Our Best Theory Was THRIVING—Until this Experiment Changed Everything

The Moon Landing Wasn’t Fake and Gay https://youtube.com/shorts/VWxiylw_EJ0 Dear Magicians, For much of the last few decades, cosmologists have lived with the sense that they understood something essential about the universe. ΛCDM — Lambda Cold Dark Matter — became the standard model not because it was beautiful, or even intuitive, but because it worked. From the universe’s earliest moments to its more recent history, it all held together nicely. Lambda (Λ) represented the strange and invisible energy accelerating the expansion of the cosmos. Cold dark matter explained the unseen mass shaping galaxies and clusters. It was never a complete picture. But it was good enough to win the Nobel Prize in 2011, when the accelerated expansion was confirmed. Good enough to garner the 2019 Nobel Prize for demonstrating dark matter anchored the earliest galaxies and clusters in the universe. Good enough to convince most physicists that we had, at least provisionally, glimpsed something like the truth. Now that confidence seems to be faltering. The DESI survey — the most detailed map of the universe’s structure to date — has revealed a tension. A 4.2σ deviation. This corresponds roughly to a 1 in 60,000 chance of occurring randomly. Not the 5σ deviation, one-in-a-million fluke typically required to garner a Nobel Prize. Yet. Not quite a revolution, but far more than a statistical fluke. The data suggest that dark energy may not be constant. (See here for what that could mean) That what we once called the cosmological constant might, in fact, be evolving. If true, this would imply that even our best frameworks are provisional. That what we have mistaken for fundamental features of the universe may be mere approximations — temporary scaffolding built around deeper laws we have yet to imagine. Prof Kyle Dawson, the former spokesperson of DESI and I discussed this on INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE this week. We explored why DESI’s measurements are harder to dismiss. Why the degeneracies that masked earlier hints are finally breaking open. And why the task before cosmologists now is not simply to refine ΛCDM, but to accept that it may soon be replaced altogether. The standard model isn’t dead. But it is wounded. And if DESI’s findings hold — if dark energy is dynamic rather than static — it may force us to revise our most basic intuitions about what the universe is, and what it’s doing. As always, the most dangerous assumption in science is the belief that we are nearing the end of discovery. The data are telling a different story now, about how the universe formed and how it may die.​ It’s a story we would all be wise to listen to. Until next time, have a M.A.G.I.C. Week, Brian Appearance Sky & Telescope’s new piece chronicles the exploits of my former graduate student Dr. Dave Boettger and our recently completed Simons Observatory—now perched 5200 m high on Chile’s Cerro Toco—detailing how our trio of 0.4 m Small Aperture Telescopes and the freshly installed 6 m Large Aperture Telescope captured first light in February 2025 . Together we’ll map CMB polarization with unprecedented precision, hunting primordial gravitational waves, constraining neutrino mass, and stress‑testing cosmic‑inflation models . Explore the first part of this three part report online now 🔭 here Genius In last week’s Monday M.A.G.I.C. Message, I discussed the need for true expertise in a world where facts often masquerade as fiction — and fiction as facts. To complement that theme, here’s a valuable resource 20 fact checking websites. This article lists fact-checking sites like Snopes and Google’s Fact Check Explorer, along with reverse image search engines, identity verification platforms, and AI detection tools. Although originally compiled for journalists, these tools are indispensable for anyone who wants to think critically and verify what they read, watch, or share online. Image The installation of the Large Aperture Telescope’s colossal primary and secondary mirrors (each roughly 6 meters in diameter) successfully took place at the Simons Observatory’s site in Chile in February 2025. Conversation https://youtu.be/Mrr8pozzBl0?sub_confirmation=1 This week’s chat is with my favorite guest: me! Can one small inconsistency tear down an entire scientific theory? In this episode, I debunk a claim made by the @astrumspace channel about the “lithium problem” and the real threat to the Big Bang theory. Astrum presents this discrepancy as a major flaw in the Big Bang model, but this is more clickbait than science. The lithium issue isn’t anywhere near as catastrophic as it’s made out to be. The lithium levels might not match exactly what we expected, but that’s one small piece of a much bigger, well-tested puzzle. It’s like finding one odd fossil and claiming it ruins the entire theory of evolution. I also take a closer look at how these claims (mostly used to sell products or generate views) mislead the public and create doubt where there’s no reason for it. We’ve got mountains of evidence backing the Big Bang, and cherry-picking data to suit your narrative just doesn’t hold up. Let’s set the record straight. Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out! This video appeared first on my new channel Professor Keating Explains! I’m slowly weaning short form explainers from my main channel to this new one. I need you all to not forget to subscribe and leave a comment and 👍 so the algorithm knows you care 😍. Click here to watch! Get the transcript and AI interactive content from this episode here Subscribe to my podcast! More than 2M downloads! Advertisement Don’t miss this incredible opportunity to elevate your knowledge and decision-making with Consensus Premium. Consensus Premium harnesses cutting-edge AI to sift through thousands of research papers, delivering clear, evidence-backed answers to your toughest questions. Whether you’re a curious mind, a scientist, or a student of life, this is your chance to access the world’s best knowledge with zero strings attached. Sign up for one year for free with code KEATING25 just for listeners of The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast and get all of 2025 for free! Expires on June 30, 2025 By popular demand, and for my mental health 😳, I am starting a paid “Office

