
Portuguese: 
Então nós temos um painel maravilhoso aqui esta noite.
Nosso próximo participante é professor no
Instituto de Estudos Avançados de Princeton.
Ele fez muitos influentes e criativos
contribuições para a nossa compreensão do
universo inicial, astrofísica de partículas e
cosmologia como sondas da física fundamental.
Por favor, dê as boas-vindas a Matias Zaldarriaga.
Nosso próximo convidado é um teórico com uma ampla gama de
interesses em física fundamental de alta
física da energia e teoria das cordas à cosmologia
e física de colisor.
Ele foi professor de física em Berkeley
em Harvard e Harvard antes de se juntar ao

English: 
So we have a wonderful panel here tonight.
Our next participant is a professor at the
Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton.
He has made many influential and creative
contributions to our understanding of the
early universe, particle astrophysics and
cosmology as probes of fundamental physics.
Please welcome Matias Zaldarriaga.
Our next guest is a theorist with a wide ranging
interests in fundamental physics from high
energy physics and string theory to cosmology
and collider physics.
He was a professor of physics at Berkeley
at Harvard and Harvard before joining the

English: 
Institute for Advanced Study in 2008.
Please welcome Nima Arkani-Hamed
Our final participant is an astrophysicist
whose multitude of scientific contributions
include observations and experimental astrophysics
and space borne instrumentation.
She served as NASA's chief scientist and received
the agency's highest honor the Distinguished
Service Medal.
Currently she is the head of the seven point
five billion dollar independent federal agency
charged with advancing the scientific discovery,
technological innovation in science education.
Please welcome Director of the National Science
Foundation France A. Cordova.
So first let me just try to set the stage
for our conversation here.

Portuguese: 
Instituto de Estudos Avançados em 2008.
Por favor, recebam Nima Arkani-Hamed
Nosso último participante é um astrofísico
cuja multiplicidade de contribuições científicas
incluem observações e astrofísica experimental
e instrumentação espacial.
Ela serviu como cientista-chefe da NASA e recebeu
maior honra da agência a Distinguished
Medalha de Serviço.
Atualmente ela é a chefe dos sete pontos
agência federal independente de cinco bilhões de dólares
encarregado de avançar a descoberta científica,
inovação tecnológica na educação científica.
Por favor, seja bem-vindo Diretor do National Science
Fundação France A. Cordova.
Então, primeiro deixe-me apenas tentar definir o estágio
para nossa conversa aqui.

English: 
The past few decades have been fairly spectacular
for fundamental physics.
On the grand scale of the cosmos, we have
not only detected the cosmic microwave background,
which is you know the afterglow of the Big
Bang, but also by measuring the properties
of this radiation, especially of the fluctuations
in this thing, we were able to confirm a broad
brush picture of our universe.
What is within it?
What its properties are?
We determined six parameters to a high accuracy
that determine our universe.
We know, now a lot about you know what the
universe is made of.
We know that ordinary matter for example the
stuff that we're made of stars are made of,
galaxies are made of is less than five percent
of the cosmic energy budget.

Portuguese: 
As últimas décadas foram bastante espetaculares
para a física fundamental.
Na grande escala do cosmos, temos
não só detectou o fundo de microondas cósmica,
que é você sabe o brilho do Big
Bang, mas também medindo as propriedades
desta radiação, especialmente das flutuações
nessa coisa, fomos capazes de confirmar uma ampla
imagem de pincel do nosso universo.
O que tem dentro?
Quais são as suas propriedades?
Determinamos seis parâmetros para uma alta precisão
que determinam nosso universo.
Nós sabemos, agora muito sobre você sabe o que o
universo é feito de.
Sabemos que a matéria ordinária, por exemplo,
coisas que somos feitos de estrelas são feitas,
galáxias são feitas é inferior a cinco por cento
do orçamento de energia cósmica.

English: 
About twenty five percent or so is dark matter
which is matter that while has a gravitational
influence it does not admit or absorb any
light.
The rest seventy percent is in the form of
some smooth form that fills all space, which
we sometimes call dark energy.
It's consistent with Einstein's famous cosmological
constant.
We measured the expansion rate of the universe
and we know that rate locally with an error
no bigger than 2.4 percent, which means we
can determine the age of the universe with
that type of accuracy.
I actually looked it up and it turns out that
with all the medical techniques we have today,
we cannot determine the age of a person with
that type of accuracy.
Wow
But we can determine the age of the universe
with that.
So this is on the grand scale of things.
On the smaller scale we have a standard model
of particle physics Where we know what we

Portuguese: 
Cerca de vinte e cinco por cento ou mais é matéria escura
que é matéria que, embora tenha um gravitacional
influência não admite ou absorve qualquer
leve.
O resto setenta por cento está na forma de
alguma forma suave que preenche todo o espaço,
nós às vezes chamamos energia escura.
É consistente com o famoso cosmológico de Einstein
constante.
Nós medimos a taxa de expansão do universo
e nós sabemos que a taxa localmente com um erro
não maior que 2,4%, o que significa que
pode determinar a idade do universo com
esse tipo de precisão.
Eu realmente olhei para cima e verifica-se que
com todas as técnicas médicas que temos hoje,
não podemos determinar a idade de uma pessoa com
esse tipo de precisão.
Uau
Mas podemos determinar a idade do universo
com isso.
Então, isso é na grande escala das coisas.
Na escala menor, temos um modelo padrão
da física de partículas Onde sabemos o que nós

English: 
think are the basic constituents of matter.
These are quarks, leptons.
We also know that they are four force carriers,
you know carrier of the electromagnetic, of
the weak, of the strong interaction.
And this culminated in 2012 with the discovery
of the Higgs boson or at least a particle
that has those properties which is again associated
with the field that permeates all space and
which gives mass we think to all the particles
that we all know and love.
So this is also an amazing achievement.
We discovered for the first time and managed
to detect gravitational waves.
These are ripples in spacetime predicted by
Einstein's theory of general relativity and
looked for decades and we finally found them.
So this is all amazing.
Now.

Portuguese: 
pense são os constituintes básicos da matéria.
Estes são quarks, léptons.
Nós também sabemos que eles são quatro portadores de força,
você sabe portador do eletromagnético, de
o fraco, da forte interação.
E isso culminou em 2012 com a descoberta
do bóson de Higgs ou pelo menos uma partícula
que tem essas propriedades que são novamente associadas
com o campo que permeia todo o espaço e
o que dá massa pensamos para todas as partículas
que todos nós conhecemos e amamos.
Então, isso também é uma conquista incrível.
Nós descobrimos pela primeira vez e conseguimos
para detectar ondas gravitacionais.
Estas são ondulações no espaço-tempo previstas por
A teoria de Einstein da relatividade geral e
olhou por décadas e finalmente os encontramos.
Então tudo isso é incrível.
Agora.

Portuguese: 
Apesar de todos esses enormes sucessos
Houve algumas surpresas.
E alguns podem até dizer desapontamentos em
algum nível.
Então, por exemplo, no fundo de microondas cósmica
há uma forte previsão do nosso modelo
que é chamado de inflação, que você conhece o
universo era quando se era uma pequena fração
de um segundo todo gasto como louco.
Que deveria haver algum imprint no cósmico
fundo de microondas na forma de polarização,
alguma forma.
Agora, esses ainda não foram detectados.
Isso não significa que eles não estão lá, é
só que eles ainda não foram detectados.
No lado da física de partículas tem havido
fortes previsões ou expectativas eu deveria
dizem que no Grande Colisor de Hádrons
descobrir supersimetria que ou seja que cada

English: 
In spite of all of these enormous successes
there have been a few surprises.
And some might even say disappointments at
some level.
So for example, in the cosmic microwave background
there is a strong prediction from our model
which is called inflation, that you know the
universe was when one was a tiny fraction
of a second all the expended like crazy.
That there should be some imprint in the cosmic
microwave background in the form of polarization,
some some form.
Now those have not been detected yet.
This does not mean they are not there it's
just that they haven't been yet detected.
In the particle physics side there have been
strong predictions or expectations I should
say that in the Large Hadron Collider we will
discover supersymmetry that namely that each

Portuguese: 
partícula que todos nós conhecemos e amamos teria
um parceiro que tem um giro que é metade de uma unidade
removido disso.
Aqueles ainda não foram detectados.
A massa do bóson de Higgs foi uma surpresa
para alguns e em particular, foi pensado que
talvez a massa encontrada tenha significado
deve ser outras partículas em sua vizinhança.
Aqueles não foram encontrados.
Então, basicamente, nós entendemos agora que há
ainda é muito trabalho a ser feito.
Então agora vou me voltar para os participantes aqui
e você sabe, vamos ver como podemos progredir.
Então eu começaria perguntando a cada um de vocês
para me dizer muito brevemente, quero dizer em algo
como três minutos, no que você está trabalhando?
agora mesmo?
Então eu trabalho com você, Matias.
Sim.
Então, agora eu estou trabalhando em duas coisas assim
Estou muito interessado nas coisas que poderiam
ser sobra desde o início, o começo
do big bang quente na forma desses pequenos

English: 
particle that we all know and love would have
a partner that has a spin that is half a unit
removed from that.
Those haven't been detected yet.
The mass of the Higgs boson was a surprise
to some and in particular it was thought that
maybe the mass that was found means that there
should be other particles in its vicinity.
Those were not found.
So basically we understand now that there
is still a lot of work to be done.
So now I will turn to the participants here
and you know let's see how we can make progress.
So I would start by asking each one of you
to tell me very briefly, I mean in something
like three minutes, what are you working on
right now?
So I task with you Matias.
Yes.
So right now I'm working on two things so
I'm very interested in the things that could
be leftover from the very beginning, the beginning
of the hot big bang in the form of these small

English: 
fluctuations that then grow to form this structure
that we see in the universe.
And the good thing about them is that they
have a lot of memory, so when we look at things
today we can kind of play back the picture
and try to understand how they started.
I'm interested in several of those properties
and I'm working in trying to improve the ways,
the ways that we run this movie backwards.
To try to extract more information about how
things started because that's to me one of
the big mysteries.
Nima?
Well I'm thinking about things on the two
extremes that you alluded to on the very very
short distance frontier, a very high energy
frontier.
For the past number of years I've been thinking
a lot about how we could experimentally study,
in as much detail as possible, and what we
could learn if we got this experimental information
about properties of the Higgs particle.
The Higgs particle is a very strange particle.

Portuguese: 
flutuações que depois crescem para formar essa estrutura
que vemos no universo.
E a coisa boa sobre eles é que eles
tem muita memória, então quando olhamos para as coisas
hoje podemos meio que reproduzir a imagem
e tente entender como eles começaram.
Estou interessado em várias dessas propriedades
e estou trabalhando na tentativa de melhorar os caminhos
as formas como rodamos esse filme de trás para frente.
Para tentar extrair mais informações sobre como
as coisas começaram porque isso é para mim um dos
os grandes mistérios.
Nima?
Bem, eu estou pensando sobre as coisas nos dois
extremos que você aludiu no muito, muito
fronteira de curta distância, uma energia muito alta
fronteira.
Nos últimos anos, estive pensando
muito sobre como poderíamos estudar experimentalmente,
o mais detalhadamente possível, e o que nós
poderia aprender se recebêssemos essa informação experimental
sobre as propriedades da partícula de Higgs.
A partícula de Higgs é uma partícula muito estranha.

