[MUSIC PLAYING]
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: Professor
Carlos Frenk, it's
such a pleasure and an
honor to have you here.
Thank you for accepting
our invitation.
So, you know, like
a few days ago
I was opening the newspaper.
And I saw a massive
headline, a massive--
most massive superneutron
star detected, no.
And that made me recall,
like a few months
before, other headlines,
like gravitational waves
detected and a picture
of black holes colliding.
So it seems that
either we are learning
more about the universe faster
or there's something going on.
What's your view on that?
CARLOS FRENK: There
are several reasons.
It is absolutely correct that
the rate of scientific advance,
not just in my field
and in physics,
but throughout the sciences, in
biology, and even in chemistry,
has been unprecedented.
But there are many
reasons for that.
One is, I'm sure
most people here,
realize there are more
scientists alive than dead.
So that's one thing,
of course, helps.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: Oh, yeah.
CARLOS FRENK: Secondly-- yeah--
well.
Science is essentially an
experimental or observational
discipline.
And there's been an enormous
advance in the technology.
That allows us to
investigate everything
from the universe, all the
way to molecular biology.
And telescopes,
detectors, they have
advanced at an enormous rate.
And all of it actually
ultimately supported
by advances in what many
of you people do here,
which is computing and all
the computing infrastructure
that essentially shapes all
of our modern technologies.
So that's one reason.
That's only one.
Another reason is that
more discoveries are made.
It's like the network effect,
that Google are really keen on.
Once discoveries are made,
then that elicits more ideas.
And people imagine new things.
That leads to
further experiments.
So this is another
part of the process.
There are two more
that are important.
One is enormous
investment in science
since the end of the war.
I think physicists got a
very good name after the war.
If you live in this part
of the world, of course
not in other parts of
the world, but here,
I think physicists
played a key role,
and during the Second World War.
And that translated
into enormous support
for science, including physics.
But the other one,
I think is crucial.
And you see that here.
So earlier on, I was
just walking around.
This is the first time
I come to this building.
And just listening to people,
the variety of accents
and clearly different
backgrounds.
That is crucial.
So in the last 50 years or so,
the barriers to communication
and to exchange of
ideas and people
have been demolished in
the Western world at least,
and even to some
extent in China.
And so it is this ability
of people to move around,
to collaborate, to
build new enterprises,
that really is behind this.
There's one thing--
so as you say,
there was a big event in
astronomy, a few weeks ago,
when--
well, actually now a few
months ago, where a black hole,
ate up a neutron star.
Now, that produced
gravitational waves.
And, I'm sure you all know
about the gravitational waves,
but this particular event was
interesting because the neutron
star was shredded.
And then it emitted light in,
not just gravitational waves,
but in many, many wavelengths.
And there is a arrangement
amongst astronomers
that when a gravitational
wave is detected,
then all telescopes point in
the direction of the wave.
They had to do it like
this, because-- so you
got a few seconds to point
your telescope in the hope
of catching something else.
And that happened with
this neutron star.
So if you ever wondered where
the gold in your jewelry
comes from, it comes from
neutron stars like that one.
The gold was seen being
manufactured there.
But the point is that because
there were so many wavelengths
involved, the paper reporting
this merger of a black hole
with a neutron star has
a third, as authors,
of the entire community of
professional astronomers
in the world.
It's nearly 4,000--
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: Physicists.
CARLOS FRENK: Yes.
--authors of that paper.
It's a third of the total.
So that tells you
how science is global
and why everybody should be
very worried about the tendency
now in the world to move
away from open borders
and start doing things
like building walls
and other things of that sort.
[LAUGHING]
But, I'm a Mexican, so no wall.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ:
So clearly, you
alluded at collaboration
and exchanging
of information and theories.
However, most of
us know intuitively
that there must have been
like a series of milestones,
or grand discoveries, or
theories that have happened,
let's say, in the
last 100 years,
that had made possible
everything else.
What in your view are
the key building blocks
of knowledge that have allowed
us to get where we are?
CARLOS FRENK:
Well, if we go back
a hundred years, of course, the
two pillars of modern physics
are only a hundred years old.
Another pillar, of
course, is 350 years old.
That's Newton mechanics.
But modern physics began
really with quantum physics,
quantum mechanics-- that is
only about a hundred years old--
and the theory of relativity.
So these two are the great
scientific breakthroughs
that brought in a new
era in which we are now
able to understand a lot
about the intimate details
of the universe.
So what I do, I worry
about the universe.
So let me tell you about the
breakthroughs in cosmology.
The next one I would
say, although some people
would take issue
with that, but let me
skip the discovery of the
influence of dark matter.
We're going to talk
about that later.
But in 1965, two--
actually, this is very
interesting-- two engineers,
in fact, who didn't work
at a university, who
worked that the equivalent
of Google in those days,
at Bell Labs, in the
US, discovered the Big
Bang accidentally.
So they didn't set
out-- they didn't
know the Big Bang had happened.
And they discovered
radiation in the form
of microwaves that was
coming from everywhere
in the universe.
They were very
annoyed because they
were trying to build
a telescope to do
radio observations of the Sun.
And they couldn't
calibrate the telescope
because they point
it away from the Sun
and there was the signal.
They point it everywhere,
they point it there,
and what they had discovered
unwittingly was the Big Bang.
And, in particular, they
discovered the heat leftover
from the Big Bang.
So the universe,
our universe, began
in a very hot and dense state.
And its been cooling ever since.
And because it's rather, old,
about 13.7 billion years old,
the radiation has cooled
to two wavelengths that
can be measured in microwaves.
