>> From WXXI News.

This is Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

Our connection this hour was made with the American scientist spending long hours in the lab, toiling away at problems that many of us don't understand.

Science can be a brutal vocation with constant dead ends and restarts and colleagues ready to take down your ideas.

But then scientists will tell you that's how it should be.

Now, after the pandemic, Pew Research found that American Trust in Science and in scientists was declining for the first time in decades.

In the past year, their surveys indicate a rebound is happening today.

89% of Americans say they believe research scientists are intelligent.

65% of Americans say they believe scientists are trying to solve real world problems.

Now, I'm going to set aside my confusion about the 11% of us who apparently don't believe research scientists are intelligent.

You know, envy can make fools of anyone.

But even with the bounce back in American trust for scientists, those in the profession acknowledge that they have to communicate better with the public.

In particular, astrophysicist Adam Frank recently wrote about the challenge in earning the trust of young men.

We're going to really zero in on that on a different day today, we welcome Adam back.

He's one of the great science communicators of his time, and we continue what's become an annual tradition on this program.

We're joined by some of some of Adam's students, some students in the field who can talk about what it's like in trying to become a scientist.

And my guest this hour include Dr.

Adam Frank, I presume the author and Helen F and Fred H. Gowan, professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Rochester.

>> Hey.

>> Great to be back.

>> Welcome back to you and welcome back to Matthew Signor, who's a PhD candidate in experimental physics at the University of Rochester.

We first met you how many years ago?

>> I think it was three, 2 or 2 years ago.

>> And you.

>> Were a PhD candidate at the time?

>> No, recently, just this past year, actually.

>> Oh, okay.

>> So that so it's nice to see.

So you are making some progress.

We can tell your parents.

>> I've passed my qualifying exam, which is one of the hurdles.

Yeah.

>> And that you're a PhD candidate in experimental physics.

>> That's correct.

Yep.

>> I don't know what that is.

Welcome as well to Ethan Smith, the PhD candidate in physics at the University of Rochester.

Thank you for being here.

>> Hi.

Thanks for.

>> Having me.

And Kyla de Villa is with us, a PhD candidate at UC Berkeley.

Kylah welcome.

Thanks for being with us.

>> Thanks for having me.

>> So, Adam, let's start with you here.

This was your idea a few years ago to have this conversation for our audience, because we had talked about science in a number of different ways.

But sometimes the public has this misunderstanding of what it means to be a scientist, or what the process of science is and how long it takes to sort of earn a degree, and what you're actually trying to solve.

And these have been some of the most popular conversations we've had.

It's really lovely to have the students, and I'm really looking forward to getting to know them better here.

But why do you think it's important for our audience to to hear these kind of conversations?

>> Well, first of all, science is like, you know, this dominant force in our lives.

You know, everything from energy to artificial intelligence.

And so few people know any scientists.

So people, so few people actually have any experience in contact with scientists or know what it takes to become a scientist.

And so I wanted to have these conversations with these young scientists because it's, you know, it's such a long process.

It's such a process that requires so much dedication, enthusiasm, enthusiasm.

There's these high highs and these low lows.

You're really, you know, it's not clear you're going to get a job.

You know, it's going to take a couple of decades from undergraduate to to finally getting, you know, what might be a final job.

And it's a very difficult road.

And I want people to understand sort of what it takes to be a scientist, because it's, you know, like it's like wanting to be a great writer or wanting to be the principal, you know, dancer in the New York Ballet Company.

It's something that really, you know, you're doing because you are passionate about it.

But the, you know, it's not clear that you'll make it.

And I just want people to sort of understand the dedication of American scientists have to this project, which in the end benefits everybody.

>> We're going to not go too deep into politics this hour, because we did a lot of politics last hour.

We do a lot of politics all the time.

So I'm going to ask you only this one here.

Yes.

Are there any jobs left for scientists?

>> well, so this is the thing, right?

I think American science is being challenged quite a bit right now because of what's going on.

you know, we're seeing I just read a story today about how, you know, many researchers are, you know, beginning to think about going somewhere else or researchers who would have come here are not coming here taking jobs somewhere else.

So it's imperative that, like, why would these these students who are with us today that, you know, we support the young scientists and make sure that there is the long term future for them because, you know, our prosperity, our strength all depend on America's leadership in science, which I think, yeah, quite frankly, you can say is being challenged right now.