The Moon Landing Wasn’t Fake and Gay

The Moon Landing Wasn’t Fake and Gay Dear Magicians, Let’s talk about expertise in an age of ignorance. This week, Candace Owens declared NASA’s historic space accomplishments “fake and gay.” A comedian with seemingly no travel experience is suddenly a geopolitical expert. And upcoming guest, my friend Douglas Murray, faces mockery by Joe Rogan for suggesting that maybe, just maybe, actual knowledge matters. Interesting timing. Because right now, graduate students—our future experts—face anxiety and depression at six times the normal rate. Half are psychologically distressed. They’re training to become authorities in an era that increasingly despises authority. Think about that. We’re attacking expertise while desperately needing it. Climate change accelerates. AI advances daily. Nuclear tensions simmer. Yet we’re choosing TikTok hot takes over decades of research. The system doesn’t help. “Of course you’re struggling; it’s a PhD,” they say. Like psychological trauma is a badge of honor. Meanwhile, social media influencers gather millions of clicks and Adsense bucks by declaring Earth is flat. Consider the paradox. We’re building knowledge while society seems to prefer ignorance. Creating specialists in an age that celebrates generalist declarations. Training experts for a world that increasingly shouts them down. But here’s why it matters. The moon landing wasn’t “fake and gay.” It was real and magnificent. It happened because experts dedicated their lives to understanding physics, engineering, mathematics. Not because someone had a spicy take on social media. We need experts. Not fewer. More. We need minds trained in rigorous thinking. In careful analysis. In the humility that comes from understanding how much there is to know. Yes, the PhD system needs reform. Yes, we must protect mental health. But the answer isn’t to abandon expertise—it’s to make accessing it more sustainable. Think about it. The next moon landing. The next vaccine. The next breakthrough in clean energy. These won’t come from influencers. They’ll come from experts who endured the gauntlet of specialized training. The question isn’t whether getting a PhD is “worth it.” The question is whether we can build a system that creates experts without breaking them. Because we need them now more than ever. Want to be part of the solution? Support experts. Value knowledge. And maybe, just maybe, consider becoming one yourself. Are experts infallible? Of course not. As Richard Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” And he was an expert! That simply means you must test your assumptions about who you trust. As with free speech, the solution to the lacunae of some experts is not fewer experts — it’s more and better experts! Because in an age of ignorance as a badge of honor, expertise isn’t just an achievement. It’s an act of resistance. Want to hear more about the value of expertise? Watch my Prager University video “Follow the Science!” . And make sure to catch my conversation with Douglas Murray — leave a question for him here. Until next time, have a M.A.G.I.C. Week, Brian Appearance Sky & Telescope’s new piece chronicles the exploits of my former graduate student Dr. Dave Boettger and our recently completed Simons Observatory—now perched 5200 m high on Chile’s Cerro Toco—detailing how our trio of 0.4 m Small Aperture Telescopes and the freshly installed 6 m Large Aperture Telescope captured first light in February 2025 . Together we’ll map CMB polarization with unprecedented precision, hunting primordial gravitational waves, constraining neutrino mass, and stress‑testing cosmic‑inflation models . Explore the first part of this three part report online now 🔭 here Genius There’s an Energy Cost to Changing Your Mind Deadline 🎞️ announces Monolith, a groundbreaking, highly anticipated documentary on Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 opus, exploring its cultural, technological, and spiritual impact. Backed by the Kubrick Estate, TIME Studios, Partners in Kind, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mike Medavoy, and more, director Stevan Riley will combine AI reconstructions, rare Kubrick–Clarke correspondence, and interviews with leading thinkers to show how 2001 predicted today’s tech age. As a founding member of the Arthur C. Clarke Center for Human Imagination 🌀, I find this project truly exhilarating. Hat tip to my colleague and past podcast guest Professor Benjamin Bratton for bringing this to my attention! Image Tonight! The Lyrid meteor shower, born from Comet C/1861 G1 (Thatcher), is one of the oldest documented in human history, with observations dating as far back as 687 BC. Unlike the more predictable Perseids or Geminids, the Lyrids are known for their unpredictable outbursts—most famously in 1982, when rates surged to 250 meteors per hour. Though typically producing a modest 10–20 meteors per hour, their meteors are fast and bright, often punctuated by occasional fireballs and persistent trails. Peaking around April 21–22, the Lyrids remind us that even ancient cosmic debris can still put on a surprise show. Conversation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QYlC4yAixE Buckle up for a cosmic thriller! In this episode of the Into the Impossible podcast, I sit down with the legendary “Pluto killer” himself, Professor Mike Brown, to unravel the dramatic story behind Pluto’s demotion and hear firsthand about the ongoing hunt for the mysterious Planet Nine. Get ready for astronomical controversy, scientific detective work, and the human stories behind rewriting our map of the solar system—this is science at its most thrilling! ​Click here to watch! Get the transcript and AI interactive content from this episode here Subscribe to my podcast! More than 2M downloads! Advertisement By popular demand, and for my mental health 😳, I am starting a paid “Office Hours” where you all can connect with me for the low price of $19.99 per hour. I get a lot of requests for coffee, to meet with folks one on one, to read people’s Theories of Everything etc. Due to extreme work overload, I’m only able to engage directly with supporters who show an ongoing commitment to dialogue—which is why I host a monthly Zoom session exclusively for patrons in the $19.99/month tier. It’s also available for paid Members of my Youtube channel at the Cosmic Office Hours level (also $19.99/month). Join here and see you in my office hours! Upcoming Episode Douglas Murray, whose sharp analysis cuts through ideological fog with surgical precision,