And so Penzias and Wilson, who,
of course, got the Nobel Prize
for this, got the first
evidence that our universe began
with the Big Bang.
So that was a milestone.
And then the
milestones, as you say,
have been coming thick and fast.
The next step, I would
say, big breakthrough,
was when NASA
satellite, called COBE,
was not only able to measure
the properties of this radiation
in great detail, but
discovered that the temperature
of this heat was not
the same in every place.
So there were small parts
of the radiation that were
slightly hotter than others.
And that doesn't
sound like much.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: What
does that tell us?
CARLOS FRENK: You
see the window there.
You say, well, there
are lots of drops.
What does that tell me?
Well, this pattern
of hot and cold spots
told us how the universe began.
And we can elaborate
upon this later.
But that is the blueprint for
how the universe was created.
And we could see in
this pattern, physics
that happened when
the universe was
a tiny fraction of a second old,
10 to the minus 35 seconds old,
which is when the origin
of these hot and cold spots
were established.
And as we will probably
talk about later,
that's where you all come from
by the way, this little pattern
of hot and cold spots.
So that, again, won the Nobel
Prize, to an old friend of mine
from Berkeley, George Smoot.
That was another
big breakthrough.
What they discovered was
the universe, our universe,
we've known to be
expanding since Hubble.
But not only is our
universe expanding,
but the expansion is getting
faster, and faster, and faster.
So the universe is accelerating.
So what's the big deal?
Well, the big deal
is that until then we
thought that all the universe
contained was matter.
And as Americans
say, gravity sucks,
meaning gravity
pulls things back.
So if all the universe
contained was matter,
then the expansion
should be slowing down
because the matter
would pull it back.
But the discovery
was the opposite.
The universe is expanding
faster and faster.
And that is caused by something
that we know so little about,
that we've given it a
mysterious name, dark energy.
So if you want to get a
grant, talk about dark energy,
and you already
got a good start.
So we don't know what it is
that is causing our universe
to accelerate.
We think-- and after I finish
the sentence you will know
as much as the
experts in the field--
we think it's something
to do with empty space
because most of the
universe is empty.
I mean when we look
at lots of stars--
and have you even
been to Mexico,
which I recommend
you go, to the south,
you'll see the Milky Way.
The sky is full of stars.
Actually, the universe
is mostly empty.
It's mostly empty space.
And there's something about
this emptiness of space
that is pushing galaxies, making
them move farther and farther
apart.
So that's called dark energy.
And that was, I would say,
the last of the three--
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: The
last breakthrough.
CARLOS FRENK:
--major advances that
have allowed us to
reconstruct using
computers the whole
evolution of the universe.
So that is not a
discovery as such,
but the ability to deploy
high-performance computing
in real angular, which is what
we do, to try to piece together
all these bits of information.
That is also a key in the
way in which we have advanced
the knowledge of the universe.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: I think you're
being a little bit humble,
Professor Frenk.
It says that in
the milestones, you
alluded to called dark matter.
And you skipped it.
CARLOS FRENK: OK.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ:
A lot of people
would agree that
actually your theory
is one of the
milestones that have
allowed us to get where we are.
Why don't we talk about it?
But first, if you could
level the playing field,
level the knowledge.
And the please tell us, as
you would tell your grandson--
well, at least
that would help me.
Dark matter--
CARLOS FRENK: Uh-huh.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ:
--like what is it.
Why cold dark matter?
It implies that there are
some other flavors of it.
And why is it so important?
CARLOS FRENK: Right.
Yeah, and I was
trying to be humble.
By the way, my grandson
is only 2 and 1/2.
So--
[LAUGHTER]
--he likes to talk about
other things, but anyway--
so like what he's
going to have for lunch
and that kind of thing.
So one very
interesting thing, when
this pattern of hot and
cold spots was discovered,
I hinted that it told us a lot.
Well, amongst the
things it told us--
and this is, I think,
a real breakthrough--
is what our universe is made of.
Now, we have know actually
since a Swiss, very grumpy
astronomer, called Fritz
Zwicky, in the 1930s, that there
is something in the universe
that doesn't kind of add up,
which he called dark matter.
I'll tell you more
about it in a minute.
But dark matter has been there.
But these cold spots of the--
let me give it its
technical name.
It's the microwave background
or the cosmic microwave
background.
This pattern of
hot and cold spots
allows us to decode what
the universe is made of.
And now we know exactly that
our universe is very bizarre.
And it exactly has about 25%
of what the universe contains
in energy, if you like,
for those of you who
are physicists or engineers.
About 25% is this dark matter
that Zwicky knew about.
About 5% is what we are
made of, the ordinary atoms
of the periodic table, hydrogen,
helium, carbon, oxygen, gold,
and so on.
That only makes up 5% of
what the universe contains.
25% dark matter, 5% ordinary
matter as we call it.
And the rest is dark
energy, that 70%.
This mysterious dark energy is
pushing the universe around.
So the dark matter had been
known since, I'd say the 1930s.
But it was only
when cosmology began
to try to make sense of
a variety of observations
that it fell into place.
So in the 1980s, when I was
a young postdoc in Berkeley--
which I remember,
there was so much fun.
Even the police had long hair.
Well, that was before.
So there came up really,
really heretical idea,
which didn't make
any sense at first,
and now is the pillar of
the cold dark matter theory.
There were two ideas
to be to be precise.
But the first one, that really
took everybody by surprise,
was that--
it was at this point just
a theory, a hypothesis,
simultaneously put forward by
somebody in the United States,
in the MIT, Alan Guth, and
in Moscow, Andrei Linde.