English: 
We've never seen anything like it before and
it's more pointlike than you would naively
expect it to be.
Namely has no structure.
Yeah.
It doesn't seem to have any any structure.
Seems to be like like purely pointlike.
Doesn't seem to have any sub substructure
at all and a whole bunch of people are are
studying the prospects of having another accelerator
after the LHC could be 100 kilometers around.
And one of the things that would do is put
the Higgs under a much more powerful microscope
than we could get from the LHC and answer
very basic questions that are going to be
left open even after we've finished running
everything about the LHC, about this burning
theoretical mystery about its substructure.
In the opposite direction of, I was literally
working on the train on the way up here is,
has to do with some questions about the cosmology.
Cosmology is just the most glorious of the
historical sciences but like all historical
sciences it has an interesting relationship
with the notion of time.
None of us were around during the early universe.

Portuguese: 
Nós nunca vimos nada assim antes e
é mais pontual do que você faria ingenuamente
espere que seja.
Ou seja, não tem estrutura.
Sim.
Não parece ter qualquer estrutura.
Parece ser como puramente pontual.
Não parece ter subestrutura
em tudo e um monte de pessoas são são
estudando as perspectivas de ter outro acelerador
depois que o LHC poderia estar a 100 quilômetros ao redor.
E uma das coisas que faria é colocar
o Higgs sob um microscópio muito mais poderoso
do que poderíamos obter do LHC e responder
perguntas muito básicas que vão ser
deixada aberta mesmo depois de terminarmos de correr
tudo sobre o LHC, sobre essa queima
mistério teórico sobre sua subestrutura.
Na direção oposta, eu estava literalmente
trabalhar no trem a caminho daqui é,
tem a ver com algumas questões sobre a cosmologia.
A cosmologia é apenas a mais gloriosa das
ciências históricas, mas como todos os históricos
ciências, tem uma relação interessante
com a noção de tempo.
Nenhum de nós estava por perto durante o início do universo.

English: 
But we infer this past and the Big Bang and
even inflation and all of that stuff because
we make measurements today at very late times
about sort of correlations in space.
And we decide that the best way of making
sense of those correlations in space is by
inferring the existence of a time and cosmological
time and evolution that came before that,
a lot like a paleontologist infers the existence
of dinosaurs from the existence of big bones
lying around.
But for many reasons we expect the notion
of time has got to ultimately break down.
It can't be fundamental, especially when we
get back to the Big Bang, probably to notion
of time which is breaking down.
So that's suggests theoretically there should
be some way of talking about things without
making such heavy use of this concept of time.
And so I've been working theoretically on
trying to find some interesting new mathematical
structures that could replace time and our
understanding of where these spatial correlations
come from.
Right and time within that sense would be
an emergent property.
Time would be an emergent property.
Yeah
Thanks.

Portuguese: 
Mas inferimos este passado e o Big Bang e
mesmo inflação e todas essas coisas porque
fazemos medições hoje em tempos muito atrasados
sobre o tipo de correlações no espaço.
E nós decidimos que a melhor maneira de fazer
sentido dessas correlações no espaço é por
inferindo a existência de um tempo e cosmológica
tempo e evolução que vieram antes disso,
muito parecido com um paleontologista infere a existência
de dinossauros da existência de grandes ossos
mentindo por aí.
Mas, por muitas razões, esperamos a noção
de tempo tem que finalmente quebrar.
Não pode ser fundamental, especialmente quando
voltar para o Big Bang, provavelmente para a noção
do tempo que está se quebrando.
Então isso é sugerido teoricamente deveria
ser alguma maneira de falar sobre as coisas sem
fazendo uso tão pesado deste conceito de tempo.
E então eu tenho trabalhado teoricamente em
tentando encontrar algum novo e interessante matemático
estruturas que poderiam substituir o tempo e nossa
compreensão de onde essas correlações espaciais
vem de onde.
Certo e tempo dentro desse sentido seria
uma propriedade emergente.
O tempo seria uma propriedade emergente.
Sim
Obrigado.

Portuguese: 
França eu percebo que, você sabe, você é um pouco
diferente em termos do que você faz em sua
caso eu insistiria, eu quero dizer o que é atualmente
a maioria ocupando você sabe o seu tempo.
Eu corro uma grande agência que financia toda a ciência
e engenharia.
Tudo, exceto para as ciências biomédicas
que os Institutos Nacionais de Saúde faz.
Então, nós financiamos tudo, desde social e comportamental
ciências para geociências, ciências biológicas,
ciências da computação, claramente física, astronomia,
química, ciências dos materiais, matemática
e assim por diante.
Tenho certeza que deixei algo de fora.
Também administramos o programa da Antarctica dos EUA e
por isso temos muita ciência lá no Sul
Pólo, incluindo um experimento que é chamado
Cubo de Gelo que é um grande detector de neutrinos
no Pólo Sul, cerca de um quilômetro quadrado
matriz de multiplicadores de fotos que são que vão
descer um quilômetro no gelo e detectar neutrinos
dos céus.
Mas no lado prático de servir a ciência
nós estamos construindo alguns telescópios muito grandes para
o futuro.

English: 
France I realize that, you know, you are somewhat
different in terms of what you do so in your
case I would insist on, I mean what is currently
most occupying you know your time.
I run a big agency that funds all of science
and engineering.
Everything except for the biomedical sciences
which the National Institutes of Health does.
So we fund everything from social and behavioral
sciences to geosciences, biological sciences,
computer sciences, clearly physics, astronomy,
chemistry, material sciences, mathematics
and and so on.
I'm sure I left something out.
We also run the U.S. Antarctica program and
so we have a lot of science there at the South
Pole, including an experiment that's called
Ice Cube which is a big neutrino detector
at the South Pole, about a square kilometer
array of photo multipliers that are that go
down a kilometer into the ice and detect neutrinos
from the heavens.
But on the practical side of serving science
we're building some very big telescopes for
the future.

English: 
And we're also trying to make better the telescopes
that we currently have.
So as one example on the gravitational wave
experiment we know there are lots of noise
that affects the spectrum of, the frequency
spectrum for detecting gravitational wave
from seismic noise to thermal noise to shot
noise.
And so if we can improve the equipment.
So those are technological advances that we
are working on and we have in the laboratories
where these people work and all over the country
we have young people working on things like
using quantum physics to squeeze slides so
we can get a big better focus on the laser
light source for LIGO.
So we're trying to reduce, increase the sensitivity,
reduce the noise and thereby be able to detect
sources of gravitational waves much farther
out.
So already this in this run that we're having
now, which is called the second run of this

Portuguese: 
E também estamos tentando melhorar os telescópios
que atualmente temos.
Então, como um exemplo na onda gravitacional
experimento sabemos que há muito barulho
que afeta o espectro de, a freqüência
espectro para detectar ondas gravitacionais
de ruído sísmico a ruído térmico a tiro
barulho.
E assim, se podemos melhorar o equipamento.
Então, esses são avanços tecnológicos que nós
estão trabalhando e nós temos nos laboratórios
onde essas pessoas trabalham e em todo o país
temos jovens trabalhando em coisas como
usando física quântica para espremer slides assim
podemos ter um foco melhor no laser
fonte de luz para o LIGO.
Então, estamos tentando reduzir, aumentar a sensibilidade
reduzir o ruído e, assim, ser capaz de detectar
fontes de ondas gravitacionais muito mais longe
Fora.
Então já esta nesta corrida que estamos tendo
agora, que é chamado a segunda corrida deste

English: 
facility, we have improved by a factor of
20 to 30 percent the sensitivity.
So we'll keep going in that direction while
also building a lot of new telescopes to observe
dark energy, dark matter in the ways you talked
about.
And you hope to reach a factor of three right
at least in new sensitivity, when everything
is said and done?
Yeah yeah.
Good Matias, I know that you have thought
quite a bit and presumably still work on this
thing called non-Gaussianity in the cosmic
microwave background.
So you know everything in life we think is
Gaussian you know.
It depends on this bell shaped curve.
But in the cosmic microwave background everything
is also Gaussian but different theories predict
small, you know, deviations from this Gaussianity.
So explain to us a little bit you know what
is involved there and what does it mean if
it is being detected?

Portuguese: 
facilidade, melhoramos por um fator de
20 a 30% da sensibilidade.
Então vamos continuar nessa direção enquanto
também construindo muitos novos telescópios para observar
energia escura, matéria escura da maneira como você falou
sobre.
E você espera alcançar um fator de três direito
pelo menos em nova sensibilidade, quando tudo
está dito e feito?
Sim Sim.
Bom Matias, eu sei que você pensou
um pouco e, presumivelmente, ainda trabalhamos nisso
coisa chamada não-Gaussianity no cósmica
fundo de microondas.
Então você sabe tudo na vida que achamos que é
Gaussian você sabe.
Depende desta curva em forma de sino.
Mas no fundo de microondas cósmica tudo
é também gaussiana, mas diferentes teorias prevêem
pequenos, você sabe, desvios desta gaussianidade.
Então nos explique um pouco, você sabe o que
está envolvido lá e o que significa se
está sendo detectado?

English: 
Yeah so I think the first thing to point out
is that we are always looking for things that
are leftover from the very beginning and that
the subsequent evolution of the universe has
a difficult time changing.
So, for example, natural thing that we would
look try to see if the universe has a different
composition in different places.
But even a universe that started with different
compositions, some physical processes in between
can make the composition all the same.
So you can erase composition differences.
However when we look at the statistics of
these fluctuations, these properties, the
Gaussianity of it, is something that is pretty
much impossible to at least on the very large
scales, to erase.
And so in that sense it's kind of a very nice
thing to look at because if we find it it's
telling us something about really the very
beginning of how these fluctuations that lead
to structure arose.

Portuguese: 
Sim, então eu acho que a primeira coisa a apontar
é que estamos sempre procurando coisas que
são sobras desde o início e que
a evolução subsequente do universo tem
um momento difícil mudar.
Então, por exemplo, coisa natural que nós
procure tentar ver se o universo tem um diferente
composição em lugares diferentes.
Mas mesmo um universo que começou com diferentes
composições, alguns processos físicos entre
pode fazer a composição tudo a mesma coisa.
Então você pode apagar as diferenças de composição.
No entanto, quando olhamos para as estatísticas de
essas flutuações, essas propriedades, o
Gaussianity disto, é algo que é bonito
muito impossível, pelo menos no muito grande
escalas, para apagar.
E então, nesse sentido, é uma coisa muito legal
coisa para olhar porque se achamos que é
nos dizendo algo sobre realmente o muito
começando de como essas flutuações que levam
para estruturar surgiu.

English: 
What it involves doing in terms of the observations
is making maps of the universe as big as we
possibly can because these are statistical
measurements that you want a lot of samples
to be able to infer the distribution of matter
and difference on different size scales and
at different times in the history of the universe
so the bigger the map the better and try to
learn how to interpret these in the best possible
ways.
So just a small follow up on this.
I mean can you, do you think we can do this
with the current existing data from Planck
and W-MAP and so on?
Or does this need the next generation of cosmic
microwave background detectors?
Well these are things, that were the last
generation of CMB experiments made a big progress
on that.
But basically in the CMB with mapped the entire
sky almost to the highest resolution that
we can possibly do it.

Portuguese: 
O que envolve fazer em termos de observações
está fazendo mapas do universo tão grande quanto nós
possivelmente pode, porque estes são estatísticos
medições que você quer um monte de amostras
ser capaz de inferir a distribuição da matéria
e diferença em diferentes escalas de tamanho e
em diferentes momentos da história do universo
Então, quanto maior o mapa, melhor e tentar
aprenda a interpretá-los da melhor forma possível
maneiras.
Então apenas um pequeno acompanhamento sobre isso.
Quero dizer você pode, você acha que podemos fazer isso
com os dados atuais existentes do Planck
e W-MAP e assim por diante?
Ou isso precisa da próxima geração de cósmica
detectores de fundo de microondas?
Bem, estas são coisas, que foram as últimas
geração de experimentos CMB fez um grande progresso
naquilo.
Mas basicamente no CMB com mapeado todo o
céu quase à mais alta resolução que
nós podemos possivelmente fazer isso.