>> I think this is connected in in a way.

And it's worth asking you briefly about what we're going to talk about on a different day soon, which is the piece that you recently wrote about the challenge in reaching young men, in particular for science and for the science community.

A lot of young men are gravitating toward the podcast circuit, where they're told, don't trust institutions, don't trust anyone.

Do your own research, but do your own research often ends up trusting somebody with an unrecognizable handle on X, as opposed to institutions.

And what I liked about that piece in particular was this my my sense from you is that you think it is dangerous for anybody, young men especially, but for anybody to just say, well, institutions are all bad.

I'm not going to trust anything.

I'll do all my own research and I will be the I'll be the arbiter of what is real.

But you also recognize that science does have the onus of earning the public's trust, of communicating well, of showing its work, of helping people understand why things work and don't work.

And it doesn't always do that well.

So I really found that balance there.

And I just want to say that I appreciate that.

I'm looking forward to talking about that in a different way.

but are you worried?

I don't think you had written the piece.

If you're not worried, at least about young men in particular.

>> Oh, I am in particular because of the, you know, the outreach work I do.

I often have, you know, like that piece started with me talking to somebody, a guy on a young man on an airplane.

and what is so frustrating for me is like, you know, these students who are here today, they're spending just to get their PhD.

It's six years.

And the depth of the knowledge, as we'll talk about that, that is required for them to build is astonishing.

It's it's, you know, it's a commitment of the highest level.

And then, you know, you see somebody on Joe Rogan talking about how we didn't go to the moon, you know, that that's a hoax.

And.

>> I mean, I laugh, but like, it has a lot of currency.

>> It has a huge amount of currency and sort of this idea that like expertise is something to be, you know, tossed away.

And when you see the effort that these guys have to go through to gain their expertise, and, you know, one of the things that we're working on here is fusion power, which could be the, you know, the, the infinite source of energy for the human future and the idea that, like, oh, you know, some scientist who's on a pod or, you know, some some scientist can be dismissed by some guy on a podcast and that there are years and years of training can be dismissed by some guy who, like, looked it up on the internet, you know, and that like, that research is equal to the expertise that these these students have developed.

That's really, I think, what we want to we want people to understand the, the blood, sweat and tears it takes to gain this kind of expertise and this ability to do these experiments and find things out and then build something like a fusion generator.

You know, we need to honor that because it's the only way we're going to get a fusion generator before, say, one of the countries that, you know, we're economic competitors or worse, gets a fusion generator.

>> You don't think we're too far gone, though, in terms of the information ecosystem of how poisoned it is.

>> I think things always change, right?

One of the most amazing things that we're seeing now because of A.I.

This is a whole other conversation in A.I.

slop, is the word, you know, like in classes.

Now, some professors are having their students write essays in class, like they're going back to the old days.

You know, I don't think we're too far gone because, you know, the technology's always changing.

And the way people respond to the technology is changing.

And I can imagine, I swear to God, that in five years, people are gonna be like, I'm not going to the internet.

I'm going to read a book if I want to learn something.

Just because the internet is becoming more and more.

>> Love the future that you envision.

>> I think that's possible.

>> I love that.

Well, let's let's get to know these students and Matthew Signor.

We first met you a few years ago, now you're a candidate in in experimental physics at the University of Rochester.

What makes it this particular physics so fancy that it's experimental physics?

What is that?

>> So the experiments that I've been doing the last three years now have been at the laboratory for Laser Energetics on East River road.

There's this giant football sized laser that I talked about a little bit last time that I'm lucky enough to get to shoot once or even twice a year, and actually, I get awarded a couple days.

And the way it works is, about a year in advance.

I propose my idea for an experiment, and then if I'm awarded that time, I spend the next year planning and setting up the experiment.

And then on the day from 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m., I get to shoot the laser about 8 to 10 times or so.

And when the laser is shot, depending on who you are, depending on what research you want to do, you can do a lot of interesting science.

The science that I'm interested in personally is trying to recreate the conditions at the center of the Earth.

I'm into the planetary science sort of aspect.

And so my material of choice that I've been studying the last three years on these experiments has been iron, because we believe iron is at the center of the Earth.

there's some other elements in the center of the core two.