The Orchid’s Secret AI Doesn’t Want You to Know

If You Can Still Read This, You’re a Miracle https://youtu.be/2B_O0fnJyZs?list=PLJGKdZD30K__XkD2TDGq1pQo8Q__6vBhB&sub_confirmation=1 Dear Magicians, There’s an orchid that tricks bees into pseudo-copulation. No consciousness or consent required—just evolutionary optimization. Sound familiar? This week, I heard about AI models achieving ever more impressive feats. It reminded me of Eric Weinstein’s brilliant insight about “artificial outtelligence.” We’re not dealing with conscious machines, but with something perhaps more unsettling: systems that can outmaneuver human intelligence without possessing it. (Imagine how they’ll do when they do posses it?!) The evidence is everywhere. ChatGPT-4 writing poetry that moves us to tears. Gemini solving complex mathematical proofs. Sora writing guitar hero level rock ballads. Claude engaging in philosophical debates that would impress Socrates. None of these systems understand what they’re doing—yet they’re doing it remarkably well. Like the orchid, they’ve evolved to push our buttons. To activate our recognition systems. To make us feel understood. But here’s where it gets interesting: unlike the orchid, these systems are evolving at digital speed. What took nature millions of years to perfect in the realm of bee deception, AI is achieving in months when it comes to human persuasion. This isn’t about AI consciousness (a question that may be as meaningless as asking whether the orchid understands botany). It’s about effectiveness. About systems that can increasingly outperform humans in domains we once thought were exclusively ours. The question isn’t whether machines can think—it’s whether we can still think clearly about machines. In a recent conversation I had with Eric Weinstein and Avi Loeb, we explored this very territory. The implications stretch far beyond technology into the heart of what it means to be human in an age of artificial outtelligence. What happens when systems that don’t understand us become better at persuading us than we are at understanding them? Think about it. Test your assumptions. And maybe approach your next AI interaction like a cautious bee approaching an unusually attractive flower. See Eric’s discussion on artificial outtelligence and the future of human cognition here. Until next time, have a M.A.G.I.C. Week, Brian Appearance https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLJGKdZD30K__XkD2TDGq1pQo8Q__6vBhB&v=4Bm9O22dO1E I joined Robinson Erdhart’s podcast and discussed the expansion and inflation of the universe, the relationship between theory and experiment in cosmology, gravitational waves, my brainchild the BICEP experiment, and a lot more. Genius There’s an Energy Cost to Changing Your Mind Picture your brain like a ball in a lumpy landscape. The valleys are your “stable” states – focused work, daydreaming, analyzing. To switch between them, the ball needs energy to roll over the hills. Every mental shift – from thinking to feeling, from reading to talking – costs energy. It’s why breaking habits feels like hard work. You’re literally pushing your brain uphill. The deeper the valley, the harder the escape. Sometimes the best path isn’t forcing a direct switch but gradually reshaping the landscape itself. Think about it. When did you last feel that mental gear shift? Image The “Clawsome” Lobster Nebula 📸Mike Adler  Conversation https://youtu.be/odDUH_oRVc0&list=PLJGKdZD30K__XkD2TDGq1pQo8Q__6vBhB In this episode, I sit down with the legendary cosmologist Dick Bond to explore how scientific friendship has been a crucial element in shaping the understanding of the universe over the past fifty years. We dive into topics such as entropy, dark energy, and the Hubble tension, while emphasizing the importance of seeing the big picture and maintaining technical expertise. ​Click here to watch! Get the transcript and AI interactive content from this episode here Subscribe to my podcast! More than 2M downloads! Advertisement If you’re reading this, I know you like to stay well informed about science, but I also know you don’t have a lot of time to spare. So here is newsletter you might enjoy: Sabine Hossenfelder has a weekly — free — digest that you can subscribe to here. Enjoy the IQ Boost! By popular demand, and for my mental health 😳, I am starting a paid “Office Hours” where you all can connect with me for the low price of $19.99 per hour. I get a lot of requests for coffee, to meet with folks one on one, to read people’s Theories of Everything etc. Due to extreme work overload, I’m only able to engage directly with supporters who show an ongoing commitment to dialogue—which is why I host a monthly Zoom session exclusively for patrons in the $19.99/month tier. It’s also available for paid Members of my Youtube channel at the Cosmic Office Hours level (also $19.99/month). Join here and see you in my office hours! Upcoming Episode Upcoming Guest Thomas Hertog will be on The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast soon. Hertog was a close collaborator of Stephen Hawking and co-developed groundbreaking ideas about the origin of time and the multiverse. What would you like me to ask him about the nature of reality, cosmology, or his work with Hawking?  Submit your question here

If You Can Still Read This, You’re a Miracle

If You Can Still Read This, You’re a Miracle Dear Magicians, The Last Readers: A Cognitive Extinction Event? Let’s talk about attention. Not the fleeting kind that skims this text right now. The deep kind. The kind that built civilization. The kind that’s vanishing faster than Arctic ice. Here’s an uncomfortable fact. ​Many elite university students have never read an entire book. Not “rarely read.” Never read. Think about that. Really think about it. These are students at Columbia, Georgetown, Princeton – the supposed apex of academic achievement. Interesting. We’re not just losing readers. We’re losing the neural architecture that makes reading possible. The cognitive scaffolding that allows a mind to build complex ideas, one paragraph at a time. Consider this paradox. A student brilliant enough to enter Columbia, yet unable to track a narrative longer than a TikTok video. The intelligence is there. The capacity isn’t. Something has rewired these minds. Let me be specific. This isn’t about laziness or screen time or “kids these days.” This is about neurological adaptation. These students aren’t choosing not to read – their brains have literally reorganized around fragmented information consumption. Think about the implications. Democracy requires sustained attention. Policy demands nuance. Justice needs context. What happens when a civilization can no longer hold a thought longer than a tweet? But wait. What if we’re asking the wrong question? It’s not “How do we make them read like we did?” but “How do we preserve deep thinking in a fundamentally different cognitive landscape?” The stakes are real. Every democracy depends on citizens who can follow complex arguments. Every scientific breakthrough stems from sustained investigation. Every moral advance requires extended ethical reasoning. Here’s the thing about attention. You can’t fix a neurological rewiring with nostalgia. You can’t solve a cognitive crisis with complaints. We need new tools. New methods. New ways of building bridges between fragmentary thinking and deep understanding. The path forward isn’t clear. But it’s not optional either. We’re witnessing a cognitive extinction event in real-time. The last readers might be sitting in our classrooms right now. Think about it. Test your own attention. When was the last time you read a physical book cover to cover? That long, huh? For me, it’s been even longer! Until next time, have a M.A.G.I.C. Week, Brian Appearance https://youtu.be/SSTltY_NTFM?t=736 I got name checked twice this week. Once with moon landing denier Bart Sibrel on Danny Jones’ podcast and another time on Patrick Bet-David’s podcast with Terrence Howard. How should I react? Genius Raconteur George Mack released a genius essay last week: https://www.highagency.com/ Image Simon’s Observatory 📸 Felipe Carrero Conversation https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLJGKdZD30K__XkD2TDGq1pQo8Q__6vBhB&v=MPUKFrepbO8 In this episode, Dr. Brian Keating engages in a thought-provoking conversation with Ben Bratton, a visionary philosopher of technology. Together, they dive into the fascinating concept of planetary computation, exploring the bold idea that Earth itself might be evolving intelligence through humanity. The discussion also delves into the complex relationship between humans and AI, probing the exciting possibilities and the emotional boundaries of artificial intelligence. ​Click here to watch! Get the transcript and AI interactive content from this episode here Subscribe to my podcast! More than 2M downloads! Advertisement As a subscriber to my Monday M.A.G.I.C. Messages, you get a special 20% off discount off a subscription to The Economist’s. Visit their website at https://www.economist.com/Keating to get started. By popular demand, and for my mental health 😳, I am starting a paid “Office Hours” where you all can connect with me for the low price of $19.99 per hour. I get a lot of requests for coffee, to meet with folks one on one, to read people’s Theories of Everything etc. Due to extreme work overload, I’m only able to engage directly with supporters who show an ongoing commitment to dialogue—which is why I host a monthly Zoom session exclusively for patrons in the $19.99/month tier. It’s also available for paid Members of my Youtube channel at the Cosmic Office Hours level (also $19.99/month). Join here and see you in my office hours! Upcoming Episode Marcus Chown will be on The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast soon. He’s a physicist-turned-author whose mind-bending books like The Ascent of Gravity and Infinity in the Palm of Your Hand translate the universe’s deepest mysteries into poetic clarity. What would you like me to ask him? ➡️ Submit your question here