Portuguese: 
Há nós podemos fazer melhor na polarização,
então há um pouco de melhoria, mas
não é uma melhoria qualitativa.
Então eu acho que provavelmente para obter um não apenas
um pouco de uma melhoria, que é claro
é muito bom ter e estamos trabalhando, pessoas
estão trabalhando nisso e isso vai acontecer.
Mas para ter outra ordem de magnitude nós
provavelmente vai precisar procurar algum outro
sondas, mapeando principalmente a distribuição de
importa no universo posterior.
E aí as restrições atuais sobre Gaussianity
daqueles daqueles inquéritos são significativamente
mais fraca do que as que temos no CMB.
Então isso significa que esse campo tem que alcançar
Aprenda um pouco como fazer as coisas.
E serão as próximas gerações de pesquisas
isso vai fazer isso.
E, eventualmente, espero que eles consigam
porque de fato há uma grande parte do
universo ainda não mapeado.
Então, em termos de nossos dados, está lá fora
há muito.
Certo.

English: 
There is we can do better in polarization,
so there is a little bit of improvement but
not a qualitative improvement.
So I think most probably to get a not just
a little bit of an improvement, which of course
is very nice to have and we are working, people
are working on it and it will happen.
But to have another order of magnitude we
will probably need to look for some other
probes, mainly mapping the distribution of
matter in the later universe.
And there the current constraints on Gaussianity
from those from those surveys are significantly
weaker than the ones that we have in the CMB.
So it means that this field has to catch up
quite a bit, learn how to do things.
And it'll be the next few generations of surveys
that will do this.
And eventually, hopefully, they'll catch up
because indeed there is a big part of the
universe we have not yet mapped.
So in terms of our data that it's out there
there's a lot.
Right.

English: 
Nima, you know we talked about you know some
of these things that you know we now know
and some of the problems that we have.
I know that such people as Savas Dimopoulos
and some of his students and ex-students and
so on work on tabletop experiments which you
know I mean, now Matias now talked about you
know bigger experiments and so on.
But this is a new type of experiments that
perhaps can probe some of the things we're
talking about: dark energy, dark matter and
so on.
Can you explain a little bit to us how those
tabletop experiments work.
Yeah, if I just put it in a little bit of
context that we've, certainly the generation
of people like me and Matias have lived through
three decades of amazing experiments probing
fundamental physics on every possible frontier,
there's dark matter, the measurements of the
universe, colliders, most recently the LHC.

Portuguese: 
Nima, você sabe que nós conversamos sobre você sabe alguns
dessas coisas que você sabe que agora sabemos
e alguns dos problemas que temos.
Eu sei que pessoas como Savas Dimopoulos
e alguns de seus alunos e ex-alunos e
Então, no trabalho em experimentos de mesa que você
sabe, quero dizer, agora Matias agora falou sobre você
conheça experimentos maiores e assim por diante.
Mas este é um novo tipo de experimentos que
talvez possa investigar algumas das coisas que estamos
falando: energia escura, matéria escura e
em breve.
Você pode nos explicar um pouco como esses
experimentos de mesa funcionam.
Sim, se eu colocar um pouco de
contexto que nós, certamente, a geração
de pessoas como eu e Matias viveram
três décadas de experiências surpreendentes sondando
física fundamental em todas as fronteiras possíveis,
há matéria escura, as medidas do
universo, colliders, mais recentemente o LHC.

English: 
And most of these experiments were imagined
and conceived by people in the 1980s who had
a sort of vision for what the next 30 years
was going to look like.
And many of these experiments are in their
last stages.
And it's I think a very interesting time to
think about what the next 30 years are going
to look like because that's the kind of time
scale we talk about in this business.
You really have to think sort of three decades
on...
At least, I would say.
At least, yeah.
If not if not longer.
It's getting longer.
So there are, of course, there's a whole very
important new generation of experiments that
Matias was just alluding to to measure everything
we possibly can about the distribution of
matter in the universe.
There is I forget what the factor is but maybe
a factor, what is it like ten to the eight
times more data potentially out there that
we can get as human beings.
A hundred million.
It's a hundred million times.
Then what what what we actually have.

Portuguese: 
E a maioria desses experimentos foram imaginados
e concebido por pessoas na década de 1980 que tiveram
uma espécie de visão para o que os próximos 30 anos
ia ser parecido.
E muitos desses experimentos estão em sua
últimos estágios.
E acho que é um momento muito interessante para
pense sobre o que os próximos 30 anos vão
para parecer porque esse é o tipo de tempo
escala que falamos neste negócio.
Você realmente tem que pensar em três décadas
em...
Pelo menos eu diria.
Pelo menos sim.
Se não, se não mais.
Está ficando mais longo.
Então, há, claro, há um todo muito
importante nova geração de experimentos que
Matias estava apenas aludindo a medir tudo
nós possivelmente podemos sobre a distribuição de
importa no universo.
Eu esqueci qual é o fator, mas talvez
um fator, como é dez a oito
vezes mais dados potencialmente lá fora que
podemos obter como seres humanos.
Cem milhões.
São cem milhões de vezes.
Então o que o que nós realmente temos.

English: 
There is the experiments I alluded to earlier
about taking the sort of next big step after
the large hadron collider or a factor of ten,
710 an energy higher than that.
But there are some novel things that people
are are talking about which are mostly targeted
at looking for things that might be out there
that could be related to dark matter that
are incredibly weakly interacting with us.
Now dark matter is is one of the things that's
supposed to be incredibly weakly interacting
with us par excellence.
Right.
That we're supposed to think that we've only
noticed its affects gravitationally and gravity
is by far the weakest of all interactions
there are.
So most of the experiments of the last twenty
years that have been looking for dark matter
have been assuming, there's various good theoretical
reasons why it's nice to assume so, have been
assuming, that the dark matter particle does
participate in some of the interactions that
we know about.

Portuguese: 
Há as experiências que aludi anteriormente
sobre tomar o tipo de próximo grande passo depois
o grande colisor de hádrons ou um fator de dez,
710 uma energia maior do que isso.
Mas há algumas coisas novas que as pessoas
estão falando sobre quais são principalmente alvo
à procura de coisas que podem estar lá fora
que poderia estar relacionado com a matéria escura que
estão incrivelmente fracamente interagindo conosco.
Agora, a matéria escura é uma das coisas que
deveria ser incrivelmente fraca interagindo
conosco por excelência.
Certo.
Que devemos pensar que temos apenas
notado seus afeta gravitacionalmente e gravidade
é de longe o mais fraco de todas as interações
há.
Então, a maioria dos experimentos dos últimos vinte
anos que foram à procura de matéria escura
tem assumido, há vários bons conhecimentos teóricos
razões pelas quais é bom supor que sim, foram
supondo que a partícula de matéria escura não
participar de algumas das interações que
nós conhecemos.

English: 
The weak interactions that are associated
with radioactivity are an incredibly weak
interaction but still it's strong enough that
people could design all these amazing experiments
to look for dark matter particles and in the
range that they're looking for that sort of
one of them in every liter in this room you
know moving through the room at one one-thousandth
the speed of light and they would bang into
like very cold big vats of liquid Xenon for
example.
And you look for the little shakings of the
nucleus of these atoms.
So those are the kind of experiments people
have been doing for a long time.
But it's possible that dark matter doesn't
look like that.
With no results.
No results.
We haven't seen anything.
We haven't seen anything.
Now these things are called, this picture
for dark matter is called the picture of WIMPs.
The W in WIMPs stands for weakly interacting
massive particles and the weak is actually
it really is a technical sense of the word
the weak interaction.
It has that kind of strength interaction.
It's actually possible that the dark matter
even is very simple a picture of WIMPS but
that the interaction is just too weak.

Portuguese: 
As interações fracas que estão associadas
com radioatividade são incrivelmente fracos
interação, mas ainda é forte o suficiente para que
as pessoas poderiam projetar todas essas experiências incríveis
para procurar partículas de matéria escura e no
gama que eles estão procurando por esse tipo de
um deles em cada litro nesta sala você
sabe se movendo pela sala em um milésimo
a velocidade da luz e eles iriam bater
como grandes cubas muito frias de Xenon líquido para
exemplo.
E você procura os pequenos tremores do
núcleo desses átomos.
Então esses são os tipos de experimentos que as pessoas
tem feito há muito tempo.
Mas é possível que a matéria escura não
parece assim.
Sem resultados.
Sem resultados.
Nós não vimos nada.
Nós não vimos nada.
Agora essas coisas são chamadas, essa foto
para a matéria escura é chamado a imagem dos WIMPs.
O W em WIMPs significa fraca interação
partículas massivas e os fracos são, na verdade,
é realmente um sentido técnico da palavra
a interação fraca.
Tem esse tipo de interação de força.
É realmente possível que a matéria escura
mesmo é muito simples uma imagem do WIMPS, mas
que a interação é muito fraca.

English: 
In fact the very very simplest dumbest most
straightforward possible picture for what
dark matter could be, it just accidentally
happens to be so weakly coupled that these
experiments are not going to see them.
But there have been also long been many other
interesting examples of particles that could
that could solve many theoretical problems
and also be dark matter.
Things like axions for example.
And these are an interesting kind of particle.
There are zillions of them surrounding us
all the time.
They have very small mass.
There are zillions of them surrounding us
all the time.
They are more strongly interacting than gravity
but way weakly more weakly interacting than
then everything else.
And so you need a totally different kind of
experiment to go looking for them.
And what the, this new generation of experiments
that you're referring to use cool methods
from atomic physics the our growing ability
to quantum mechanically manipulate fairly
macroscopic objects in order to look for these
things.
Just to give you one example, if these particles
are out there and they're dark matter, one

Portuguese: 
Na verdade, o muito mais simples mais burro
imagem possível direta para o que
matéria escura poderia ser, apenas acidentalmente
acontece de ser tão fracamente acoplado que estes
experimentos não vão vê-los.
Mas tem havido também muitos outros
exemplos interessantes de partículas que poderiam
que poderia resolver muitos problemas teóricos
e também ser matéria escura.
Coisas como axions por exemplo.
E estes são um tipo interessante de partículas.
Há zilhões deles nos cercando
o tempo todo.
Eles têm massa muito pequena.
Há zilhões deles nos cercando
o tempo todo.
Eles estão interagindo mais fortemente do que a gravidade
mas maneira fracamente mais fracamente interagindo do que
então tudo mais.
E então você precisa de um tipo totalmente diferente de
experimente ir procurá-los.
E o que, essa nova geração de experimentos
que você está se referindo a usar métodos legais
da física atômica a nossa capacidade crescente
a quantum mecanicamente manipular razoavelmente
objetos macroscópicos, a fim de procurar por estes
coisas.
Só para dar um exemplo, se essas partículas
estão lá fora e eles são matéria escura, um

English: 
of the predictions is that the neutron, the
neutron which is a neutral particle would
have a tiny so-called electric dipole moment.
That would mean that the fact that it would
be as if the neutron while it's neutral has
a little bit more charge in one direction
in the north pole than in the south pole if
it's spinning with a with a spin going in
the north south direction.
And so and that tiny tiny electric dipole
moment would actually oscillate with time.
And so you can use fancy methods from atomic
physics, essentially using the same ideas
from nuclear magnetic resonance to pick up
and amplify that that oscillating neutron
electric
Just to say nuclear magnetic resonance is
what is used in all your MRI imaging and so
on.
Right.
So that's that's one example.
And there are a number of other examples like
this but there is this new frontier of looking
for very weakly interacting things that could
be if they're if they're the dark matter could
be filling the universe around us.