But what I've been doing is I've been squishing it to the conditions of the center of the earth.

And then with the laser, I'm trying to hold it at that pressure for as long as possible, and, you know, as long as possible isn't very long is about ten billionths of a second faster than you can even comprehend.

But then during that time, I'm trying to create a situation that I've been struggling with.

In fact, I haven't quite done it yet.

But this year might be my year.

We'll see.

where I can actually get heat to flow into the iron.

And if I could see that experimentally with x rays, a tool that we use often at the laser lab, we can use x rays to try to get towards the temperature of what we reach.

And if I can see the heat flow into the iron, I might be able to explain a little bit about how the heat is flowing in and through the earth.

Going through the layers, and this actually has deep consequences for how life evolved and how the magnetic field evolved, which protects us.

It's like our shield on Earth that protects us from radiation from the sun and keeps the water inside the planet, and we don't know what it is.

We've never dug down to the center of the earth to really understand what the thermal conductivity of iron is, which is one of the things that I'm trying to study and uncover.

And yeah, it's a long road.

Every year I have an experiment.

I get a little bit closer, but I haven't quite made it yet.

I've this is my third battle.

I guess you could call it.

This is my third round.

and we'll see what happens.

December 3rd is my next day.

>> That's coming up in a month here.

And so functionally, if you are successful and you get the information that you want, what what is the the benefit to the scientific community or the broader community.

>> So more broadly, it could give us one of the tiny pieces that under modeling and understanding the Earth for the billions of years it's it's been in existence is a really challenging problem that science hasn't figured out completely.

There's computer codes that will try to simulate that large history.

But one of the important inputs is the thing that I'm trying to trying to get at.

And if I understand what the thermal conductivity is to some degree, I might be able to say, okay, at our planet, we might expect our magnetic field to last a billion years longer until it eventually no longer exists.

And that might give implications to the other planets that we're finding in the universe.

How long could civilizations live?

How long will it take for them to form in the first place?

Try.

But it's just not.

Say that my experiment is going to solve our understanding of life on Earth.

It's not.

It's it's one piece of the puzzle.

And that's what science is.

Usually it's not solving everything.

It's solving one piece.

>> It sounds like an important piece, because one of the things that Adam and I have talked about on this program is how, in general, how poor we are as human beings of understanding timescales and really understanding the scope of the size of the universe, the length of time that we know that this planet's been around, that the universe has been around.

And, you know, we think like a long term project is like a ten year thing.

And that's the blink of the blink of the blink of an eye.

So it does sound to me like what your, your work can do is help us understand a little more the context of these scales and what it might mean for a civilization that would like to be here for a long time, and I mean a truly long time, not another 10 or 100 years.

Is that fair?

>> I mean, that's the hope.

That's what keeps me going.

I would say.

Yeah, is to try try to make some positive impact for our knowledge base as humans, to try to survive as long as we can.

but obviously it's more than just science.

You can know everything you need as a civilization to survive, but you also have to enact that science in a way that is spread globally.

there's a lot more problems than just the magnetic field on Earth, as you know, that could could hurt humanity.

Yeah.

>> Is is using the laser safe.

>> for me?

Yeah, it's very safe.

I sit in a room.

>> I mean, for me.

>> For you.

It's safe for you, too.

Yeah.

there's there's a lot of safety features, so there's there's a team of 20 or so, maybe.

Probably more than that, maybe 50 or so people that operate the laser.

And in between them and the laser itself is a three foot concrete wall that protects you from any radiation created.

And there's they have they sweep the bay.

It's called the walk in.

They'll make sure nobody's in there.

They have cameras to make sure that nobody's sitting next to the target chamber when it fires.

in terms of where I sit, you don't even feel the the floor rumble.

You don't even hear it.

Really?

It's it's almost like a firecracker.

It's not like a you're we're setting off bombs in the lab.

>> It's it's an amazing thing to think that this is real.

This is one of those things that if you would explain to humans centuries ago, they'd think it's magic.

Adam Frank.

>> Yeah, it's funny because I always thought feel like they should have like a recording of making, you know, of rumbling or something.

Because I've been in there when they shoot the laser, you know, and it literally fires for like nanoseconds.

Yeah.

and but it's huge, right.