They didn't talk to one another.
Because in those days it wasn't
easy to talk across the Iron
Curtain.
But the two of them, at the same
time, came up with the notion
that when our universe had
just come into existence, 10
to the minus 35 seconds
after the Big Bang,
it was caught in a funny state
to do with quantum physics.
So there's something
called quantum fields.
You all know that
the Higgs boson.
Well, the Higgs is
a quantum field.
It's to do with the
microscopic fabric of space.
Now, the idea that these
two people put forward--
and they won many
prizes for that idea--
was that when the universe
began, it had a quantum field.
And that quantum field was
caught in the wrong state.
Physics call this
a false vacuum,
but don't worry about that.
What happened was the
universe expanded very rapidly
over a very brief
period of time.
It's called cosmic inflation.
But the main thing was that
because the quantum phenomenon
evolved, then quantum
phenomena fluctuate.
And this phenomena, as
the universe inflated,
gave rise to the appearance
of small inhomogeneities
in the energy of the universe.
Some bits were more
dense than others.
Others were less dense.
Now, this we now
understand is the origin
of the hot and cold spots
in the microwave background.
But not only that, it is
the origin of everything
we see in the universe.
So idea, number one,
that was heretical.
Although very
enlightened people like--
the reason I came
to this country
was because I met one of
the greatest minds I think--
if you ever have a chance
to see this man speak,
you can find him in any number
of-- you go and google search.
You do all the time, like we do.
And put Martin Rees.
He's the one who
brought me here.
So what was I saying, yes?
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ:
Heretical idea number one.
CARLOS FRENK: The heretical--
I was a student
at this Institute
of Astronomy in Cambridge.
And there was this paper
called "Cosmic inflation."
This is 1980, when
in this country
there was Margaret Thatcher and
there were a lot of inflation.
And I said to Martin,
is this paper serious
or is it just a joke?
And Martin, who's now Lord
Rees, says to me, look,
that piece of paper you're
holding in your hand
may well turn out to be the most
important piece of paper you've
ever touched.
And he was right.
I don't know if any
of you have ever
touched a piece of paper
that makes you think,
well, maybe this is
some game changer?
Well, that was it.
So the modern view
of cosmology is
that the universe began with
this quantum phenomena, seeded
the universe with
small perturbations
in the energy density,
that it reflected,
and seen in the
microwave background.
Then heretical idea number
two, which actually originated
from behind the
Iron Curtain, that
was that the dark matter,
that Zwicky knew about,
could be made of elementary
particles, that is subatomic
particles completely
different from the particles
that make ordinary matter, like
atoms, and molecules, and so
on.
They're the ordinary
matter, the 5%.
So here the proposition
was that the dark matter
was made of hypothetical
particles that were very
different from ordinary matter.
And the reason they are
dark is because they
don't collect into atoms.
They don't interact.
They just produce gravity.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: We
don't see them, therefore.
CARLOS FRENK: We don't see them.
If I'm right, and the dark
matter is what I think it is,
and many others think
it is what it is,
this room is full of these
dark matter particles.
But they just go
through our bodies.
And we don't feel anything
because they don't interact.
And so they're not
harmful at all.
But makes it very difficult to
find because you put a detector
and they just go through.
And they don't interact.
Well, they never--
you're none the wiser.
But here comes the beauty
of the whole story.
The idea was that
the dark matter,
in the form of these
hypothetical elementary
particles, would cause those
small ripples from inflation
to be amplified in
the following way.
So if because of this
quantum phenomena,
this patch of universe then
had to be denser than average.
Well, initially
it was expanding.
But because it had more
matter than the surroundings,
that eventually it
would stop expanding,
and collapse, and
produce an object
that would later
turn into a galaxy.
So this was the key
idea inflation, quantum
fluctuations, are amplified
to macroscopic scales
by the action of gravity, which
is the weakest of all forces.
However, the universe
is long old enough
that there has been
enough time for these more
small perturbations to
collapse and produce objects
like those we see in
the universe around us.
So where the cold
dark matter comes from
is that particle
physicists very soon
realized that the
details of the Sun,
by a patchwork of
hot and cold spots,
would depend on the way in
which these particles moved.
So cold dark matter are
very slow moving particles.
There was hot dark matter,
which were very rapidly moving
particles.
They move at
relativistic speeds.
The neutrino-- and
most people here
would have heard and
imagine the word "neutrino."
Well, they were candidates
for hot dark matter.
And the first work I did
in Berkeley, in the 1980s,
was to rule them out by
using a new technique that
had been invented then,
whereby we could--
the story I've told you--
we could calculate
it in a big computer.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: Is that where
simulations and simulating
universes and galaxies
come into play.
CARLOS FRENK: That's where
they came into play, yes.
I mean the computers we
had, with which we ruled out
cold dark matter, were
laughable by today's standards.
So I remember in Berkeley.
So in the winter
of 1981, until then
the department of
astronomy in Berkeley
had a computer called a PDP-11.
I don't see anybody old enough
here to remember PDP-11.
But anyway-- oh, you did.
[LAUGHTER]
So there was a breakthrough in
computing, which actually was--
the mind behind
this breakthrough
was a former Google vice
president, Wayne Rosing,
who I met.
He invented-- was a key
part in the development
of these computers called
VAXes, beautiful computers,
much better than all this
Unix stuff that we have today.
Anyway--
[LAUGHTER]
Berkeley acquired VAX-780.
Now, that blew everybody's mind.
It had an incredible
four megabytes of memory.