Portuguese: 
das previsões é que o nêutron, o
nêutron, que é uma partícula neutra seria
tem um pequeno chamado momento de dipolo elétrico.
Isso significaria que o fato de que seria
ser como se o nêutron enquanto é neutro
um pouco mais de carga em uma direção
no pólo norte do que no pólo sul se
está girando com um com um giro indo em
a direção norte-sul.
E assim e aquele minúsculo dipolo elétrico
momento iria realmente oscilar com o tempo.
E assim você pode usar métodos sofisticados da atomic
física, essencialmente usando as mesmas idéias
de ressonância magnética nuclear para pegar
e amplificar que esse nêutron oscilante
elétrico
Apenas para dizer ressonância magnética nuclear é
o que é usado em todas as suas imagens de ressonância magnética e assim
em.
Certo.
Então esse é um exemplo.
E há vários outros exemplos como
isso, mas há essa nova fronteira de olhar
por coisas muito fracamente interativas que poderiam
seja, se eles são, se eles são a matéria escura poderia
estar preenchendo o universo ao nosso redor.

Portuguese: 
E isso é que acho muito emocionante.
Certo.
E talvez eu deva também adicionar e talvez você
pode adicionar um pouco também, quero dizer alguns destes
experimentos também fazem essas coisas com minúsculos
minúsculos objetos micron e você sabe,
agindo em gravidade entre tais coisas que
é uma força que é apenas sobre o peso de
um vírus.
Sim.
E entao
E testando como a gravidade muda neste tipo
de escala.
Só para você ter uma ideia, nós costumamos dizer
que a gravidade é a mais fraca de todas as forças.
E se você pegar um se pegar um par de elétrons
sua repulsão elétrica é quarenta e duas ordens
de magnitude mais forte do que o gravitacional
atração entre
Isso é um e quarenta zeros.
Um e quarenta e dois zeros.
Sim.
Então agora, claro, a gravidade parece ser a mais
força importante.
Aqui está mantendo os pés no chão e
em breve.
E isso porque a maioria dos objetos está no
final eletricamente neutro, como átomos

English: 
And that's I think it's very exciting.
Right.
And maybe I should also add and maybe you
can add a little bit too, I mean some of these
experiments also do these things with tiny
tiny micron sized objects and you know in,
acting in gravity between such things which
is a force that's just about the weight of
a virus.
Yeah.
And so
And testing how gravity changes on this type
of scale.
Just so you have an idea, we we often say
that gravity is the weakest of all forces.
And if you take a if you take a pair of electrons
their electric repulsion is forty two orders
of magnitude stronger than the gravitational
attraction between
That's one and forty zeros.
One and forty two zeros.
Yeah.
So now of course gravity looks like the most
important force.
Here it's keeping our feet to the ground and
so on.
And that's because most objects are in the
end electrically neutral right, like atoms

Portuguese: 
são eletricamente neutros.
Mas você pode perguntar, a que distância, se você
pegue um par de átomos de hidrogênio a que distância
você tem que colocá-los para que a gravidade fique
mais fraco do que o minúsculo residual minúsculo
peça da interação eletromagnética que é
deixou entre eles?
Chama-se força de van der Waals.
Acontece que a distância é em torno de um milímetro.
Já em um milímetro, que é uma bonita
escala de grande distância, a gravidade está apenas começando
inundado por essas outras interações.
E de fato existem pessoas que gerenciam
para controlar, por exemplo, a mecânica quântica
coerência entre dois átomos separados
por distâncias desta ordem.
Então você pode realmente tentar medir e ver
os efeitos da gravidade nestes muito pequenos
escala as coisas.
França, ouvimos aqui de você sabe de grande
experimentos em escala e experimentos tipo mesa
você sabe e assim por diante.

English: 
are electrically neutral.
But you can ask, at what distance, if you
take a pair of hydrogen atoms at what distance
do you have to put them so that gravity gets
weaker than even the residual tiny tiny little
piece of the electromagnetic interaction that's
left between them?
It's called the van der Waals force.
It turns out that distance is around a millimeter.
Already at a millimeter, which is a pretty
big distance scale, gravity is just getting
swamped by these other interactions.
And so indeed there are people who manage
to control for example the quantum mechanical
coherence between two atoms that are separated
by distances of this of this order.
So you could actually try to measure and see
the effects of gravity in these very small
scale things.
France, we heard here of you know of large
scale experiments and tabletop type experiments
you know and so on.

English: 
How does the NSF work in terms of, prioritizing,
or not, big versus small experiments and so
on.
Because we're talking here about different
classes of experiments.
Things that cost billions of dollars and things
that our tabletop experiments which probably
still cost hundreds of thousands of dollars
maybe but you know it's still very..
More like tens of millions of dollars.
It’s OK
So it’s it’s an interesting question from
many aspects because of course you know even
though we have in principle seven and half
billion dollars to spend it's just a drop
in the bucket when it comes to funding all
of science and engineering, so its a question
of how one sets one's priorities and how you
balance little versus big things to invest
in because you want to have an investment
portfolio.
We all want it in our personal lives that
that balances for different objectives and
goals and has a balanced portfolio.
So we really depend on the science and engineering
community to be the major source of input
for that.

Portuguese: 
Como a NSF trabalha em termos de priorização,
ou não, grande contra pequenas experiências e assim
em.
Porque estamos falando aqui sobre diferentes
classes de experimentos.
Coisas que custam bilhões de dólares e coisas
que nossas experiências de mesa que provavelmente
ainda custam centenas de milhares de dólares
talvez, mas você sabe que ainda é muito ..
Mais como dezenas de milhões de dólares.
Está certo
Então é uma questão interessante
muitos aspectos, porque é claro que você sabe mesmo
embora tenhamos em princípio sete e meio
bilhão de dólares para gastar é apenas uma gota
no balde quando se trata de financiar todos
de ciência e engenharia, então é uma questão
de como se define as prioridades e como você
equilibrar pouco contra grandes coisas para investir
porque você quer ter um investimento
portfólio.
Nós todos queremos isso em nossas vidas pessoais que
que equilibra para diferentes objetivos e
objetivos e tem um portfólio equilibrado.
Então, nós realmente dependemos da ciência e engenharia
comunidade para ser a principal fonte de entrada
por isso.

Portuguese: 
Mas acredite em mim, recebemos muitas informações de
outras fontes também.
Uma das principais fontes de entrada é o National
Academia de Ciências.
Então, especialmente em astronomia e física nós
tem esses relatórios que saem a cada década
ou cinco anos, para a física de alta energia
coisa a cada poucos anos, e esses são aqueles
representam centenas, até milhares de cientistas
e engenheiros se unindo e decidindo,
e tendo esses tipos de conversas apenas
como isso só é realmente intenso, não se
nós apenas construímos esse tipo de detector do que
embora demore dez anos e assim por diante.
E assim eles juntam tudo isso em um relatório
que o Congresso realmente respeita porque representa
entrada diferente do que a própria agência.
E nós praticamente seguimos as diretrizes
desses relatórios.
Nós apenas desenhamos o limite de quanto dinheiro
temos que financiá-los.
E assim, nós financiamos coisas muito grandes que
custou centenas de milhões de dólares.

English: 
But believe me we get a lot of input from
other sources too.
One major source of input is the National
Academy of Sciences.
So especially in astronomy and physics we
have these reports that come out every decade
or five years, for the high energy physics
thing every few years, and those are those
represent hundreds, even thousands of scientists
and engineers coming together and decide,
and having these kinds of conversations just
like this only really intense about, no if
we just build this kind of detector than even
though it'll take ten years and so on.
And so they put all that together in a report
that Congress really respects because it represents
different input than the agency itself.
And we we pretty much follow the guidelines
of those reports.
We just draw the boundary at how much money
we have to fund them.
And so we have, we fund very big things that
cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Portuguese: 
Como eu mencionei no LIGO completamente nós temos
colocar em um bilhão de dólares mais e nós financiamos
nós temos um programa chamado grande instrumentação de pesquisa
em universidades que nos financiam quatro milhões
projetos de dólar.
Que a área que mais nos preocupa
deixando de fora agora é a área no meio
que custam entre dez e cem
milhões de dólares porque não temos específico
potes de dinheiro projetados para isso.
Matias, eu quero virar um pouco provocativo
aqui no seguinte sentido.
Você sabe que nós temos procurado por escuridão
importa agora por um longo tempo E nós não encontramos
qualquer coisa.
Agora.
É verdade que as partículas de matéria escura
eles têm muito onde se esconder.
Mas ainda não encontramos nada.
Assim.
Existem algumas pessoas, não há muito
muitos agora, mas há algumas pessoas,
um deles passa a ser um bom amigo de
meus, que sugerem que não há tal escuro

English: 
Like I mentioned in LIGO altogether we've
put in a billion dollars plus and we fund
we have a program called major research instrumentation
in universities that fund us up four million
dollar projects.
That the area that we're most worried about
leaving out right now is the area in the middle
that cost anywhere from say ten to one hundred
million dollars because we don't have specific
pots of money designed for that.
Matias, I want to turn slightly provocative
here in the following sense.
You know we've we've been looking for dark
matter now for a long time And we've not found
anything.
Now.
It is true that the dark matter particles
they have a lot of where to hide.
But still we have not found anything.
So.
There are a few people, there are not very
many right now, but there are a few people,
one of them happens to be a good friend of
mine, who suggest that there are no such dark

English: 
matter particles that instead we need to change
our theory.
And there have been historical precedents
to this.
I mean you know like you know.
When Einstein was there and it was ether you
know and so on.
The idea was not to have something that you
don't see.
But to change the theory.
So.
And similarly with precession of mercury right?
We had to change the theory.
At what point, if any, do we say - well, maybe
we shouldn't build even a bigger experiment
or not let's think harder of changing the
theory.
Well whenever there is if there comes a theory
that explains everything and more things then
everybody will jump of course.
So what a problem is that the lack of such
a theory but also it's important to realize

Portuguese: 
partículas de matéria que, em vez disso, precisamos mudar
nossa teoria.
E tem havido precedentes históricos
para isso.
Quero dizer, você sabe como você sabe.
Quando Einstein estava lá e era etéreo você
sabe e assim por diante.
A ideia não era ter algo que você
não vemos.
Mas para mudar a teoria.
Assim.
E da mesma forma com a precessão do mercúrio, certo?
Nós tivemos que mudar a teoria.
Em que ponto, se houver, dizemos - bem, talvez
não devemos construir nem um experimento maior
ou não, vamos pensar mais difícil de mudar o
teoria.
Bem, sempre que há, se surge uma teoria
isso explica tudo e mais coisas então
todo mundo vai pular claro.
Então, qual é o problema que a falta de tal
uma teoria, mas também é importante perceber