And the target chamber is like, what is it, three, five stories tall?

I mean, it's big science.

So but yeah, it's actually a little bit anticlimactic.

You know, when they actually, you know, they're like three, two, one right.

There's the countdown and then they fire and you're like, well, what happened?

But I was there's actually there's another type of fusion device that I've actually in England, I was with those guys and this is, it's a smaller device, but when they press that button, the whole literally the whole building shakes.

so.

But I think that's a little.

It's in England.

I don't I think they're not quite doing the safety that they should.

I.

>> I love the way Matthew's explaining the possible application of the work.

I mean, like, I, I feel like I'm not going to get all of it, but I mean, it it's valuable and it's very, very hard.

And I'm sure you're very, very proud.

>> Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, Matthew's I mean, he's not my student.

There's, you know, so this is all of this work is part of what's called the center for Matter at atomic pressure.

It's a large research grant that the University of Rochester and the elderly lead.

it's what's called a physics frontier center.

And there's only a few of them in the entire country.

It is a very large, very prestigious grant that the University of Rochester and the l got, you know, was huge amount of work for us to sort of, you know, put in this proposal get it back.

and so there's many scientists at the University of Rochester and the elderly and Berkeley and Princeton and MIT.

It's a, you know, a nationwide consortium.

So this is a big project.

And so none of these guys are actually my students.

We could talk about what goes on with actually having the student professor relationship, which is really interesting.

but yeah, but I am I'm really proud of what these, these students are doing.

>> It's a really cool laser.

I can't help like, why is it that I'm like, can we put it on a shark's head?

Do you know the movie reference?

>> Yeah.

No.

>> Can I just can we just get some sharks with frickin laser beams?

We're closer than you think.

We're closer than you think before we talk to Ethan and Kyla, let me grab a phone call from Paul in Rochester.

Hey, Paul.

Go ahead.

>> Hey, Paul.

>> Hey, Evan.

I have a question for Adam Frank about literally the multiverse and string theory.

How does he feel about them?

>> The multiverse and string theory was that yeah.

No.

String theory is kind of.

I think is nobody really is excited about string theory anymore.

Like, there was this whole thing, you know, back in the 90s and it just it did not pan out.

So, yeah, nobody thinks string theory is true or is really that much worthwhile.

And the multiverse, I'm not a big fan of it either.

because again, it was this, like super abstract sort of stuff.

Whereas, you know, the things we're talking about today, right?

We're talking about planets, Earth, we're talking about exoplanets, planets orbiting other stars, whether or not they can have life, whether or not they can have civilizations, and that stuff.

We have real data for the multiverse and string theory.

Are these abstract theories that it's not really clear that you can either.

You know, whether you'll ever get data for them.

Whereas here, like we're talking boots on the ground, both experimental in the laboratory studies and astronomical with using telescopes.

So this is like very even though it sounds crazy, like, you know, what is the magnetic field on a planet 100 light years away?

This is stuff we can we're starting to learn how to measure some of it.

We're already measuring some of it we're doing in the lab, some of it we're doing with telescopes.

And over the next ten, 20, 30 years, you know, we're going to be able to measure magnetic fields on distant exoplanets.

>> And then you want to add there, Paul.

>> no, thank you very much for that.

By.

>> Okay.

I think Paul was hoping for something somebody more down with the multiverse.

>> But nah, the multiverse.

No, this is the real science.

I find that that branch that people should understand that like, because that that sort of whole branch of fundamental physics is kind of stalled in some ways that sort of like hyper theoretical, whereas we're making.

>> Because you can't test.

>> It.

You can't test it.

No, it's not provable.

You can't prove that the multiverse exists.

If you could, then it becomes science.

Then it's like, okay, then we can start taking it seriously.

If you can't do an experiment or any theory to you can do theory all day.

But if you don't have an experiment to back up your theory, then then it's not science, it's opinion.

>> All right, so before we turn to your colleagues, Matthew, just two more quick ones for you.

What percentage chance do you think it is that we're living in a simulation?

>> Right.

So one of those opinion questions you can't really test it.

so, ask to test it.

So whatever I said, whatever I say is an opinion, right?

It's not science.

So I would say it's 99.999.

>> That we're living in a simulation.

Yeah okay.

I'm okay.

>> We didn't expect that one did you.