[LAUGHTER]
Can you imagine what you
could do with four megabytes?
So I just arrived in Berkeley.
And being Mexican,
and Mexicans are
very good at taking advantage of
opportunities and improvising,
I thought I'm going to learn
how this computer works
before anybody else.
And then they will go on
holiday for Christmas.
And I can use it by myself.
And that's what happened.
And that's where the first
simulations of cold dark matter
were done, during the
Christmas break, 1981--
'81, '82, thanks to--
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: Four
megabytes, powerful.
CARLOS FRENK: Oh, yeah,
it was four megabytes.
It is laughable today.
But the thing that
my collaborators like
to boast about is that even
though we had four megabytes,
we were doing
simulations-- simulations,
you have particles.
And the particles represent
all the matter in the universe.
But the universe is very big.
So we had to represent
the whole universe
with 32 cubed particles, 32,768.
That was all.
Today, we do simulations.
And we're just
doing one in China
with a trillion particles.
Yet-- yet, let me just say,
nobody has found anything wrong
with--
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: The
previous simulations.
CARLOS FRENK: Yes.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: That's
called craftsmanship.
CARLOS FRENK: No.
It's called good luck.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: So
tell us about, like--
that's interesting, like--
supercomputers, now that brings
to mind a lot of concepts, no.
And probably everybody
has a different definition
of supercomputer.
But you use them every day--
CARLOS FRENK: Sure.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ:
--for your work.
And your work depends on that.
Can you characterize
for us, like what
qualifies as supercomputer
today in your field?
CARLOS FRENK: OK, yeah.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: What I said.
And what does it do for
you, all the calculations,
the rendering?
CARLOS FRENK: What we
call a supercomputer is
one that has many cores.
I mean even my watch
right now has a few cores.
So to be a supercomputer, to be
respectable as a supercomputer,
you to have at least I'd
say a few thousand cores.
He knows.
AUDIENCE: Yeah.
CARLOS FRENK: He has run
one of our supercomputers.
AUDIENCE: A few thousand cores.
CARLOS FRENK: Huh?
AUDIENCE: A few thousand.
CARLOS FRENK: A
few thousand cores.
But now the new
ones have a million.
So it has to have lots of cores.
But the main thing
is, in order for it
to be high-performance
computing,
you have to get them
to work together.
So it's no good having a
thousand different independent
processes.
That's actually called--
but we went to something
called massively
parallel computing,
which requires the different
cores to communicate with one
another and to work together.
So that's what makes
a supercomputer.
It's a large number of
cores, all programmed
using parallel type
software, to work
in unison, to work together.
And, nowadays, if
you want to get time
in a big supercomputer, you have
to show what we call scaling.
That as the problem gets
bigger and you want more cores,
then your code runs faster
than it would otherwise.
So that's supercomputers
being crucial.
I mean we've been--
I think in cosmology,
we were some
of the people who got lucky that
we began using supercomputing
in a very, very extensive way.
But supercomputer now pervades
all of science really,
not just my science, but
other disciplines too.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ:
Could you give us
a sense of like-- let's say, any
given simulation that you do,
does it take days,
does it take months?
How does it work?
Like once you press
go, what happens?
CARLOS FRENK: You're on holiday.
You hope that when you
come back, it's done now.
So there are many simulations.
There are many
types of simulation.
So there are the
big, big, big ones,
where we really
try to understand
the universe on large scales.
And there are
smaller ones, where
we want to understand--
for example,
we know the Milky Way is
part of a group of galaxies
called the Local Group.
And if we want to understand the
details of our own environment.
Then you do a different
kind of simulation.
If you're interested
in the dark matter,
you do easy simulations, where
only gravity plays a role.
If you want to understand
where stars come from--
and I'm sure, one day
we'll ask the questions
where people come from.
But at the moment, we stop
at stars and planets--
then you do a different
kind of simulation.
Now, the big, big, big
ones could take months.
So we don't do those very
often because your students get
impatient.
But typically, you could wait
three, four, five, six months
for a simulation to finish.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: And is
that continuously running?
CARLOS FRENK: All the time,
just keep the machine busy.
And, yeah-- I mean we're,
my colleagues and I,
are among the most unpopular
people in the computing world
because we kick everybody
else out of the computers.
And we just use them.
And we say, look, we're
to simulate the universe.
For goodness sake,
give us a break.
I have my thesis to
finish by next Thursday.
So we're not really popular.
But that's what you need.
You need to be able to do that.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: You have
here, in the audience probably,
and in this building,
as I was telling you
before, a lot of
colleagues involved
in either machine
learning techniques
or in artificial intelligence.
Do any of these play a
role in your techniques,
in the techniques that you use?
CARLOS FRENK: Yeah.
So let me say something
slightly provocative.
We've been using
these techniques
for 30 years at least.
We just didn't call them that.
So then the dark energy,
you come up with a nice name
and then you can
make lots of money.
So artificial intelligence--
well, let me be more precise.
So, for example,
neural networks,
which is one of the techniques
of artificial machine learning.
Principal component analysis,
I was doing that when
I was a student in the '70s.
But we didn't call it artificial
intelligence or machine
learning.
Now, of course,
that was laughable.
That was like my four
megabytes, compared
to what artificial intelligence
machine learning can do today.
And that's because the
amount of data around,
that you all know all
about, has just mushroomed
as has the computing power.
And so now machine learning is
just so much more sophisticated
and powerful than it has
been in the last few decades.
But the techniques,
the basic techniques,
well, they're simple
statistical techniques.
They're well
understood, well known.