Suppositicii 2.0: Tenure, Gladiators & the Hunger Games of Academia

Suppositicii 2.0: Tenure, Gladiators & the Hunger Games of Academia Dear Magicians, I’m watching Gladiator 2 at cruising altitude, which feels like the perfect metaphor for modern academia – artificial combat in a pressurized environment. Russell Crowe and I have both expanded since the original film, though I suspect for different reasons. His involves method acting. Mine involves tenure. Consider this. The ancient Romans had a term: “Suppositicii” – disposable gladiators. Built-in obsolescence, but for humans. The kind of gladiators you’d find in the clearance section of the arena, if Roman amphitheaters had clearance sections. Which, in a way, they did. Today I’m flying to meet Neil deGrasse Tyson. On my first appearance on StarTalk Radio he told me that, to him, looking at stars feels like looking into the past. Perhaps looking at academia is too. The same hierarchies. The same brutal efficiency. The same disposability, just with better coffee and fewer lions. My university even made it to it a physical coliseum for an epic battle — that’s right, March Madness! It was UCSD’s first time at the Big Dance. They lost, but they lost with dignity. Unlike most academic careers, which just… fizzle out, fading without so much as an echo. Think about your average adjunct professor. They’re like a Suppositicii with a PhD. Fighting for survival in fluorescent-lit corridors instead of sun-baked sand (arena in Latin, get it?). Their weapons? PowerPoint and peer review. Their colosseum? The freshman weed-out course. Their reward? A parking spot, if they’re lucky. Usually with a meter. If not, summarily fired . Are you not entertained? Let me be specific. I’ve achieved “tenure” – academic immortality, or at least its closest approximation. I like to think I’ve earned it. I’ve graduated over 15 PhDs, all gainfully employed, obtained two US Patents, built a thriving education/public outreach channel and my h-index — analogous to being inscribed on a Roman libelli (honorific columns) is several ticks above my age. As Maximus (Crowe) would say “What we do on the tenure-track echoes in eternity!” Here’s the thing about disposability. It’s not just about people. It’s about ideas. Values. The notion that worth equals productivity. That humans are resources to be optimized, like buffer sizes in a computer program. Or gladiators in an arena. But wait. What if we’re asking the wrong questions? What if the real measure of a society isn’t how efficiently it produces papers, but how carefully it protects its Suppositicii? Its adjuncts? Its graduate students surviving on ramen and optimism? Consider the alternatives. We could build universities that value human flourishing over h-indices. Create departments where “publish or perish” becomes “publish and thrive.” Design systems where the only disposable things are our assumptions about what academia should be. The path forward isn’t perfect. But neither was the original Gladiator. And look what they did with the sequel. Think about it. Test it. And maybe pack a lunch for your local adjunct professor. They’re probably hungry. Until next time, have a M.A.G.I.C. Week, and let me know: Do you give this message a 👍 or 👎? Brian Appearance https://youtu.be/yLHRR42Q7i4?si=Z4Sf-G3lWeZFO66q In this episode of Know Time, I talk about the origins of the universe, the Big Bang, cosmic microwave background radiation, cosmic inflation, BICEP & POLARBEAR experiments, the Simons Array and the Nobel Prize! Genius My friend Philip Phillips (yes, that’s his real name 😀), wrote a wonderful essay called “Science, not Silence” and graciously allowed me to publish it here on LinkedIn. Image Only a couple days away from the equinox sunset at the southpole. Here is an amazing picture from SPT winterover Sim Bash, with the silhouette of the Dark Sector with the sun behind it! Conversation https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLJGKdZD30K__XkD2TDGq1pQo8Q__6vBhB&v=ZYAQMdcrQpM In this episode, Bob Kirshner discusses the progress and potential of the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) and the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) projects, emphasizing their readiness for the final design phase. He explores the evolving field of astrophysics, touching on the significance of discoveries in dark energy and exoplanets, while also contemplating the future of long-lasting telescopes and the impact of dark matter research. The conversation also delves into the intriguing possibilities and controversies in the field, including dark energy evolution and the intricate relationship between different scientific disciplines. Click Here to Watch! Get the transcript and AI interactive content from this episode here Subscribe to my podcast! More than 2M downloads! Advertisement By popular demand, and for my mental health 😳, I am starting a paid “Office Hours” where you all can connect with me for the low price of $19.99 per hour. I get a lot of requests for coffee, to meet with folks one on one, to read people’s Theories of Everything etc. Due to extreme work overload, I’m only able to engage directly with supporters who show an ongoing commitment to dialogue—which is why I host a monthly Zoom session exclusively for patrons in the $19.99/month tier. It’s also available for paid Members of my Youtube channel at the Cosmic Office Hours level (also $19.99/month). Join here and see you in my office hours! Upcoming Episode Thomas Hertog will be on The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast soon. He was Stephen Hawking’s final collaborator, co-authoring a radical theory about the origins of time and the multiverse that challenges the boundaries between physics and philosophy. What question should I ask him? 👉 Submit here