Yeah.

No.

>> Are you serious?

>> Yeah, but there's no way to test it.

>> So I'm not saying we should test it.

>> I'm not saying this.

>> Is a scientific statement.

I'm just want your guess.

You think it's, like, very highly likely.

>> That we're living in a simulation?

>> I go back and forth, but.

>> For the moment.

Yes.

>> For the moment, sure.

Yeah, I think it's.

I think it's possible.

Yeah.

>> It would make me feel better about everything.

Like we didn't screw up so bad.

This is just a simulation that we were programmed to do.

no.

Wow.

That's really very interesting to me.

And give me, give listeners that we've talked about this before.

I think this is always instructive.

Can you give listeners, give the audience a sense for a hard day in your scientific career where you feel like it's a lot of work and it may be a dead end or it may not be.

I say what you're hoping for, what you're hoping for is to get good results, but you're not trying to game the results.

I understand that, but take me through what can be difficult about it.

>> This happens to every scientist in their career where, especially in for my experiments where I'm gearing up a whole year, it's very hard for me to not at least hope for results to go a certain way.

I want to get the thermal conductivity, let's say, and when we're last year, for example, when the results didn't look in the way that I was expecting that hurt because then it's like, okay, now I have to try again next year.

Will this even work ever?

You have doubts.

One of the other hardships that I've had have been when the things you're trying to shoot are not actually in the correct orientation, there's been a situation where my targets were flipped around backwards accidentally, and it was a big tough loss.

So what do you do?

Well, you have to keep going.

You could quit, right?

Some people quit.

but no, you're gonna.

If you can see a path for the future that could be successful.

I think it's worth going.

At least I'm going to keep going.

>> Isn't there a value in in the result not being what you expected, though?

There's still value, right?

>> There is still value.

And so yeah, I'm still I'm not going to throw that data away.

I'm still going to analyze it.

And it's just not going to be as high of a tier of a publication in the end.

Yeah.

>> Are you a better scientist today as a result of it?

>> Oh for sure.

Right.

Yeah, of course you are.

>> Can I just say something?

I mean, this is the thing I really want the public to understand, right?

You do an experiment and you don't get the result you want.

Like, this is what drives me nuts about the Joe Rogan stuff.

Like you're stuck with.

It didn't work.

You can't fake it.

You can't just, like, try and talk your way out of it.

The data didn't, you know, show up and like, that's what it means to be a scientist.

You are beholden to the world.

You know, science is a dialog with nature.

And if nature decides to, like, razz you, that's what you get.

And so this is this idea that, you know, especially as a young scientist, your whole career really can rest on.

Did I get the data, the honesty, right?

The one thing that we scientists have that people don't understand is, is our integrity, right.

You know, that's what people, either our fellow scientists will trust us because we went where the data went or, you know, or we're done.

So that's a really important point right there.

>> Ethan Smith is a PhD candidate in physics at the University of Rochester.

Why don't you tell us a little bit about your path here?

We've gotten to know Matthew.

Tell us about your path to science and and what you're working on right now.

>> Yeah.

>> So I majored in physics and undergrad at Geneseo, and that's where I sort of got introduced to physics research through the strong undergraduate research program there.

And I sort of became enamored with the idea of experimental physics, you know, doing things in the laboratory, understanding deep truths about the universe based on what nature tells you.

As a result of those experiments.

And so then I decided to pursue graduate school in physics down the road at U of R. And, you know, just so happens that we have two of the largest lasers in the world at the U of R at the laboratory for Laser Energetics.

So that was sort of the natural direction for me to go to start working at the laser lab and doing experiments there.

I'm in the same group as Matt, so I'm also in the business of squishing things with giant lasers and sort of my research is very different from Matt's, whereas he's interested in the conditions at the center of the earth.

I have my sights set a little higher.

I'm more interested in the interiors of stars you know, and so one of the main research goals of the laser lab is to pursue fusion energy.

And so what we do is we take 60 laser beams and we focus them down onto a tiny balloon filled with hydrogen, and we compress that up to the conditions that you might find at the center of the sun.

And so the, you know, the hydrogen nuclei start to fuse.

You get fusion reactions occurring in the laboratory, sort of a miniature sun.

and that's very interesting from a fusion energy standpoint, harnessing those fusion reactions to power.