But, of course, now we use
machine learning all the time.
Because like in many other
parts of human activity,
astronomy now generate
enormous amounts of data.
And in order to find
patterns in this data,
just like you do in
many other applications.
we use an increasing
number of applications
of artificial intelligence.
I think most of my students
now would probably do,
during their studies, projects
involving machine learning.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: Machine
learning, artificial--
CARLOS FRENK: For sure.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ:
--intelligence.
CARLOS FRENK: Yes.
Because we get
terabytes of data,
even from the simulations,
let alone the real universe.
But we now have a new
generation of telescopes.
It's just amazing.
I mean, for example,
there's satellite--
people know this-- called
Gaia out there, launched
by the European Space
Agency, that is just
interested in our own galaxy.
It's not interested in the
universe as a whole, just
our own galaxy.
But it's going to
make measurements
for 3 billion stars,
which is about--
but one had a billion stars.
It's about-- no, 3 billion.
So 10% of all the
stars in the Milky Way
will have been observed
by the Gaia satellite
and have properties measured.
And that's small by the
standards of the data sets
that we're going to acquire.
That's a big, international,
enormous telescope
called the Large Synoptic
something Telescope, the LSST.
That is going to generate
in one day as much data
as the Large Hadron Collider
generated I think in a month.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: Oh, wow.
CARLOS FRENK: So, of course,
without machine learning,
you don't advance.
So yeah, we use
that all the time.
So I encourage people here who
do machine learning, come up
with more stuff.
We love it.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: So now,
Professor Frenk, if you
had like your magic
wand, your three wishes,
like what three mysteries out
there in the universe would
you like to--
either for you to
solve or for science
to solve in your lifetime?
CARLOS FRENK: Ha!
I hadn't anticipated
this question.
It reminds me once I
was doing a program
on cosmology for the BBC.
And we were filming in Durham.
Durham is hilly.
And I used to smoke
in those days.
I'm glad I gave up.
But they wanted me to go
up and down this hill.
You have to try.
I could hardly breathe.
So I was walking
backwards up the hill.
And then the producer
says to me, last question,
if God came down and
you could ask him
one question, what would it be?
[LAUGHTER]
Choking there.
And the question I
asked has been answered,
which is what is the
value of the mean density
of the universe?
Now, that might sound silly
to you and very technical.
But that had the
key to understanding
the whole evolution of the
universe in those days.
And we answered that question.
We know what the
density of the universe
is because we now know that we
have the 5% of ordinary matter,
et cetera, et cetera.
So that question
has been answered.
So I think now the questions
are less general than that one.
I would say-- there's
three questions in my mind.
One, are lumped together.
What is the dark matter really?
Because we know that dark
matter has to be there.
Otherwise, the universe
doesn't make any sense.
Our simulations look so
much like the real universe
that there's gotta be
something in the universe that
is like what we simulate.
And I can make universes
that are a disaster.
So just change
slightly the properties
of the dark matter, or the
expansion rate, or something,
you end up with disasters.
I mean you could easily
annihilate the whole universe,
kill off our galaxy.
You've got to get it right.
So I think that the--
but the reality is, the dark
matter hypothetical concept,
nobody has yet come along to a
press conference, saying here,
I got you an elementary particle
that is the dark matter.
So that's mystery number
one, what is the dark matter?
I'll put together
with it, what is
the dark energy, although
they're very different things.
So I think my generation
should, I hope,
discover the dark matter.
And I say-- well, in the
next, say, five years or so.
But I've been saying
that for the last 25.
But ignore that.
So I think the matter
is a solvable problem.
The dark energy, I
don't know the solution
to that is going to come
from because there's
no theory of physics.
We just backtrack a second.
The current idea is that
the dark energy is something
that Einstein introduced
in his equations,
called the
cosmological constant,
which he introduced
for the wrong reasons.
And then he took out.
And said, this is the
worst thing I've ever done,
is talk about this constant.
Yeah?
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ:
Like he was fudging.
CARLOS FRENK: Well, I
mean the story is that--
so when Einstein-- this
is a beautiful story.
When Einstein wrote down the
theory of general relativity
in the 1920s, a priest
actually, George
Lemaitre in Belgium, and
a Russian mathematician.
The priest was called
George Lemaitre
and the Russian mathematician
Alexander Friedman.
They solved the equation
that Einstein can't solve.
And they wrote back to Einstein,
saying Mr. Einstein, sorry,
you're wrong because
your theory predicts
that the universe
should be expanding.
And, as far as we can
tell, it's not expanding.
The expansion of the
universe was only
discovered in 1926 or
'27 by Edwin Hubble.
And this is before that.
So Einstein, said,
oh, my God, my theory
predicts an expanding universe.
We don't see the
universe expanding.
Let me stop the expansion by
adding this constant, which
you are allowed in
physics to add constants
because it's the
way physics works.
[LAUGHTER]
You can add energies
here and there.
And you still get paid
at the end of the month.
So Einstein added his constant.
And then he went, met Hubble.
Hubble said, look, the universe
is expanding, Mr. Einstein.
And Einstein, said,
oh, my God, took out
the cosmological
constant, and said this is
the biggest blunder in my life.
Now, what can cause
this accelerated
expansion is
Einstein's constant,
but with a different sign.
So Einstein introduced it to
stop the universe expanding.
Now, we want it to
expand faster and faster,
have the same constant,
change the sign.
But that is not really science.
I mean it's not.
So the dark energy is
a fundamental problem.
It tells us about something
very deep about a universe.
I don't think I'm going
to solve the problem.