Why People Have Turned on Science

Why People Have Turned on Science Dear Magicians, Scientists are losing the public. This was inevitable. They owe their careers to taxpayers. Yet many act as if their work is too important to explain. As if brilliance alone entitles them to a lifetime of funding. Academia makes this worse. Scientists who engage with the public get mocked as “popularizers.” It’s a sneer, not a compliment. Look at Carl Sagan. He brought science to millions. And for that, the National Academy of Sciences shut him out. The message? Keep your head down. Stay obscure. Hoard knowledge or risk exile. This is a sickness. We need science more than ever—climate change, pandemics, AI. And yet, scientists are pulling away. Andrew Huberman notes that Oliver Sacks was “attacked, shunned, and only after becoming a bit of a celebrity, re-welcomed.” A familiar pattern. UC Davis Professor Inna Vishik is right: Not every scientist can be a great communicator, but every scientist can share their research. Dismissing the public is a choice. Richard Behiel sees where this is going. Scientists will wake up. They’ll realize that public trust is not an obstacle—it’s the foundation. Most will build a public presence, or be left behind. The public is smarter than academia assumes. The fix is clear. Change what we reward. Stop punishing engagement. Teach scientists to communicate. Build bridges, not walls. Most of all, we need a shift in mindset. Because science locked away is science wasted. Because a public that doesn’t understand science won’t trust it. And because the greatest discoveries mean nothing if no one hears them. For Scientists & Academics: 🔹 Share your work. Write, speak, blog, stream, go on podcsats — engage—your research belongs to the world. 🔹 Challenge the gatekeepers. Don’t let academia punish those who make science accessible. 🔹 Bridge the gap. Teach, podcast, write—make science impossible to ignore. For the Public: 🔹 Demand better. Your tax dollars fund science—expect clarity, not secrecy. 🔹 Engage. Follow scientists who explain, not just publish. Ask questions. Push for transparency. 🔹 Support communicators. The ones breaking barriers need your voice behind them. Administrators: Wok for Institutional Change: 🔹 Reward public engagement. Universities should value outreach like they do research. 🔹 Teach communication. Science students should learn how to explain, not just experiment. 🔹 Break the cycle. Stop treating public engagement as a career risk. Make it a career advantage. Science belongs to everyone. Let’s start acting like it. Until next time, have a M.A.G.I.C. Week, Brian Appearance https://youtu.be/nl6aRmOLR_o&list=PLJGKdZD30K__XkD2TDGq1pQo8Q__6vBhB I appear (briefly) in this new video I made about the quest to understand the size of the universe. A series of debates explained through the lens of telescopes and the people who use them. Let me know what you think about this new style of ‘explainer videos’ featuring my brand-new studio. Genius The geniuses at NASA made this cool tool showing what the Hubble Space Telescope Saw on your birthday 🎉 Here’s mine above: On September 9 in 2006, HST caught V838 Monocerotis Light Echo . This image shows a light echo from the star V838 Monocerotis. After the star brightened temporarily, light from that eruption began propagating outward through a dusty cloud around the star. The light reflects or “echoes” off the dust and then travels to Earth. Image Hubble Telescope’s Just Took a Jaw-Dropping New Photo Mosaic That Traces Andromeda Galaxy’s History! Conversation https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLJGKdZD30K__XkD2TDGq1pQo8Q__6vBhB&v=MAU8VEGJizw In this video, I sit down with Professor Konstantin Batygin, a leading astronomer at Caltech, to dive deep into his groundbreaking research on Planet Nine. We explore the intriguing—but still debated—evidence for this mysterious planet, its impact on the Kuiper Belt, and the challenges of observing it directly. Professor Batygin also reveals the science behind his work, including how N-body simulations are used to compare with actual data. We then take a journey through the formation of Jupiter, unpacking its unusual size and role in shaping the early solar system. Plus, we discuss the exciting future of planetary research, with the Vera Rubin Observatory poised to revolutionize our understanding. Don’t miss this fascinating conversation! Click Here to Watch! Get the transcript and AI interactive content from this episode here Subscribe to my podcast! More than 2M downloads! Advertisement Don’t miss this incredible opportunity to elevate your knowledge and decision-making with Consensus Premium. Consensus Premium harnesses cutting-edge AI to sift through thousands of research papers, delivering clear, evidence-backed answers to your toughest questions. Whether you’re a curious mind, a scientist, or a student of life, this is your chance to access the world’s best knowledge with zero strings attached. Upcoming Episode Dick Bond will be on The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast soon. A leading cosmologist from the University of Toronto, Bond has shaped our understanding of the cosmic microwave background, dark matter, and the large-scale structure of the universe. His work laid the foundation for modern precision cosmology, influencing missions like WMAP and Planck. What burning questions do you have for one of the great theoretical minds in astrophysics?

Are Scientists Just Welfare Queens in Lab Coats?