Portuguese: 
que a matéria escura foi introduzida como você sabe
por causa de discrepâncias em galáxias e aglomerados
de galáxias, mas isso não é onde, nem um pouco
agora de onde obtemos a maioria das nossas informações
e toda a nossa informação nossa quanto
matéria escura existe ou como é distribuída.
É do fundo de microondas cósmico.
É de lentes gravitacionais.
Todas as coisas que não eram, não estavam lá quando
matéria escura primeiro, as primeiras anomalias que
levar as pessoas a pensar sobre a matéria escura
surgiu.
E agora a arena, se você quiser
outra explicação, que por sinal é totalmente
bem.
Eu acho ótimo tentar ter muita gente
faça isso e não é um problema.
Mas onde você tem que focar sua atenção
na minha opinião é sobre as coisas que onde
é mais constrangedor, onde temos o
a maioria das informações, as medições percentuais de
o que você sabe abundância por causa de como era
distribuído quatrocentos mil anos depois

English: 
that dark matter was introduced as you know
because of discrepancies in galaxies and clusters
of galaxies but that's not where, not at all
now from where we get most of our information
and all of our information of ours how much
dark matter there is or how it is distributed.
It's from the cosmic microwave background.
It's from gravitational lensing.
All things that were not, were not there when
dark matter first, the first anomalies that
lead to people to think about the dark matter
came about.
And so now the arena, if you want to have
another explanation, which by the way is totally
fine.
I think it's great to try to have lot of people
do it and it's not a problem at all.
But where you have to focus your attention
in my opinion is on the things that where
it's most constraining, where we have the
most information, percent measurements of
the you know abundance because of how it was
distributed four hundred thousand years after

Portuguese: 
Big Bang e no meio com o gravitacional
lente e, posteriormente, com o cluster do Galaxy.
Então nós temos tanta informação e infelizmente
até você mencionou alguns desses frameworks
eles foram construídos para explicar as anomalias originais.
Certo.
Mas eles não têm nada a dizer sobre todos
cosmologia moderna, eu diria.
E é assim que eles são tão no momento tão carente
de ser capaz de usar de qualquer maneira onde o
excitação é que essa é a razão mais
as pessoas não estão usando isso para cosmologia porque
não tem nada a dizer.
Eu concordo com você, mas vou apenas seguir um pequeno
acima.
Quero dizer, em parte, você sabe que talvez eu seja só você
sabe levantar isso como se fosse um provocativo
possibilidade.
A maioria das pessoas não aceitou esse novo framework
começar com.
E então, talvez, poucas pessoas tenham pensado
sobre isso.
Você está certo de que essas estruturas não explicam
os picos no fundo de microondas cósmica

English: 
Big Bang and in the middle with the gravitational
lensing, and later with Galaxy clustering.
So we have so much information and unfortunately
even you mentioned some of these frameworks
they were built to explain the original anomalies.
Right.
But they have nothing to say about all of
modern cosmology, I would say.
And so it's they're so at the moment so lacking
of being able to use in any way where the
excitement is that that's the reason most
people are not using it for cosmology because
it has nothing to say.
I agree with you but I will just a small follow
up.
I mean partly you know maybe I'm just you
know raising this as it was a provocative
possibility.
Most people didn't accept this new framework
to begin with.
And so maybe not enough people have thought
about this.
You're right that these frameworks don't explain
the peaks in the cosmic microwave background

English: 
but maybe because not enough people thought
of trying to explain.
I don't think that's totally correct.
People have tried.
People came up with ways and tried to implement
them and they didn't work out.
So there are people that are continuing to
try just to mention somebody Justin Khoury…
Or Linde.
Or Linde.
There are many people that are trying to do
it so it's not the case that and you know
I think people should not take the, should
not think that in any way shape or form we
are not trying to find the answer right.
So if there is an idea and people, you know,
especially theorists, they like to speculate.
And whenever there is something that rings
a little bit true they follow up.
The problem is that they follow up and you
know the typical complaint about the theorists
is that there is one event and then there's,
you know at the LHC or whatever, a hundred
papers.
So every you know theories we follow up everything.
And the reason these things have not picked
up in my opinion is because the grains of

Portuguese: 
mas talvez porque não há pessoas suficientes
de tentar explicar.
Eu não acho que isso seja totalmente correto.
As pessoas tentaram.
As pessoas inventaram maneiras e tentaram implementar
eles e eles não deram certo.
Então, há pessoas que continuam a
tente apenas mencionar alguém Justin Khoury ...
Ou Linde.
Ou Linde.
Há muitas pessoas que estão tentando fazer
por isso não é o caso disso e você sabe
Eu acho que as pessoas não devem tomar o, deve
não acho que em qualquer forma ou forma nós
não estão tentando encontrar a resposta certa.
Então, se há uma ideia e pessoas, você sabe,
especialmente teóricos, eles gostam de especular.
E sempre que há algo que toca
um pouco verdadeiro eles seguem.
O problema é que eles acompanham e você
sabe a queixa típica sobre os teóricos
é que há um evento e depois há
você sabe no lhc ou qualquer outra coisa, cem
papéis.
Então, todas as teorias que você conhece acompanham tudo.
E a razão pela qual essas coisas não escolheram
na minha opinião é porque os grãos de

Portuguese: 
verdade que você sabe tocar, em seguida, quando você segue
-los até agora eles levam a lugar algum direito.
Enquanto, por outro lado, a matéria escura é uma partícula
temos que lembrar que o universo era muito
mais quente do que qualquer coisa, as colisões foram muito
maior energia do que qualquer coisa que estamos investigando
no laboratório…
Posso dizer uma coisa sobre isso?
Quero dizer, porque há um ponto mais geral
há um ponto mais geral aqui que é
muitas vezes quando falamos de matéria escura e escuro
energia, especialmente no contexto como este
existe uma questão óbvia como sempre
algum garoto de doze anos na platéia que
Não é como o éter?
Vocês são idiotas.
Você não aprendeu nada que você conhece.
Como toda vez que você tem um problema que você gosta
inventar alguma coisa nova louca deveria
construa o universo.
E nós sabemos disso.
Claro que todos nós sabemos disso.
O problema com a história e se você sabe
qualquer coisa sobre a história da ciência você
sabe que você pode usar, você pode dar um exemplo
da história para ilustrar qualquer ponto polêmico
você quer fazer.
E no caso da matéria escura você aludiu
para ele já, mas existem lá estavam lá
eram dois.
Em ambos os sentidos

English: 
truth that you know ring then when you follow
them up so far they lead to nowhere right.
While on the other hand dark matter as a particle
we have to remember the universe was much
hotter than anything, collisions were much
higher energy than anything we are probing
in the laboratory…
Can I say a little thing about this?
I mean because there's a more general point
there's a more general point here which is
often when we talk about dark matter and dark
energy especially in the context like this
there is there is an obvious question as always
some twelve year old kid in the audience who
isn't it just like the ether.
You guys are idiots.
You haven't learned anything you know.
Like every time you have a problem you like
invent some new crazy thing was supposed to
build the universe.
And we know that.
Of course of course we we all know that.
The problem with history, and if you know
anything about the history of science you
know that you can use, you can take an example
from history to illustrate any polemic point
you want to make.
And in the case of dark matter you alluded
to it already but there are there were there
were two.
Both ways

English: 
There are both ways and there was actually
one astronomer, Le Verrier, who was involved
in both of them.
Mr. Le Verrier predicted the location of Neptune
because there were some little anomalies in
the orbits of the distant planets and so that
was dark matter back then, dark planet was.
You could all have said oh let's mess up Newton's
laws.
But no, the right thing was conservative.
Almost always the right thing is conservative.
That's right.
Then he predicted Vulcan because there was
something wrong with the orbit of Mercury
and he was wrong in that case.
Right.
So the same guy was right once and wrong once.
So we never know ahead of time.
And that's why we always keep an open mind
especially I'm just echoing what Matias said,
especially theoretical physicists, we keep
a very open mind.
As Robert Oppenheimer said it's important
to keep an open mind not so open that your
brains fall out.
But you've got to keep your mind as open as
possible.
And that's really difficult.
I've spent time thinking about modifying gravity
and I've written papers about it but exactly
what Matias said is right.

Portuguese: 
Existem duas maneiras e houve realmente
um astrônomo, Le Verrier, que estava envolvido
em ambos.
Sr. Le Verrier previu a localização de Netuno
porque havia algumas pequenas anomalias em
as órbitas dos planetas distantes e assim que
Era matéria escura naquela época, planeta escuro era.
Todos vocês poderiam ter dito oh, vamos atrapalhar o Newton's
leis.
Mas não, a coisa certa era conservadora.
Quase sempre a coisa certa é conservadora.
Está certo.
Então ele previu Vulcano porque havia
algo de errado com a órbita de Mercúrio
e ele estava errado nesse caso.
Certo.
Então o mesmo cara estava certo uma vez e errado uma vez.
Então, nós nunca sabemos antes do tempo.
E é por isso que sempre mantemos uma mente aberta
especialmente eu estou apenas repetindo o que o Matias disse,
especialmente físicos teóricos, mantemos
uma mente muito aberta.
Como Robert Oppenheimer disse que é importante
para manter uma mente aberta não tão aberta que o seu
cérebros caem.
Mas você tem que manter sua mente tão aberta quanto
possível.
E isso é muito difícil.
Eu gastei tempo pensando em modificar a gravidade
e eu escrevi artigos sobre isso, mas exatamente
o que o Matias disse está certo.

English: 
That there is a certain smell of truth, of
logical consistency, of inevitability, of
something that works which is nowhere near
any of the attempts so far.
It doesn't mean there might not be one someday.
But it's not like we're dogmatically beating
these people over the head who would dare
challenge Einstein.
Believe me if we could challenge Einstein
and be right we would have the greatest thing
we could possibly do.
So the the difficulty in this subject is how
to be radical and conservative at the same
time.
And especially given that so much works so
well already.
You can't just go crashing everything.
Because we have this incredible edifice that
we've built up over 400 years.
That's why we don't know ahead of time how
radical and how conservative to be and we
try everything we can.
There's another point here, so we talked a
little bit about the gravitational wave observatory
and this is the first time in the history
of the planet that we now have an observatory
that can detect sources of gravitational waves.
So what did the first three sources turn out
to be?
Something that we didn't even know existed.

Portuguese: 
Que há um certo cheiro de verdade, de
consistência lógica, de inevitabilidade, de
algo que funciona que não está nem perto
qualquer uma das tentativas até agora.
Isso não significa que pode não haver um algum dia.
Mas não é como se estivéssemos batendo dogmaticamente
essas pessoas sobre a cabeça que ousariam
desafiar Einstein.
Acredite em mim se pudéssemos desafiar Einstein
e estar certo, teríamos a melhor coisa
nós poderíamos fazer.
Então, a dificuldade neste assunto é como
ser radical e conservador ao mesmo tempo
Tempo.
E especialmente dado que tanto funciona tão
bem já.
Você não pode simplesmente ir batendo tudo.
Porque nós temos este incrível edifício que
nós construímos mais de 400 anos.
É por isso que não sabemos antecipadamente como
radical e quão conservador para ser e nós
tente tudo o que pudermos.
Há outro ponto aqui, então conversamos
pouco sobre o observatório de ondas gravitacionais
e esta é a primeira vez na história
do planeta que agora temos um observatório
que pode detectar fontes de ondas gravitacionais.
Então, o que as três primeiras fontes produziram?
ser estar?
Algo que nem sabíamos que existia.