I don't think my students
are going to solve it.
Who knows who's
going to solve it.
So that's question one.
Sorry, I'm thinking a bit long.
Question two, is are we alone?
Is there life elsewhere?
And to me, that's about
as profound a question
as you can ask.
I feel-- it is my
own personal opinion.
There's no evidence.
I'm just about to give you an
unscientific statement, not
backed by any evidence at all.
But to me, it seems quite
likely that the universe
must have lots of life, but
primitive life, bacterial life.
About 90% of the
biomass on Earth,
which is the only place where
we know about life, is bacteria.
So that seems to me
fairly reasonable,
that the universe has bacteria.
We see in telescopes the
building blocks of DNA.
They're all over the place.
So I don't think that's so hard.
But the key question there,
is there intelligent life
somewhere else?
And that I have no clue whether
the answer is yes or no.
But I do know one thing.
We have the technology in place.
And this will be
the next big thing,
after the gravitational
waves, the dark matter.
The next big thing
is going to be,
you wake up in the morning
with a big headline,
evidence of life has been
discovered in a nearby planet.
I think that's the
next big thing coming.
And the technology is there.
So it's actually
quite straightforward.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: It's a matter
of time, and effort, and luck.
CARLOS FRENK: Well,
luck of course.
But the technology exists.
It's just telescopes that
measure the atmosphere.
And then the third
question, that again I
don't know who is
going to answer that.
And that is, we know our
universe began with a Big Bang.
We have lots of empirical
evidence for that.
So that's not an issue.
The big issue is,
what went bang?
And that, I think to me,
is a fundamental question.
And I have no clue how we're
going to answer that question.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: Thank you.
Professor Frenk, before we
hand over to our audience,
which I hope there are some
questions floating around,
for those that perhaps
know about your work,
but know less about
you as a person,
you were alluding before to
something very interesting,
which is multicultural
backgrounds
and how that has played an
effect, a positive effect.
You were born in Mexico.
And you studied in Mexico, then
came to the UK in the '70s.
What do you think, if at
all, from that background,
that upbringing, that
cultural packaging,
has influenced you
the most in your work?
CARLOS FRENK: Well,
I think one thing I
learned growing up in Mexico--
I already made mention of this.
So Mexico, of course,
is not, and wasn't
even more so then, a rich
country, full of resources.
And you have to do what you want
to do with limited resources.
So the Mexicans are the
masters of improvisation.
I remember every time
my car broke down,
I was so amazed how
the mechanics would
bring one bit from
here, a wire from there,
borrow a string
from there, a piece,
and get my car going again.
So this would never
happen in this country.
And then here, you get a
little dent in your car
and they make you buy a new one.
[LAUGHTER]
So improvisation
is one key element,
flexibility, imagination.
So the Mexican culture
is hugely imaginative.
We see that in so many
ordinary walks of life,
from the architecture
that is wonderful.
So if any of you
ever go to Mexico,
don't miss the university.
It's called University City.
It has the most magnificent
buildings that you can imagine.
And studying there, of
course, you absorb--
your sources are very creative.
The Mexican literature
is just full of genius.
I mean, the most surprising,
unexpected things
happen in Mexican literature.
There's a very
famous movement, when
I was there, in literature,
in Latin, America called
magical realism.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: Oh, yeah.
CARLOS FRENK:
Well, the Mexicans,
although they don't-- the
Argentinians get the credit
for this.
But it really is
the Mexicans who
are both magical and realistic.
So that's other one.
You see it in the music.
You see it in the humor.
The Mexicans have the
most strange humor,
that not even the British
actually understand.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: That's
a statement, yeah.
[LAUGHTER]
That is--
CARLOS FRENK: Totally.
And it's genius.
So that's one thing I learned.
The other thing, I must say, I
went from Mexico to Cambridge.
And the standards of
my lecturers in Mexico
were so much higher than
the Cambridge lecturers.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ:
Controversial, huh?
CARLOS FRENK: I go all the way
here, to the rain and the cold.
And I get these lectures.
They're not half as good as
the ones I had in Mexico.
Of course, there's more
to being a scientist
than just listening to lectures.
So the university,
I don't know now
because I haven't been
there for a long time.
But the standards of
the University of Mexico
were very, very high, the
intellectual standards.
And, of course, because they
didn't have many resources,
they were mostly geared
towards theoretical thinking,
mathematical
thinking, because we
didn't have the equipment
for experiments and so on.
So, yeah.
So if you ask me
in one word, what
it is in my cultural heritage
that really impressed me,
it was this ability
to improvise.
And for that, to be imaginative.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ:
Being resourceful.
CARLOS FRENK: Yes,
resourceful and imaginative.
And never say-- never
take no for an answer.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: Determination.
Some--
CARLOS FRENK: Determination.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: We'll
call it stubbornness,
but determination.
CARLOS FRENK: I'll get
your car on the road again.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ:
So I would like
to hand over to our audience.
AUDIENCE: Thank you very much.
That's a beautiful conversation.
And it's lovely to hear
more about the mysteries
of the universe.
It strikes me, there are so many
things that are so beautifully
woven together in the universe
that just seems like it's--
it's unlikely that it
was just an accident.
What do you ascribe to that
the beautiful balance that
seems to be holding
the universe together
and where we are today?
What's behind that?
CARLOS FRENK: Well, thank
you for that question.
So I'm sorry to disappoint you.
I don't have the answer.
But I do have--
I think your question
is very profound.
And let me tell what, to
me, the biggest mystery.
I mean, I've been dealing
with the universe all my life.