Are Scientists Just Welfare Queens in Lab Coats? https://youtu.be/33kAgHGN-ac&list=PLJGKdZD30K__XkD2TDGq1pQo8Q__6vBhB Dear Magicians, Has progress in theoretical physics stalled? This question haunted my recent conversation with Eric Weinstein and Avi Loeb, our first recorded dialogue in over two years. The reunion felt like a reckoning. Eric argues physics has been “soft sunsetted” – not suppressed through inquisition-style persecution, but through something possibly more insidious: the bureaucratic asphyxiation of ideas threatening the status quo. Looking at the 20th century’s theoretical triumphs – general relativity, quantum mechanics, the Standard Model – against recent decades suggests a troubling deceleration. But why? Have we picked all low-hanging fruit? Reached the limits of human intellectual capacity? Or is there something more sociological at play? Eric reserves particular criticism for physics “gatekeepers” and prominent science communicators who, he believes, have shaped public perception while offering little substance and incentivizing risk aversion over revolution. During our conversation, Eric also challenged a troubling narrative gaining traction – the characterization of scientists as “welfare queens in white lab coats.” He finds this trope deeply misguided, yet simultaneously criticizes the scientific community for failing to effectively defend their value. Scientists produce public goods – knowledge, technology, and innovations that benefit society far beyond grant dollars spent – but have struggled to articulate this impact with the precision their craft demands. Eric suggests that while institutions may be flawed, demonizing the scientific enterprise misses the extraordinary returns on our investment. Avi Loeb takes a different approach. As one of few voices actively pursuing unconventional ideas – like investigating potential extraterrestrial technology – he represents a pragmatic path forward. Where Eric sees institutional rot as potentially fatal, Avi believes science remains capable of dramatic recovery with the right treatment. What struck me most was the question of credibility. Science once held unassailable authority as the domain of rigorous inquiry and falsifiability. Today, trust has eroded, not only from external political forces but from internal contradictions made explicit during the pandemic. Science became less a process and more a brand – an ideological cudgel wielded with absolute certainty even in the face of uncertainty. The emergence of voices like Eric, Sabine Hossenfelder, Garrett Lisi, and Stephen Wolfram – positioned as dissenters from orthodoxy – speaks to a tectonic shift in public perception of science. Is this schism repairable? Eric suggests institutions have become so self-referential and risk-averse that rebuilding might be necessary. Avi sees a path forward through data, public engagement, and curiosity-driven science that doesn’t begin with predetermined answers. Perhaps the true test isn’t whether we can produce another relativity-scale breakthrough, but whether we even have the will to try. I remain hopeful, but for the first time in a long while, deeply uncertain. Until next time, have a M.A.G.I.C. Week, Brian Appearance https://youtu.be/3W2fzld9cUw What can Nobel Prize winners teach us about overcoming imposter syndrome? In video, we take a deep dive into the minds of the world’s top intellectuals with cosmologist and bestselling author Dr. Brian Keating. From grappling with self-doubt to embracing the unexpected role of luck, this conversation critically examines the journeys of Nobel laureates and the powerful lessons they share about navigating success and failure. Join us as Dr. Keating opens up about his transformative interviews with 21 Nobel Prize winners, revealing how even the most brilliant minds face limiting beliefs and imposter syndrome. Discover practical tools and mental models for overcoming self-doubt, building resilience, and creating your own luck-lessons that apply to scientists, entrepreneurs, and dream-chasers alike. With a unique perspective, we also explore how science, culture, and curiosity intersect to shape our shared future. Genius Life in Weeks Congratulations to my friend and colleague, and co-star in Losing the Nobel Prize, Professor Jamie Bock for the launch of the genius SphereX mission! Image Speaking of Losing the Nobel Prize, today March 17 marks the eleventh anniversary of the infamous BICEP2 press conference. Conversation This week’s episode features Brian Keating’s conversation with astrophysicist Shelley Wright (UC San Diego). Episode Highlights: Cosmic Exploration: Wright discusses her work developing new astronomical instruments. Extraterrestrial Life: She explores the possibility of alien civilizations and detection methods. Drake Equation: Wright provides insights into this formula for estimating alien civilizations. Optical SETI: Learn about her use of Fresnel lenses for nanosecond-speed sky imaging. UFOs/UAPs: She advocates for scientific data to address these phenomena. Wright’s work pushes astronomical boundaries. Listen to the full episode on your podcast platform. Stay curious, Click Here to Watch! Get the transcript and AI interactive content from this episode here Subscribe to my podcast! More than 2M downloads! Advertisement Pique is offering 20% off for life AND a free Starter Kit with your purchase—that’s a rechargeable frother and glass beaker to make the perfect cup every time. Use this link to get this incredible offer just for listeners of The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast (limited time offer): http://piquelife.com/impossible Upcoming Episode Dick Bond will be on The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast soon. A leading cosmologist from the University of Toronto, Bond has shaped our understanding of the cosmic microwave background, dark matter, and the large-scale structure of the universe. His work laid the foundation for modern precision cosmology, influencing missions like WMAP and Planck. What burning questions do you have for one of the great theoretical minds in astrophysics?

Constellations Aren’t Real. So Why Do We See Them?