Portuguese: 
Não é algo que não pode existir.
Mas ninguém estava correndo em volta escrevendo papéis
sobre buracos negros binários, especialmente se aqueles
tipos de massas de vinte, trinta massas solares,
e agora sabemos que provavelmente existe um
grande população.
Então eu perguntei a um de seus teóricos contemporâneos,
Ed Whitton no MIT, eu disse é possível
que eles poderiam formar um constituinte do escuro
importam.
E ele disse que na verdade é uma questão interessante
because in parameter space there is a place
for them to form, you know not all of it,
but how do we know?
You know we're just, you set up a, you invent
a new kind of technology that can detect the
universe in a whole new way.
You discover a class of sources.
Maybe there are many classes of sources and
they don't all have to be like that but that's
just the beauty of what we're involved in
right now is that we're always discovering

English: 
Not something that that can't exist.
But nobody was running round writing papers
about binary black holes especially if those
kinds of masses of twenty, thirty solar masses,
and now we know that there is probably a very
large population.
So I asked one of your contemporaries theorists,
Ed Whitton at MIT, I said is is it possible
that they could form a constituent of dark
matter.
And he said actually it's an interesting question
because in parameter space there is a place
for them to form, you know not all of it,
but how do we know?
You know we're just, you set up a, you invent
a new kind of technology that can detect the
universe in a whole new way.
You discover a class of sources.
Maybe there are many classes of sources and
they don't all have to be like that but that's
just the beauty of what we're involved in
right now is that we're always discovering

Portuguese: 
something new that's going to shed some light
and who knows if those will be connected to
the dark matter question.
They're certainly connected to the evolution
of the universe in some way.
I want to say something very quickly about
that since you since there was something at
the very end of your question to Matias.
You said shouldn't we just might, might we'd
better not be served by thinking about something
new rather than doing more and more complicated
experiments.
I know I know you're being provocative but
but I think the answer is theorists are theorists
and do what theorists do, we're cheap.
But we should do every conceivable experiment
we can that we can do using the technology,
the greatest technology we have at any time
to learn more about the universe experimentally
because surprises happen every single time
we do.
Está certo
Nima, I want to ask you in this particular
concept that I'm going to bring up now actually
raises the blood pressure of many of my friends,
but I know it doesn't raise your blood pressure
and neither of Matias.

English: 
something new that's going to shed some light
and who knows if those will be connected to
the dark matter question.
They're certainly connected to the evolution
of the universe in some way.
I want to say something very quickly about
that since you since there was something at
the very end of your question to Matias.
You said shouldn't we just might, might we'd
better not be served by thinking about something
new rather than doing more and more complicated
experiments.
I know I know you're being provocative but
but I think the answer is theorists are theorists
and do what theorists do, we're cheap.
But we should do every conceivable experiment
we can that we can do using the technology,
the greatest technology we have at any time
to learn more about the universe experimentally
because surprises happen every single time
we do.
That's right
Nima, I want to ask you in this particular
concept that I'm going to bring up now actually
raises the blood pressure of many of my friends,
but I know it doesn't raise your blood pressure
and neither of Matias.

Portuguese: 
I want to bring about the multiverse.
So basically in recent years, I think it's
fair to say that it's fairly recent.
I mean it's been around for a while but not
that long.
Theorists have come up with the idea, and
there are all kinds of reasons for this, that
maybe our entire universe is not all there
is but rather this is one member of a huge
ensemble which could be ten to the five hundred
one followed by five hundred zeros or it could
be perhaps infinite.
Call it infinite.
Yeah…of universes.
And the reason our universe has the properties
it has is because those have to be consistent
more or less with the fact that we are here.
Namely the values of the constants of nature
and the laws of physics are such that they
have allowed our being.
But there are many other universes, which
in which the laws may be different, the constants

English: 
I want to bring about the multiverse.
So basically in recent years, I think it's
fair to say that it's fairly recent.
I mean it's been around for a while but not
that long.
Theorists have come up with the idea, and
there are all kinds of reasons for this, that
maybe our entire universe is not all there
is but rather this is one member of a huge
ensemble which could be ten to the five hundred
one followed by five hundred zeros or it could
be perhaps infinite.
Call it infinite.
Yeah…of universes.
And the reason our universe has the properties
it has is because those have to be consistent
more or less with the fact that we are here.
Namely the values of the constants of nature
and the laws of physics are such that they
have allowed our being.
But there are many other universes, which
in which the laws may be different, the constants

English: 
of nature may be different and so on.
There are colleagues, I'm sure you are very
aware of, that regard this concept as the
end of physics.
I want to because, why do they say the end
of physics because they say Oh well since
these other universes are not observable then
this becomes more like metaphysics and not
like physics because you cannot test it and
so on.
Now, I happen to know that you believe that
this is not the case and I want you now to
explain this.
So yeah the discussion of multiverse used
to, I mean they don't raise my blood pressure
because they think there's something intellectually
wrong with talking about it although, my blood
pressure does increase because an enormous
amount of nonsense is said about it in both
directions, both in the in pro and con directions.

Portuguese: 
of nature may be different and so on.
There are colleagues, I'm sure you are very
aware of, that regard this concept as the
end of physics.
I want to because, why do they say the end
of physics because they say Oh well since
these other universes are not observable then
this becomes more like metaphysics and not
like physics because you cannot test it and
so on.
Now, I happen to know that you believe that
this is not the case and I want you now to
explain this.
So yeah the discussion of multiverse used
to, I mean they don't raise my blood pressure
because they think there's something intellectually
wrong with talking about it although, my blood
pressure does increase because an enormous
amount of nonsense is said about it in both
directions, both in the in pro and con directions.

Portuguese: 
So let me just say one thing just before,
just to set the context for the discussion.
Even the theory the idea that there is a multiverse
is not a theory yet.
It's not even a theory at the level that we're
used to in a theoretical physics.
There's all kinds of things that we talk about
that we have not yet verified are there in
nature.
For example, things like supersymmetry, ideas
Curtiu isso.
These deserve to be called theories because
we understand the theoretical structure well
enough to know what we're talking about.
To make, to say if this and this and that
is true then we can make a lot of other predictions
that may or may not be realized in nature
but it still deserves to be called a theory.
We understand the ingredients.
The multiverse is not like that.
The ideas and concepts involved with the multiverse
or at the very edge of the things that we
even conceptually know how to talk about.
I think of it as a caricature of something
that might be true.
It doesn't even rise to the level of a theory
ainda.
How do of how to verify?

English: 
So let me just say one thing just before,
just to set the context for the discussion.
Even the theory the idea that there is a multiverse
is not a theory yet.
It's not even a theory at the level that we're
used to in a theoretical physics.
There's all kinds of things that we talk about
that we have not yet verified are there in
nature.
For example, things like supersymmetry, ideas
like that.
These deserve to be called theories because
we understand the theoretical structure well
enough to know what we're talking about.
To make, to say if this and this and that
is true then we can make a lot of other predictions
that may or may not be realized in nature
but it still deserves to be called a theory.
We understand the ingredients.
The multiverse is not like that.
The ideas and concepts involved with the multiverse
or at the very edge of the things that we
even conceptually know how to talk about.
I think of it as a caricature of something
that might be true.
It doesn't even rise to the level of a theory
yet.
How do of how to verify?

Portuguese: 
Oh good, let me say…I'll just take them,
take some of the problems one step at a time.
One of the ingredients that you need for something,
for a picture like the multiverse to be right
is many, many approximate vacuums that one
underlying set of laws could have.
Just I'll stop you for one second.
Quero dizer.
A vacuum is this thing, which we would call
a universe at some level or a pocket universe.
So you can have many vaccua.
It's a lower sort of the lowest possible lowest
energy state that we can have where you just
empty everything out right and helpfully in
an expanding universe that's what happens.
As the universe expands everything gets more
and more dilute and you approach more and
more the lowest energy configuration.
Now it's not a crazy possibility, in fact
and happens all the time in our simplest theories
of a particle physics that you could have
theories where you could have a lowest possible
energy state and another energy state that
could have a different energy and you could

English: 
Oh good, let me say…I'll just take them,
take some of the problems one step at a time.
One of the ingredients that you need for something,
for a picture like the multiverse to be right
is many, many approximate vacuums that one
underlying set of laws could have.
Just I’ll stop you for one second.
I mean.
A vacuum is this thing, which we would call
a universe at some level or a pocket universe.
So you can have many vaccua.
It's a lower sort of the lowest possible lowest
energy state that we can have where you just
empty everything out right and helpfully in
an expanding universe that's what happens.
As the universe expands everything gets more
and more dilute and you approach more and
more the lowest energy configuration.
Now it's not a crazy possibility, in fact
and happens all the time in our simplest theories
of a particle physics that you could have
theories where you could have a lowest possible
energy state and another energy state that
could have a different energy and you could

Portuguese: 
get stuck in the sort of a local places where
locally you have the smallest amount of energy.
But in order to go to find the place where
you have the lowest possible energy you've
got to go far away and somewhere else.
The second that becomes possible we can entertain
the idea that these different possible, approximately
stable places could exist.
That piece of the multiverse could in principle
be verified by experiments in our universe.
That could be in principle verified by doing,
So give an example
I'll give you an example.
Now, we don't, since we don't know the we
don't know the energies involved but for the
barriers between one local minimum here another
local minimum there, those energies could
be gargantuan they could be much much higher
than energy, than any energy that we could
make ..
Think of a landscape which has valleys but
within them there can be huge mountains.
Exatamente.
There are just enormous mountains but if you
have enough energy to climb over the enormous
mountains then you can make little bubbles
of the other regions, if you can really make
eles.
You could make them in a laboratory.

English: 
get stuck in the sort of a local places where
locally you have the smallest amount of energy.
But in order to go to find the place where
you have the lowest possible energy you've
got to go far away and somewhere else.
The second that becomes possible we can entertain
the idea that these different possible, approximately
stable places could exist.
That piece of the multiverse could in principle
be verified by experiments in our universe.
That could be in principle verified by doing,
So give an example
I'll give you an example.
Now, we don't, since we don't know the we
don't know the energies involved but for the
barriers between one local minimum here another
local minimum there, those energies could
be gargantuan they could be much much higher
than energy, than any energy that we could
make ..
Think of a landscape which has valleys but
within them there can be huge mountains.
Exactly.
There are just enormous mountains but if you
have enough energy to climb over the enormous
mountains then you can make little bubbles
of the other regions, if you can really make
them.
You could make them in a laboratory.

English: 
You could send little elementary particles
in and say oh, gosh I'm the Higgs particle.
Out here I have this mass.
In there I have a different mass Wow!
And it comes back out and you can actually
see all of that.
You could in principle see that there are
a ten to the five hundred different possibilities.
All of that you could actually in principle
definitely not in practice as far as we can
tell.
But in principle it's not a question of philosophy
it is a question of physics.
What we don't know how to do, and this is
the deepest conceptual problem associated
with the multiverse, and if someone were to
make a theoretical breakthrough on this question
it could settle, certainly in my thinking
as I'm sure in Matias' and almost all of our
thinking, whether this idea is a deep one
or a crap one.
We still don't know.
The deepest conceptual problem is how are
these different regions realized out there
in the universe and what you alluded to, the
fact that in our accelerating universe we
only have access to what we see now is what
we're ever going to see.
So if there are these other regions out there
light from then will never make it to us even
in principle.
That's a good reason to be suspicious about
whether it actually makes sense to invoke

Portuguese: 
You could send little elementary particles
in and say oh, gosh I'm the Higgs particle.
Out here I have this mass.
In there I have a different mass Wow!
And it comes back out and you can actually
see all of that.
You could in principle see that there are
a ten to the five hundred different possibilities.
All of that you could actually in principle
definitely not in practice as far as we can
tell.
But in principle it's not a question of philosophy
it is a question of physics.
What we don't know how to do, and this is
the deepest conceptual problem associated
with the multiverse, and if someone were to
make a theoretical breakthrough on this question
it could settle, certainly in my thinking
as I'm sure in Matias' and almost all of our
thinking, whether this idea is a deep one
or a crap one.
We still don't know.
The deepest conceptual problem is how are
these different regions realized out there
in the universe and what you alluded to, the
fact that in our accelerating universe we
only have access to what we see now is what
we're ever going to see.
So if there are these other regions out there
light from then will never make it to us even
in principle.
That's a good reason to be suspicious about
whether it actually makes sense to invoke

English: 
them and talk about them.
We don't know if it makes sense to invoke
them or talking about them.
Invoking and talking about them is a little
bit like invoking and talking about what's
on the other side of a black hole of the horizon
of a black hole.
And you know in the last twenty years we've
understood that there is some subtle way that
the quantum mechanics lets you see into the
inside of a black hole and get the information
about what's in there, out.
So it's possible that similarly there are
some very subtle way in which quantum effects
now apply to the entire universe will help
us make sense of what what's going on behind
the horizon out there in the multiverse.
But this is a part which is totally speculation
at this point.
But imagine we did the experiments that show
the these ten to the five hundred different
environments existed.
It would be very hard not to believe that
there should be that they play some role in,
in controlling the properties of our world
and that part is not philosophy.
That part is actually physics.
Right.
I just want to add two things one very simple
and one a little bit more subtle.