And to me, the most mysterious
aspect of the universe is this.
That it conforms to what we
call the laws of physics now.
So the laws of physics
are laws like, you know,
Newton's gravity
and so on, that I've
discovered almost invariably--
there's one exception.
We'll come to in a minute--
in laboratories here on Earth.
Most of science, most
of physics comes out
of laboratories, Newton's
theory of mechanics.
Everything comes from
experiments, except relativity.
I made the statement
once at a talk
that everything was experiment.
Somebody said, no relativity
didn't come from an experiment.
It came from Einstein's head.
Fine.
However, these
are all-- the laws
of physics that all
discovered here on Earth.
And yet they seem to
apply, not just on Earth,
and in our laboratories, but
everywhere, and at all times,
even in conditions that
bear no resemblance at all
with the conditions in which
these laws are discovered,
like the Big Bang.
So the densities, the
temperatures of the Big Bang
have no parallel.
And we don't even need to do
what happens in a laboratory.
We don't even need to
go to the Big Bang.
The gravitational waves--
I mean a neutron
star is the mass--
it's bigger actually
than the mass of the Sun.
And volume is
smaller than London.
Now those conditions are
impossible to replicate
in the laboratory.
And when we study them with the
laws of physics, they apply.
So why are the laws
of physics universal?
Why does the universe know
to respect relativity,
to respect Newtonian mechanics,
to respect electromagnetism?
That, to me, is the
biggest mystery.
And unfortunately, I don't know
the answer to that question.
But I think that's
what you're getting at.
And I wish I could--
I would have known
more of how to answer
this in a more conclusive way.
But to me, it's just
the biggest mystery.
In fact, sometime it
keeps me awake at night,
thinking, well, why
is the entropy--
I mean, of course, if
it wasn't like that,
we probably wouldn't be here.
If the universe was chaotic and
there were no rules, where you
can play the game, if
there aren't any rules.
So some people might say, well,
he's just an anthropic thing.
That the reason we're
here is because these laws
are universal.
But that, I don't find a
satisfying explanation.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: Thank
you for your question.
AUDIENCE: So you
mentioned that one
of the questions you'd
like to get answered
is about the other
forms of life,
especially the forms
of intelligent life
out there in the universe.
So my question is around--
I don't think we have--
as a humankind, right--
I don't think we have
come even to answer
in the philosophical
question what
is the fundamental difference
between something we
call a life and not a life.
So how is fundamentally a rock
different from a bacteria?
So I've experimented finding
answers to that question.
like is it replication, is it
feeling, is it something else?
But it's all easily refutable.
So there is no
criterion for that yet.
So I mean even if we do
not distinguish something
alive and not alive,
then how can we
distinguish, the
other question is,
intelligent life
from not intelligent?
CARLOS FRENK: Oh,
great question.
So thank you again.
These are the things
that preoccupy me a lot.
So I should have
qualified when I
said what I said, that I
was talking about life as we
know it, not life
as we don't know it.
Now, there could well be lots
of life as we don't know it.
In fact, it may well be that
the future of our species--
maybe there is a posthuman
fate for our descendants, where
you can hardly tell the
difference between what
we call humans and computers.
I mean if you extrapolate
the incredible advances
in computing, you
could easily imagine--
and the way in which
computers are increasingly
becoming part of our mind.
We extend that mind.
So one of the--
many things are bad
when you grow old.
One of them is you forget names.
I don't care anymore.
Or I get lost, I don't care.
I get my phone and
Google tells me.
So Google is an
extension of my mind.
Now, at the moment
it's in my pocket.
Well, in the not
too distant future,
it may be inside my cranial
cavity for all I know.
So it may well be that our
descendants will be more
like computers than humans.
Would we still call that life?
Well, that is a
question of definition.
To me, and not my
own personal opinion,
the key element of
life is the ability
to evolve and to transmit
genetic information
from one generation to another.
But that's just one--
my own definition
of the key for life.
But I don't think
I agree with you.
We don't have an
objective definition.
But when I was talking
about the search for life,
that really meant
life as we know it.
And I think life, as a
metabolic activity, what
we call bacteria, I
think that we know
how to in principle discover.
But I think there will
be a problem, of course,
when we do-- when they have
some signals from somewhere.
How do we know it's
intelligent or not?
So I think those
are open questions.
AUDIENCE: Hi.
Thank you for a
fascinating conversation.
I wanted to actually
ask a question based
on what you just talked about,
about your extended mind.
CARLOS FRENK: Yes.
AUDIENCE: And how--
I wanted you to reflect on
how the changes in computing
and the sophistication of
your simulations have changed,
or maybe they haven't changed,
your intuitions over the years
and your creativity?
Has there been a change
in the way-- the way
you work with computing
and simulation has affected
your thought processes
or your intuitions
or have they stayed the same?
CARLOS FRENK: Oh, yeah.
No, this is a very
good question, too.
so what's happened in my
own field, in my own field
it was transformed by computing
because of the ability
to do simulations.
Now, the simulations themselves,
when I started the output
was just a bunch of numbers.
But now we can make
representations
of the simulations,
visualizations,
where you take
all these numbers,
put them together,
you can make a movie.
In fact, Salvador says--
I'll show you a movie
later when we finish.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ:
I know what it is.
For those who would like to
see, we're going to try to.
Professor Frenk
gratefully brought one.
And 15 minutes after the
talk, we can stay a little bit
and see some of
this relationship.
CARLOS FRENK: So the
ability to visualize
the output of the calculation--
I mean essentially,
what a simulation does,
it's very straightforward.
