations. So
science comes first, then the reinterpretation.
Exactly. And he distinguishes between what he
calls enlightened religious people who accept
science and fundamentalists who insert literal
interpretations into science classrooms. So he's
saying science classes for science, not religious
beliefs. Exactly. And he's clear on that. He
is. OK. He believes in freedom of belief. But
he also insists that non -scientific beliefs
shouldn't be presented as scientific. And he
even mentioned how some religious people were
troubled by Carl Sagan's opening line in Cosmos.
The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever
will be. I remember that. They feared it negated
God in the afterlife. I can see why. It's an
understandable reaction. It is. But Tyson countered
that. What did he say? Conceptions of God has
evolved. Oh, OK. Many now embrace the idea of
God within the cosmos. I see. More spiritual
presence. Right. He even talked about the neurological
basis for religious experiences, suggesting they
come from the natural workings of the cosmos.
Interesting. So while he has empathy, for those
who find comfort in a personal God, he still
opposes non -scientific philosophies in science
classrooms. So that's a firm line for him. It
is. Okay. Now, Moyer's brought up a crucial point.
All right. Some people might interpret dark matter
as evidence of God. Oh, wow. This unseen force
holding the universe together. Right. It's a
natural connection for some. I can see that.
And it's an example of what's called. What is
it? The God of the gaps. Oh, okay. So throughout
history. Yeah. When we couldn't explain something.
Uh huh. we'd invoke divine intervention. Interesting.
Like Isaac Newton even Ptolemy with his earth
-centered universe. Yeah. They attributed the
unexplained to God. So we filled the gaps in
our knowledge with God. Exactly. But what happens
when science explains those gaps? Right. What
happens to God then? So Tyson's point is if God
is just the current mysteries of the universe,
then God is shrinking. as science explains those
mysteries. That's deep. So his challenge is for
religion to stay relevant. God has to mean more
than just what science hasn't explained yet.
I see. So in this deep dive, we have explored
some amazing ideas. We have. The unseen forces
shaping the universe. The vastness of time. The
power of scientific discovery and the relationship
between science and faith. It's been a journey.
It has. And ultimately the quest to understand
the universe through science is itself a source
of wonder. It is. Perhaps the marvels in the
discovery. Exactly. And the understanding it
brings. Not in filling the gaps with the supernatural.
It's something to think about. It really is.
For sure. So if God is tied to the mysteries
of the universe. Yeah. What happens as science
continues to unravel them? That's the question.
It's a lot to ponder. It is. Maybe the quest
for knowledge is a testament to the universe
itself. I like that. It's something to keep in
mind. Yeah. It is. Long after this deep dive
is over. Absolutely. Thanks for joining us. It's
been a pleasure. Until next time. See you then.