Constellations Aren’t Real. So Why Do We See Them? Dear Magicians, Sorry for the one day delay in the Monday M.A.G.I.C. Message… but I have an excuse — I just wanted to share a quick note from the recovery zone — I recently had meniscus surgery, and while I’m hobbling a bit slower through spacetime, your support truly means the Multiverse to me. Your backing helps me keep thinking, writing, and sharing—even when my knees protest like the Catholic Church once protested planetary motion. Thank you for being here. Seriously. More exclusive content coming soon (once the ice packs melt). Now on to the Musing… When we gaze upward at the night sky, we participate in one of humanity’s oldest traditions. For thousands of years, our ancestors looked to those same stars with wonder. Those pinpoints of light. They drew lines between them, creating constellations that told stories of heroes and gods, monsters and maidens. Orion. Ursa Major. Cassiopeia. Names that have echoed through generations. Is there something profound in this human tendency to find patterns among the stars? Perhaps what matters isn’t whether these constellations represent objective reality, but what they reveal about the human spirit. We are, by nature, meaning-makers. In a universe that can sometimes feel cold and indifferent, we search for connections. For stories. For purpose. Yes, from a strictly astronomical perspective, constellations are arbitrary. From another position in our galaxy, the stars would form entirely different patterns. What appears to us as Orion’s Belt might, from elsewhere, be unrecognizable. But this doesn’t diminish their value. Rather, it reminds us that meaning often comes not from what exists “out there,” but from what we bring to it—our perspective, our creativity, our yearning to understand. Our ancestors weren’t naive when they mapped the stars. They were expressing something fundamentally human: the desire to orient themselves in a vast cosmos, to create navigational tools both physical and spiritual. They were meaning makers… When we continue this tradition today, we connect with countless generations who stood where we now stand, looking up with the same questions in their hearts. Perhaps this is why constellations endure. They’re not just scientific boundaries, but bridges between past and present, between the measurable and the meaningful. So the next time you look up at the night sky, remember that you’re participating in an ancient conversation. You’re seeing not just with your eyes, but with your imagination. And there’s something both humbling and inspiring about that recognition. The universe may not have designed patterns for us to find. But in finding them anyway, we discover something equally important—the remarkable human capacity to create meaning, even in the most random of canvases. That, too, is a kind of magic. Until next time, have a M.A.G.I.C. Week, Brian Appearance https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLJGKdZD30K__XkD2TDGq1pQo8Q__6vBhB&v=mtbeNknHYnM In this video, Robinson and I discuss the expansion and inflation of the universe, the relationship between theory and experiment in cosmology, gravitational waves, Brian’s brainchild the BICEP experiment, and a lot more. Brian’s most recent book is Into the Impossible (2021), which is a distillation of many of his conversations with Nobel Laureates and other brilliant thinkers. Genius Life in Weeks This free website app lets you visualize your entire lifespan. It’s simple to use—just create a free account. As I add major events, I feel both humbled and motivated to make the most of what’s ahead. Image Only a couple days away from the equinox sunset at the southpole. Here is an amazing picture from SPT winterover Sim Bash, with the silhouette of the Dark Sector with the sun behind it! Conversation Explore human consciousness versus AI with Christof Koch on INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE. Discover why AI lacks subjective experience, unlike humans. Koch examines consciousness as a fundamental, unexplained aspect of existence. He explores mystical experiences and AI’s limitations, highlighting our unique introspection. Delve into the future of consciousness studies, bridging science and philosophy. Tune in for insights into human advantage in an AI-driven world. Click Here to Watch! Get the transcript and AI interactive content from this episode here Subscribe to my podcast! More than 2M downloads! Advertisement Don’t miss this incredible opportunity to elevate your knowledge and decision-making with ​Consensus Premium​. Consensus Premium harnesses cutting-edge AI to sift through thousands of research papers, delivering clear, evidence-backed answers to your toughest questions. Whether you’re a curious mind, a scientist, or a student of life, this is your chance to access the world’s best knowledge with zero strings attached. Sign up for one year for free with code KEATING25 just for listeners of The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast and get all of 2025 for free! Expires on June 30, 2025 Upcoming Episode Upcoming Episode Nathalie Cabrol will be on The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast soon. She’s the astrobiologist who literally dives into high-altitude lakes on Earth to simulate alien worlds—while leading the SETI Institute’s search for life beyond our planet. What would you ask someone who lives on the edge of science and the frontier of space? ​Submit your question here​ 🚀

Neuroscientist: This Is How To Defeat Stress! Sam Harris

Neuroscientist: This is How to Defeat Stress!with Sam Harris Transcript Brian Keating:Hey, everybody. Welcome to a very special episode with Sam Harris. On the Into the impossible podcast, my longest episode ever. I’ve never done an episode this long. And this audio essay I’m about to give you is going to add to the length of it, but I wanted to express a little bit of my kind of inner workings and what goes through my mind when I’m doing a podcast with somebody, a big name podcaster like Sam Harris. And in that sense, it’s, incumbent upon me to try to do my best and make it so that people can really benefit from the wisdom of my guest. And and this time, I I kind of made a mistake as you’ll find out. I did not ask Sam, some tough questions, especially about Donald Trump. Brian Keating:And you’ll see almost every question he will reflect upon Donald Trump, even when we’re talking about, diverse topics as generative AI images and their wokeness. And, he’ll come back to Trump. He’ll talk about psychedelics, Trump. And we’ll talk about, we’ll talk about meditation, Trump. So the question is, how can we learn from such people that seem to be obsessed with people that, you know, many of my listeners and audience members support? So I don’t know. I don’t know the best way to, to attack that except that I feel I let down my audience. My my job in this podcast is to ask questions that you guys wanna ask, not to be a star, not to show off, not to do, kind of the, verbal gymnastics to ingratiate myself with my guests. If that’s gonna happen, it’s gonna happen. Brian Keating:And it didn’t really work with a big name guest like Sam Harris because I lost many, many subscribers on the podcast. And, it’s unfortunate, at least on the video, they tell me they’re unsubscribing. And I see a lot of unsubscribes from people that watch the clips on Dr. Brian Keating on YouTube and the shorts that I put up there prior to this episode being aired, today. So I lost many, many subscribers, and the the point of doing that is not to say that sad or I miss them. Although, you know, it’s it’s it’s always better not to lose subscribers than to than to try to gain more subscribers, you know, keep it to have in the leaky boat from going under. But in this case, you know, it’s not really my concern. I’m not gonna just do things to pander to what the audience, wants. I mean, obviously, can you imagine me going off and accusing him of Trump derangement syndrome? And it it would be it would be, you know, kind of a very brief conversation and a pointless one at that. Brian Keating:And so I didn’t do that, but I did fail. Of course, you know, he views Trump and he does it. You hear him compare Trump unfavorably in some ways to Hitler. And I had to bite my tongue really hard during that, but let him talk. And for all the things that he said and and done online and elsewhere, he’s incredibly courageous, and he just doesn’t give a you know what. But, you know, during those comparisons, I did fail to really ask the question that I should have. And I mentioned this in my Monday Magic mailing list, which you should all subscribe to Briankeating.com/list. Brian Keating:I mean to communicate with you guys, tell you about cool things coming up, like my upcoming appearance at TEDx San Diego, April 10th. But the, the main question I really should have asked him, and I wanted to ask him, but I didn’t, is knowing his, Sam’s, opinions about free will that we don’t have free will, how is it appropriate in any way or logical any way to ascribe these evil, you know, just malevolent, malicious notions to Donald Trump if they’re not caused of his own volition. He doesn’t choose to be this way according to Sam. I don’t believe that. And you’ll hear me pushing back extraordinarily hard but respectfully on that notion from Sam about the nonexistence of free will and the non behaviorist activities. Nobody behaves as if they have no free will as I mentioned with Sapolsky. And Sapolsky admitted as he said, quote, to my everlasting shame. So Sam, you know, is in a unique category in that he believes nobody has free will, and yet he believes Donald Trump is to blame for much evil and much more evil if he is elected again as president in November. Brian Keating:So we didn’t talk only about politics. You’ll find that we also talked about religion. And as my wife told me, you know, maybe I should have ended the episode early. This is as you can tell from the podcast, indication, a linked timer. So that was, embarrassing foible. Chalk it up to, you know, trying to let the guest speak and not interrupt too many times with my own opinions because I know most of you wanna listen to Sam. Although, it’s very very, pleasing to me how many of you just reach out and always say things, to me that give me such love and support, including that they loved how I brought out stuff in him that no other podcast host has brought out ranging from interviews he’s done with, you know, Ben Shapiro or Chris Williamson or Stephen Bartlett, Diary of the CEO. I don’t think that people ask the kinds of questions that I do. Brian Keating:And certainly, I didn’t get into, I don’t wanna have any gotchas and get some clips and stuff of him just, you know, going off on Trump. So, it just it’s kinda counterproductive. The audience hates it because they’ll be turned off because they hate people that they perceive as