Portuguese: 
them and talk about them.
We don't know if it makes sense to invoke
them or talking about them.
Invoking and talking about them is a little
bit like invoking and talking about what's
on the other side of a black hole of the horizon
of a black hole.
And you know in the last twenty years we've
understood that there is some subtle way that
the quantum mechanics lets you see into the
inside of a black hole and get the information
about what's in there, out.
So it's possible that similarly there are
some very subtle way in which quantum effects
now apply to the entire universe will help
us make sense of what what's going on behind
the horizon out there in the multiverse.
But this is a part which is totally speculation
neste ponto.
But imagine we did the experiments that show
the these ten to the five hundred different
environments existed.
It would be very hard not to believe that
there should be that they play some role in,
in controlling the properties of our world
and that part is not philosophy.
That part is actually physics.
Certo.
I just want to add two things one very simple
and one a little bit more subtle.

English: 
One is that you see at that time there was
this great astronomer Johannes Kepler and
he was really very smart.
And he was the great astronomer and he thought
that he can explain why in the solar system
there are exactly six planets, six were known
at this time, because he thought that that
is a fundamental property of the universe
which can be explained from first principles.
Today we know that's an accident really.
In this way it could in principle be that
some properties of our universe, which we
now regard as fundamental, are in fact accidental.
And you know they get different values in
these different members of the ensemble.
Matias, I'll ask you one more question and
then I want to leave enough time for the audience
to ask questions as well.
You alluded to this but I just want to sharpen
it a little bit.

Portuguese: 
One is that you see at that time there was
this great astronomer Johannes Kepler and
he was really very smart.
And he was the great astronomer and he thought
that he can explain why in the solar system
there are exactly six planets, six were known
at this time, because he thought that that
is a fundamental property of the universe
which can be explained from first principles.
Today we know that's an accident really.
In this way it could in principle be that
some properties of our universe, which we
now regard as fundamental, are in fact accidental.
And you know they get different values in
these different members of the ensemble.
Matias, I'll ask you one more question and
then I want to leave enough time for the audience
to ask questions as well.
You alluded to this but I just want to sharpen
it a little bit.

English: 
The very early universe is relatively simple.
You know only fundamental things happened
there.
But it is also far away and not that easy
to observe.
The nearby universe we can observe more easily
but it's a mess because it involves all kinds
of processes, star formation and planet formation
and galaxy formation and whatnot and so on.
Is there a sweet spot somewhere where you
know you get the benefit of both worlds?
I think the clear sweet spot is the cosmic
microwave background, the history of the universe
is more or less much more in between.
And that, you perhaps they're calling it the
early universe, but it is four hundred thousand
years after the Big Bang.
So that's pretty late for a lot of it depends.
But so that's, then it's true.
It gets more and more complicated.

Portuguese: 
The very early universe is relatively simple.
You know only fundamental things happened
lá.
But it is also far away and not that easy
to observe.
The nearby universe we can observe more easily
but it's a mess because it involves all kinds
of processes, star formation and planet formation
and galaxy formation and whatnot and so on.
Is there a sweet spot somewhere where you
know you get the benefit of both worlds?
I think the clear sweet spot is the cosmic
microwave background, the history of the universe
is more or less much more in between.
And that, you perhaps they're calling it the
early universe, but it is four hundred thousand
years after the Big Bang.
So that's pretty late for a lot of it depends.
But so that's, then it's true.
It gets more and more complicated.

English: 
And that's, for example, when we were talking
about the discussions about dark matter, when
we start using our theories for dark matter
try to understand galaxies or small enough
things, but let's take galaxies for example,
there we are getting into trouble.
Sometimes they don't seem to work.
And that is the reason why people also are
trying to find other.
But it's also the case that all of the complications
you alluded to star formation, the black holes
in the centers of each galaxy, they play a
big role.
We see it with our own eyes meaning the telescope.
So the more complicated things get sometimes
it's difficult to disentangle.
And that's why in cosmology we try to get
out you know just use galaxies for example
as points not too much try to understand how
they're made of but, just tracing where the
matter is distributed.
We never know where we will be able to make
some breakthrough and there there are certain
things that you just have to leave to the
side even if they're a very interesting problem.
But you have to leave it to the side because
it doesn't look like there's any, no progress
is being made.

Portuguese: 
And that's, for example, when we were talking
about the discussions about dark matter, when
we start using our theories for dark matter
try to understand galaxies or small enough
things, but let's take galaxies for example,
there we are getting into trouble.
Sometimes they don't seem to work.
And that is the reason why people also are
trying to find other.
But it's also the case that all of the complications
you alluded to star formation, the black holes
in the centers of each galaxy, they play a
big role.
We see it with our own eyes meaning the telescope.
So the more complicated things get sometimes
it's difficult to disentangle.
And that's why in cosmology we try to get
out you know just use galaxies for example
as points not too much try to understand how
they're made of but, just tracing where the
matter is distributed.
We never know where we will be able to make
some breakthrough and there there are certain
things that you just have to leave to the
side even if they're a very interesting problem.
But you have to leave it to the side because
it doesn't look like there's any, no progress
is being made.

English: 
It's kind of the business of the game is like
this you speculate you try to look for things
and you go on from there, right.
I would like to open this for questions from
the audience
Ok, it’s a wonderful panel thank you.
Obviously mankind when we discovered electrons
it changed our world.
We now have electricity and all these wonderful
things.
Now all these new particles that you're discovering
fermions and quarks and all these items.
Are we on the verge of taking these particles
and revolutionizing our existence as humans?
We don't know what the, what fundamental breakthroughs
in science will eventually give.
Michael Faraday famously when he was doing
his experiments on magnetism in the basement
of the Royal Institute in London some British
MP visited him and said what is this good
for?
He said I don't know sir but one day you will
tax it.
And that happened 50 years later.
Can I think at the moment of any practical
technological application of the discovery

Portuguese: 
It's kind of the business of the game is like
this you speculate you try to look for things
and you go on from there, right.
I would like to open this for questions from
the audience
Ok, it's a wonderful panel thank you.
Obviously mankind when we discovered electrons
it changed our world.
We now have electricity and all these wonderful
coisas.
Now all these new particles that you're discovering
fermions and quarks and all these items.
Are we on the verge of taking these particles
and revolutionizing our existence as humans?
We don't know what the, what fundamental breakthroughs
in science will eventually give.
Michael Faraday famously when he was doing
his experiments on magnetism in the basement
of the Royal Institute in London some British
MP visited him and said what is this good
for?
He said I don't know sir but one day you will
tax it.
And that happened 50 years later.
Can I think at the moment of any practical
technological application of the discovery

Portuguese: 
of the Higgs particle no.
However when you get large groups of people
to do very very hard things they, they inevitably
have to come up with innovations that have
lots of other impacts.
A classic example from the field that you
were talking about is the invention of the
World Wide Web which was invented at CERN
to help experimentalists share this enormous
amount of data with each other.
So even though I had nothing to do with the
particles that they actually discovered when
you have people pursuing pure ends, very difficult
problems that are right on the frontier of
what we know how to do good things always
come out of it, or have historically.
But you also never do it for, we don't do
it for these reasons.
Está certo.
We do it because we're curious.
Let me say it another way.
If you want to think about what's going to
be exciting in technology ten years from now
talk to people in Silicon Valley.
If you want to wonder what might be exciting
fifty or one hundred years from now it's gonna
come out of fundamental science.
Yes please.

English: 
of the Higgs particle no.
However when you get large groups of people
to do very very hard things they, they inevitably
have to come up with innovations that have
lots of other impacts.
A classic example from the field that you
were talking about is the invention of the
World Wide Web which was invented at CERN
to help experimentalists share this enormous
amount of data with each other.
So even though I had nothing to do with the
particles that they actually discovered when
you have people pursuing pure ends, very difficult
problems that are right on the frontier of
what we know how to do good things always
come out of it, or have historically.
But you also never do it for, we don't do
it for these reasons.
That’s right.
We do it because we're curious.
Let me say it another way.
If you want to think about what's going to
be exciting in technology ten years from now
talk to people in Silicon Valley.
If you want to wonder what might be exciting
fifty or one hundred years from now it's gonna
come out of fundamental science.
Yes please.

English: 
So if new technology reveals new theories
can we ever reach a final theory?
And since all our theories currently evolve
from the Big Bang does anyone question the
Big Bang now?
I'm happy to take one shot at this and say
that what I think we're all, we've all been
doing is pushing the frontier farther and
backwards in time all the time.
And when people talk about you know a final
theory I mean Lord Kelvin famously thought
at the end of the 19th century that all problems
in physics were solved except for two small
problems.
And those two small problems actually turned
out to lead to general relativity and quantum
mechanics.
So two big revolutions in physics.

Portuguese: 
So if new technology reveals new theories
can we ever reach a final theory?
And since all our theories currently evolve
from the Big Bang does anyone question the
Big Bang now?
I'm happy to take one shot at this and say
that what I think we're all, we've all been
doing is pushing the frontier farther and
backwards in time all the time.
And when people talk about you know a final
theory I mean Lord Kelvin famously thought
at the end of the 19th century that all problems
in physics were solved except for two small
problems.
And those two small problems actually turned
out to lead to general relativity and quantum
mechanics.
So two big revolutions in physics.

English: 
So I think that we have now discovered that
the more we push, we find new questions.
So it's not I don't see any danger that we
will run out of questions to answer at any
point in time.
So you know in those terms no theory is truly
final.
Theories in physics are really, you know,
only theories that are good for the data available
at a given time.
But as new data become available I mean you
sometimes have to modify a theory.
Sometimes it becomes incorporated in a bigger
framework like in Newton's theory being incorporated
in general relativity let's say.
Sometimes it has to be rejected altogether
and so on And this process I believe will
continue forever so that's the process we're
going through.
The Big Bang itself is not a theory, right?
It's an observation.
It's a collection of pictures from the past
right and pictures and things that we've got
from the past.

Portuguese: 
So I think that we have now discovered that
the more we push, we find new questions.
So it's not I don't see any danger that we
will run out of questions to answer at any
point in time.
So you know in those terms no theory is truly
final.
Theories in physics are really, you know,
only theories that are good for the data available
at a given time.
But as new data become available I mean you
sometimes have to modify a theory.
Sometimes it becomes incorporated in a bigger
framework like in Newton's theory being incorporated
in general relativity let's say.
Sometimes it has to be rejected altogether
and so on And this process I believe will
continue forever so that's the process we're
going through.
The Big Bang itself is not a theory, right?
It's an observation.
It's a collection of pictures from the past
right and pictures and things that we've got
from the past.