You know, we have limitless access to hydrogen.

You know, it's in seawater.

We have a lot of seawater.

and.

It's a very compelling path to provide limitless clean energy.

It's also a very compelling path to be able to study fundamental astrophysics in the laboratory, because we can only tell so much about our own sun and other stars from astronomical observations.

and so getting sort of detailed measurements of these systems, you know, understanding what's going on in the center of the sun requires creating that system in the laboratory and then studying it.

And it turns out that's actually really easier said than done.

these systems exist, as Matt said, only for a billionth of a second.

you know, it's millions and millions of degrees very high density as well.

And so getting information out of these experiments is an exercise in data science that is, that is incredibly non-trivial.

And that's what I focus my PhD on, is novel statistical analyzes and you know, machine learning and things like that.

To be able to interpret these measurements that we get, of, of these complicated systems and hopefully say something about, you know, the interior of the sun from from that.

>> When you talk about the interior of the sun, I admit that the first thing I think is if we're ever going to get a Dyson swarm, it's your work that's going to get us there.

But practically, that's probably not what you are hoping.

what do you see as a possible application of this kind of knowledge going forward?

>> So I think part of the, the science, the, the impact of this work is, is purely fundamental science, right?

You most of the matter in the universe is is in stars.

And understanding how the interior of those stars looks is interesting from a fundamental physics level.

These are very extreme high pressure systems.

And so where the center for matter at atomic pressures, atomic pressures, meaning if you take the energy of an atomic orbital and divide it by the volume that gives you a pressure, and that's what we call atomic pressure, that's it's about 27 tera pascals, which I don't know what that is in, in normal people units, but.

>> Really large.

>> It's a very, very high pressure.

and so if you start to exceed the, the pressure this atomic pressure, you start to change the fundamental structure of the atom, right?

Because things look very different at high pressure physically than they do at atmospheric pressure.

And so our, our concept of the, of the atom of quantum mechanics of, you know, even special relativity changes dramatically at these extreme conditions.

And so one of the things I'm really interested in is sort of pushing the limits of these physical theories, right, pushing them into regimes that they were never designed to go to the Schrodinger equation, you know, is great, but you can throw that out the window when you're at the center of the sun and you're in a very, very dense plasma environment.

And so understanding how these, you know, the extreme pressures in these astrophysical systems and in the laboratory plasmas that we can create here on Earth, how that changes our understanding of fundamental physics is really what I see as the primary benefit of this work.

>> tell me about a hard day you've had.

>> so, yeah.

So I'm in my sixth year of graduate school, so hopefully the last one.

and I have done a lot of experiments.

You know, these are intensive things to plan.

You have to propose them years in advance.

and so I have done a lot of work.

I've done a bunch of experiments on the laser, and I had this sort of capstone experiment planned where I was going to shoot these very fancy new targets with the laser.

And I, you know, coordinate with the vendor.

They said, sure, we can make these.

And it turns out they were little tiny glass balloons filled with hydrogen gas.

And they all popped.

And so I didn't have the targets that I was planning to shoot.

And so this was going to be, you know, my, my magnum opus my swan song.

And I just didn't have any targets to shoot, so I had to pivot and you know, come up with a new direction.

For what?

You know, what's going to be the sort of capstone paper that I get out of this.

and so, you know, that's the past year, year ish of my, my graduate school career has been trying to pivot and find a new direction.

>> I mean, we can laugh about it.

Now, you probably weren't laughing on the day when this happened.

>> you can't help but laugh a little bit.

I mean, so much goes wrong, especially in experimental physics.

Anything that can go wrong will absolutely go wrong.

I mean, every graduate student has a horror story of an experiment, you know, an act of God that ruined an experiment.

And it's one thing when you have, you know, when you're in, when you're in a small lab and you can do ten, 100 experiments a day with your small laser, when you have a giant football field sized laser, we're shooting maybe ten times in a day, and you get 1 to 2 days a year.

And so if something goes catastrophically wrong, that's a year's worth of planning out the window.

and so it's it's sort of a there's a gallows humor about it.

It's like you can do all the planning you want over the course.

>> Of the year.

>> Where and you know, of course, you know, a squirrel is going to chew a wire on the roof or something that no one's no one's ever thought of is going to happen.