You start from some
initial condition,
which is what we learned from
inflation, dark matter and so
on.
And all a simulation
is, is solving
the equations of physics.
So if you're interested in dark
matter only in your simulation,
you only solve the equations
of relativity and gravity.
If you want to be able
to simulate other things,
like stars, and
planets, and so on,
then you need to put in
more complicated physics.
But the equations that regulate
those physics are understood.
And all the computer does
is solve the equations.
Now, however-- so which
is what physicists do.
But there's an
enormous difference
between solving an
equation with pen and paper
and solving it in a
computer, especially
these complex processes,
that you can then visualize.
So have 40 years or so of
working and simulations
changed the way I approach
science, absolutely,
completely.
I now-- my imagination has been
stimulated constantly by seeing
images of primitive
galaxies, seeing very--
the universe actually,
sadly, I'm sorry to tell you,
is a violent place.
There is all sorts of nasty
things going on out there.
In particular, galaxies collide.
And when they collide, all
sorts of nasty things happen.
And to be able to see
collisions-- we, for example,
are very interested
in what's going
to happen to our own Milky Way.
It is on a collision
course with our neighbor,
called the Andromeda Galaxy.
But before that,
we're going to get
hit by another galaxy, which I
first saw in Mexico, in fact,
hiking in the south of Mexico.
It's called the Large
Magellanic Cloud.
You only see it from the
southward, from the tropics.
Anyway that is going to collide
with the center of our Milky
Way.
And so visualizing
all these things
has enriched my life as
a scientist enormously.
But, of course, I'm very
privileged in my subject, where
we can do this.
I always feel so sorry for
particle physicists, well,
what can they do?
They just see these things
colliding and making
a little splash.
Well, that's nothing
compared to the movies
that we make for a living.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: You're
Hollywood compared too--
CARLOS FRENK: Well, absolutely.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ:
Any other questions?
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: I will
repeat it for the video.
CARLOS FRENK: Yeah.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: The
question was, in order
to search for the
existence of life
should we focus in our
solar system, in our galaxy,
should we venture
further afield?
And what would be your
approach to go about it?
CARLOS FRENK: Well,
I look everywhere.
If you lose your keys,
you look wherever you can.
But I think the--
so just in response
to the question.
We're looking for
life as we know it.
So we know that water is,
as we say in mathematics,
a necessary, but not a
sufficient condition for life.
For life as we know it,
in addition to water,
you need to have the
right temperature.
You need to be in
what astronomers
call the habitable zone
of the planetary system
Now, I think we're pretty
certain that the solar system
doesn't have intelligent
life, maybe nowhere, maybe
not even on Earth.
But we do have it on Earth.
But there could
be bacterial life.
There could be primitive
life, either in vents,
where even though the
planet is too far away
to be at the right temperature.
But, for instance,
a good place is--
well, Mars is a reasonable
place, but the moons
of Jupiter.
For example, they are
heated by very interesting
gravitational phenomena.
So they could harbor
primitive life.
I think if there was
more advanced life
we would know about it.
So the one other thing that
we didn't really talk about,
where there has been
a tremendous advance
in the last 10 years or so,
is in discovering planets
outside our solar system,
that are just like the Earth.
But when I started as a student,
the only planets we knew about
are in the solar system.
And now there are 10,000 or
so planets, called exoplanets,
orbiting other
stars, not the Sun.
And there is a subset of
those, which is much smaller,
but just a few tenths,
where conditions
are like in the Earth.
So these are in
the habitable zone.
They're called
Earth-like planets.
In fact, recently in the news.
There was something called
a Super Earth, which
was a very nice planet, that
looked just a lot like Earth,
except it was much bigger, but
not that much bigger, somewhat
bigger.
So I would look there because
we're after life as we know it.
Then the first thing I
would take to find out
is whether these planets
have an atmosphere.
And we can do that in a
way which is now possible
because when the planet
goes in front of the star,
the star passes
through the atmosphere.
And with sufficiently
sensitive detectors
you can analyze the light
from the background star
and look for signatures of life.
And, in fact, it
turns out that life
is what we call a
nonequilibrium process.
So oxygen, for example,
generation of oxygen,
so the abundance of oxygen,
it's changing all the time.
But we breathe.
And then the oxygen metabolized.
So the existence of oxygen
is a nonequilibrium process.
And you can tell if an
atmosphere has oxygen just
by seeing how the light
from the background star
is absorbed by the atmosphere.
So that's why I was saying
before, the technology is
there.
So I would drop everything
anybody else is doing
and go and make sure we
have the telescopes--
you probably have to
do this from space--
and the detectors to
be able to analyze
the light as it goes through
the putative atmosphere
of an exoplanet.
So I would put a
lot of effort there.
But I would still continue
looking in our own backyard
because I think, even
if we don't find--
I say I don't think we will--
intelligent life on this Earth,
is finding any evidence of life
outside the Earth would be such
a transformation to everything.
Just like the way
in the Renaissance,
where the realization that
the Earth goes around the Sun
changed all of society, it
changed the way people did art,
it changed the way people
looked at themselves,
it changed the
philosophy of the time,
I think likewise discovering
life outside the Earth
would be as much of a
cultural revolution,
artistic revolution, and
psychological revolution
as the discovery that the
Earth goes on the Sun.
So now I think this is a
clearly hugely important quest.
SALVADOR VAZQUEZ: Well, it
is with the quest of life
that we get to an end of our
very, very delightful talk.
Thank you so much.
If you could just join me in
thanking Profess Frenk for--
CARLOS FRENK: Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