Why There’s No Such Thing as Free Will w/ Robert Sapolsky

Why There’s No Such Thing as Free Willwith Robert Sapolsky Transcript Robert Sapolsky:I admit it to my intellectual shame and ethical shame because I respond all the time as if there is free will. Brian Keating:Today, we’re featuring renowned neuroendocrinologist, best selling author, and Stanford University professor, Robert Sapolsky. He’s one of Stanford’s top rated professors, and you’ll see why in today’s episode. Robert’s journey has led him from studying stress and neuronal degradation in wild baboons in Kenya to exploring the relationship between schizophrenia disorders and the emergence of a shamanism in the major Western religions. Robert Sapolsky:The most relevant thing is how I came about wasting the first 20 years of my life studying baboons. Brian Keating:But more recently, Sapolsky has plunged into philosophical waters, studying free will, or rather what he claims is the illusion and lack thereof. Robert Sapolsky:I was 14 when I decided there’s no free will. Brian Keating:He’s come up with a new narrative to describe the science of life without free will. In his book Determined, he combines neuroscience, anthropology, quantum physics, chaos theory, and philosophy to tackle some of the most important questions of the human species. You’ll see I push back on him with my requisite love and respect, but no one gets a free pass on the Into the Impossible podcast. I wanna ask the questions I know you wish you could ask my guest and you will. Today, he’s here to present his case and you’ll be the judge. Who’s right? Is free will an illusion or do we have control and are we the determinants of our future? Let’s go. Brian Keating:Robert, as you know, I’m a physicist. I’ve had many physicists. I love talking to physicists, but I also love talking to biologists, neurobiologists, and all sorts of folks. I always have a problem with these people, when I talk to people like David Chalmers, bang that it seems hopeless. Cosmology seems hard, but consciousness seems impossible. And to me, how can we understand the notion of free will if we don’t have a notion of consciousness that everyone accepts? So is that am I making a, fallacious experiment? Or is it really the case that you could not understand free will until you understand how consciousness itself emerges? Robert Sapolsky:Nicely. I think, fortunately, one could ignore consciousness and I completely agree with you. Once once a decade, I force myself to read a review paper on sort of neurobiology of consciousness and see with great relief that, like, it still isn’t making any more sense to me. And I don’t think it’s making any more sense to the people working on it, because it’s such a damn intractable problem. But fortunately, in my view, the issue of consciousness is not terribly relevant to assessing free will. And that’s because I think the problem people get into when believing in free will and just having such a strong intuitive sense of it is they get caught up in the notion that if there is conscious intent and there is conscious awareness that you have alternative behaviors available to you, that’s it. Case closed. That’s the requirements for deciding that there’s free will. Robert Sapolsky:And in my view, whether or not that intent is conscious or otherwise, whether or not there’s alternatives, whether your brain decided milliseconds before you were consciously aware that you had intent to do something. All of that is kind of cool and fascinating and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there’s free will. Because in my view, focusing on that is like asking somebody to read the last theory pages of the book and assess what they think of a book. Because what you’re doing there is not asking the only question possible which is, okay, hooray, you have conscious intent to do that. And when you did that, you felt a sense of ownership over your intelligence. Where did that intent come from? How did you turn out to be the sort of person who would have that intent at that moment? And it’s in that realm that I think one can find that there’s not a shred of space for free will to operate in. And all we are the outcomes of all of those priors that made us the sort of person who would have that intent in that moment. And the trouble is in that moment, it’s so tangible bang we’re so conscious of having that intent that we have to have done that freely. Robert Sapolsky:And that doesn’t begin to address the issue. How do you become that sort of person? Brian Keating:You mentioned person. And throughout the book, I can’t help but wonder because I I have a lot of respect for my consciousness colleagues. It’s hard not to when you talk to people like David Chalmers or Philip Goff. But again, they some of them resort to the last refuge of the scoundrel, and they will come up with they will come up with panpsychism. Now I’m a physicist, so I understand the properties of particles extremely well. And I understand that electrons are fungible. You’ve seen 1. You’ve seen them all. Brian Keating:They basically have 3 properties, mass, charge, and spin. So at what level can you obliterate the notion that consciousness perhaps is panpsychic, that it exists in an electron? Or where do you come down on the panpsychism? Because again, you mentioned person. And I agree we could talk about free will. But it would seem that you might have to extend it to, you know, to the top quark, if they’re right. So where do you come down in panpsychism? And before we pivot to the notion of what I call scale dependent, free will. But please, what do you think about, panpsychism? Robert Sapolsky:Basically, the notion of the emergence of things like consciousness, and I’m basically winging it here, coming out of  Brian Keating:They are too, by