Portuguese: 
So that will never go away.
It's not, it's just.
Well so I think that maybe I'll echo the same
thing and make a slightly more general point
também.
Something I think many people don't appreciate
is that there are various really grand questions
about the universe that all of us get excited
about.
Some fraction of us decide this is what we
want to do with our lives and we and we attack
eles.
But there's something really fascinating as
your as your understanding of the world becomes
precise enough so that things really work
the character of the questions change, changes.
The language with which you describe the questions
changes and very often the actual questions
evolve.
We don't even know what the right questions
are until we happen to be in the vicinity
of the correct answers.
And as we happened to learn more.
So you should not have this idea that we have
this sort of fixed set of questions we've
been working on for two thousand years and
we're getting closer and closer and we might
hit the end.

English: 
So that will never go away.
It's not, it's just.
Well so I think that maybe I'll echo the same
thing and make a slightly more general point
as well.
Something I think many people don't appreciate
is that there are various really grand questions
about the universe that all of us get excited
about.
Some fraction of us decide this is what we
want to do with our lives and we and we attack
them.
But there's something really fascinating as
your as your understanding of the world becomes
precise enough so that things really work
the character of the questions change, changes.
The language with which you describe the questions
changes and very often the actual questions
evolve.
We don't even know what the right questions
are until we happen to be in the vicinity
of the correct answers.
And as we happened to learn more.
So you should not have this idea that we have
this sort of fixed set of questions we've
been working on for two thousand years and
we're getting closer and closer and we might
hit the end.

English: 
Something much more interesting is happening
that we're learning more and deeper and more
profound things about the world that's allowing
us to ask entirely new kinds of questions
things that we weren't even questions before
have become questions and so on.
Going back to what Matias said, we have as
much evidence as we'll, and will only get
more, than that that the earth, that the universe
is expanding as you run the picture backward
in time it got denser and hotter and that
hot dense early period of the universe is
what we colloquially call the Big Bang.
What you were referring to as the Big Bang
and many people refer to the Big Bang as a
sort of mathematical singularity of a point
where everything starts back in time.
And that's a thing, which we don't understand.
We don't understand and what's very likely
going on is that the whole notion of time
is breaking down there.
It's not a question of figuring out what came
before.
It's the whole notion of time was probably
born there or is certainly breaking down there.
And if that sounds like a very tall order
to figure out what it means it is a tall order
to figure out what it means.
OK and that's what people are trying their
best to you know take little bits and pieces

Portuguese: 
Something much more interesting is happening
that we're learning more and deeper and more
profound things about the world that's allowing
us to ask entirely new kinds of questions
things that we weren't even questions before
have become questions and so on.
Going back to what Matias said, we have as
much evidence as we'll, and will only get
more, than that that the earth, that the universe
is expanding as you run the picture backward
in time it got denser and hotter and that
hot dense early period of the universe is
what we colloquially call the Big Bang.
What you were referring to as the Big Bang
and many people refer to the Big Bang as a
sort of mathematical singularity of a point
where everything starts back in time.
And that's a thing, which we don't understand.
We don't understand and what's very likely
going on is that the whole notion of time
is breaking down there.
It's not a question of figuring out what came
antes.
It's the whole notion of time was probably
born there or is certainly breaking down there.
And if that sounds like a very tall order
to figure out what it means it is a tall order
to figure out what it means.
OK and that's what people are trying their
best to you know take little bits and pieces

English: 
off that problem and make some progress on
it.
This gentlemen over here.
Is it felt that the universe is infinite?
And if it is felt to be infinite in what sense
is it infinite?
And how did something that was finite become
infinite in finite time?
The easy answer would be to say that we only
see some region of the universe and what's
outside I have no idea.
That would be the standard answer that I would
give.
I don't know if it's infinite or it's curved
and it comes back and is like the surface
of a ball and it's really infinite.
We don't know.
For all we see we don't see any curvature
of this ball.
We, when we see further away things look more
or less the same, so it looks pretty much
homogeneous.
We clearly see that if it you know finishes
or it has a curvature it's much bigger.
The region that looks like the part of the
universe that we can see is probably goes
on for quite for a while.
Other than that we don't really know.

Portuguese: 
off that problem and make some progress on
isto.
This gentlemen over here.
Is it felt that the universe is infinite?
And if it is felt to be infinite in what sense
is it infinite?
And how did something that was finite become
infinite in finite time?
The easy answer would be to say that we only
see some region of the universe and what's
outside I have no idea.
That would be the standard answer that I would
give.
I don't know if it's infinite or it's curved
and it comes back and is like the surface
of a ball and it's really infinite.
We don't know.
For all we see we don't see any curvature
of this ball.
We, when we see further away things look more
or less the same, so it looks pretty much
homogeneous.
We clearly see that if it you know finishes
or it has a curvature it's much bigger.
The region that looks like the part of the
universe that we can see is probably goes
on for quite for a while.
Other than that we don't really know.

Portuguese: 
And also how this started started is also
some of the you know these are questions whose
answer we don't know and whether or not our
universe is connected to places which are
completely different and is so much bigger
than what we see and the laws of physics are
completely different.
But just say one thing about the question
of a finiteness, something very important
happened in the late 1990s when we discovered
the universe was accelerating which is what
we see in the universe.
Whatever you might imagine in your mind's
eye the universe going on and on..that's what
we've been referring to.
Because the universe is accelerating what
we see now in the universe is what we're ever,
ever going to see.
And that's kind of an amazing thing.
If the universe was not accelerating, if there
was a picture from what people talked about
in the books in the 1980s and the universe
just kept expanding forever then it would
be an experimental question if it was infinite
or not.
If you waited long enough your great great
great great great great great grandchildren
would see more and more and more and more
of the universe.
We can't now.
I mean what we see now is what we're ever
going going to see.
Claro.
Believing that the acceleration of the universe.

English: 
And also how this started started is also
some of the you know these are questions whose
answer we don't know and whether or not our
universe is connected to places which are
completely different and is so much bigger
than what we see and the laws of physics are
completely different.
But just say one thing about the question
of a finiteness, something very important
happened in the late 1990s when we discovered
the universe was accelerating which is what
we see in the universe.
Whatever you might imagine in your mind's
eye the universe going on and on..that's what
we've been referring to.
Because the universe is accelerating what
we see now in the universe is what we're ever,
ever going to see.
And that's kind of an amazing thing.
If the universe was not accelerating, if there
was a picture from what people talked about
in the books in the 1980s and the universe
just kept expanding forever then it would
be an experimental question if it was infinite
or not.
If you waited long enough your great great
great great great great great grandchildren
would see more and more and more and more
of the universe.
We can't now.
I mean what we see now is what we're ever
going going to see.
Of course.
Believing that the acceleration of the universe.

Portuguese: 
Exactly.True, true.
I'll make this even sharper.
If the universe continues to accelerate as
it does then maybe a trillion years from now,
actually if astronomers still live here they
will not be able to see anything, right?
One galaxy.
Just our galaxy, that will be it.
And then all these stories about the universe
you know these would be like mythology.
ESTÁ BEM.
Can we have this young woman here?
If there is a multiverse how would our universe
interact with the other universes?
How would that work?
Do we know?
Do you want to say something?
Yeah, well, most obviously it wouldn't.
That's one of the problems.
That's one of the conceptual problems is that
all of this stuff is out there and it's beyond

English: 
Exactly.True, true.
I'll make this even sharper.
If the universe continues to accelerate as
it does then maybe a trillion years from now,
actually if astronomers still live here they
will not be able to see anything, right?
One galaxy.
Just our galaxy, that will be it.
And then all these stories about the universe
you know these would be like mythology.
OK.
Can we have this young woman here?
If there is a multiverse how would our universe
interact with the other universes?
How would that work?
Do we know?
Do you want to say something?
Yeah, well, most obviously it wouldn't.
That's one of the problems.
That's one of the conceptual problems is that
all of this stuff is out there and it's beyond

Portuguese: 
our cosmological horizon which because we're
accelerating we won't see we won't see any
of that stuff.
Now that might make you think, that and we've
gotten very wary in physics for many good
reasons, we've gotten very wary of concepts
and ideas that we can't even in principle
see.
And what I'm just talking about is not a question
of practicality right.
Our acceleration makes it impossible for light
from those regions to years to reach us.
Now it's conceivable sometimes people talk
about if we came from some parent, underlying
vacuum that that gave rise to us that there
could be other little bubbles and those bubbles
could collide with each other.
This is something that people talk about.
It's an 'in principle' possibility.
I have to tell you it's so vanishingly unlikely
to happen that if you hear about it in the
press you should be very skeptical it's not,
I mean even theoretically it's incredibly
unlikely for it for it to happen but it is
in principle possible.

English: 
our cosmological horizon which because we're
accelerating we won't see we won't see any
of that stuff.
Now that might make you think, that and we've
gotten very wary in physics for many good
reasons, we've gotten very wary of concepts
and ideas that we can't even in principle
see.
And what I'm just talking about is not a question
of practicality right.
Our acceleration makes it impossible for light
from those regions to years to reach us.
Now it's conceivable sometimes people talk
about if we came from some parent, underlying
vacuum that that gave rise to us that there
could be other little bubbles and those bubbles
could collide with each other.
This is something that people talk about.
It's an ‘in principle’ possibility.
I have to tell you it's so vanishingly unlikely
to happen that if you hear about it in the
press you should be very skeptical it's not,
I mean even theoretically it's incredibly
unlikely for it for it to happen but it is
in principle possible.

English: 
Now, but having said all of this, and this
is part of the reason it's theoretically difficult,
if it was clear that nothing about these other
vaccua, these other regions could have any
effect on us at all then we would be almost
certain that it's garbage and we shouldn't
think about it.
But it's not a one hundred percent obvious.
And the reason is that you can imagine other
parts, you can imagine futures that we could
have where if we exited our vacuum but we
went into another kind of vacuum in the future
those observers could look back and look at
the night sky and see eventually if they waited
long enough all these collisions happening
with all of these other bubbles and they could
see if you waited long enough there was somebody
that could see the entire multiverse.
It's not us but in principle there are some
people if you waited long enough you could.
But anyway.
But the short answer to your question is no
conceivable way we can imagine now other than
these vanishingly unlikely things involving
collisions of bubbles.
Thank you very much Nima.

Portuguese: 
Now, but having said all of this, and this
is part of the reason it's theoretically difficult,
if it was clear that nothing about these other
vaccua, these other regions could have any
effect on us at all then we would be almost
certain that it's garbage and we shouldn't
think about it.
But it's not a one hundred percent obvious.
And the reason is that you can imagine other
parts, you can imagine futures that we could
have where if we exited our vacuum but we
went into another kind of vacuum in the future
those observers could look back and look at
the night sky and see eventually if they waited
long enough all these collisions happening
with all of these other bubbles and they could
see if you waited long enough there was somebody
that could see the entire multiverse.
It's not us but in principle there are some
people if you waited long enough you could.
But anyway.
But the short answer to your question is no
conceivable way we can imagine now other than
these vanishingly unlikely things involving
collisions of bubbles.
Thank you very much Nima.

English: 
Thank the panel and thank all of you for attending.

Portuguese: 
Thank the panel and thank all of you for attending.