And you, you can't plan for that.

So you just have to cross your fingers and hope that you get data.

And a lot of it is being flexible, being resilient in the face of adversity, especially, you know, over a long time scale of six years.

So six years is a long time.

>> No, I mean, honestly, just the resilience that you're talking about is something that anybody, whether you're in science or not, could stand.

We could all stand to have some, probably some more resilience.

Ethan, what do you think the general public misunderstands the most about the process of science?

>> I think people don't understand what it takes.

What?

What my.

You know, a scientist's day to day life entails.

I think there's people skew one of two ways.

They either think that I'm the mad scientist in the laboratory creating Frankenstein's monster, or they think that, you know, I'm doing in a lab, turning wrenches all day and not, you know, seeing the sun ever.

And it's it's, you know, a little bit in the between the two.

And I think science is incredibly mundane.

A lot of the times I spend most of my time writing Python code, running simulations, and, you know, I get, you know, I get my one shot a year, but most of my time is spent planning for that shot day.

And it's very mundane and boring.

It's just like any other job.

but I think what people need to realize is that the reason that we're doing this, all this mundane work, is because we're really excited and passionate about the fundamental and interesting science that we're doing, like, we're not in it for the money.

We don't we don't get paid very much as graduate students or even as scientists.

After we graduate.

We're doing this because we love it, and you have to love it to do something for very little money.

For six years.

>> Indeed.

>> face so many setbacks.

>> All right.

Ethan, so what percentage of the chance that you think it is that we're living in a simulation?

>> I'm going to go for 0%.

I, I would need evidence to persuade me that that we're innocent.

>> You can't.

But you have to leave the door open.

>> Okay?

All right.

Said 99.9.

I'll go 0.1.

So we got all our bases.

If you average those, it's 5050.

>> I think Adam Frank is closer to zero.

>> I am fully on zero.

We are not in a simulation and anybody can say that anybody.

I mean, it's one thing to have an opinion, but anybody who actually states that we're living in a simulation or is just like, where did you get that?

This is a ridiculous science fiction idea.

There is no basis for it whatsoever.

It's like.

>> Have you watched national politics in recent years?

Isn't it at least plausible that this is somebody's idea of a joke?

>> No, this is just the people are, you know, it's just a it's evidence that the world has a sense of humor that has nothing to do with simulations.

>> But you can't prove it's zero.

You got to leave the door open for me.

>> 000010 ten to the -2626 point and then point.

Decimal place 26 zeros and a.

>> One and a one.

we're having a great conversation with Dr.

Adam Frank, who is an astrophysicist at the University of Rochester, and some PhD candidates who are talking about their experience becoming scientists, doing the work that could eventually lead to that PhD, but also the kind of work that could really affect the field of science.

And in some ways, our lives.

And so we're having a great conversation with them.

We got to take our break.

We're going to come back and talk to Kyla, and we'll entertain some feedback from the audience as well.

On Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson Thursday on the next Connections, an A.I.

video in the town of Pittsford got a lot of attention before it was taken down.

It was made with A.I.

actors that made people well, I would say people.

It looked like people talking about the issues in the town of Pittsford, but it wasn't real.

It was A.I.

Is this the future we're headed to?

And are you okay with that?

We'll talk about it then.

In our second hour of the state of children's literature in 2025.

>> Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from Jewish home.

Believing older adults are not defined by their age.

Offering a portfolio of care in a community where all are welcome.

Jewish home.

Come be you more at Jewish home Grok.

>> This is Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

All right, before we get Kyla, let's get Herman and Brighton next on the phone.

Hey, Herman, go ahead.

>> Hi.

>> I think there is a much broader underlying problem that leads to.

And explains the fact that there's so much denigration of science and not just science, but expertise in general.

And what I think is the big underlying problem is a lack of critical thinking skills.

Now, I'm sure you all agree that critical thinking is necessary to do good science, but it's also necessary for non-scientists and non-experts to be able to evaluate what to believe, who to take seriously.

and so I wanted to ask, do you have any ideas as to how to teach the general public critical thinking skills, preferably starting already in school.

But on the other hand, we can't wait for a whole new generation to grow up.

and that will be able to think critically.

Is there a way to spread and encourage critical thinking skills among the adult population?

>> Yeah, it's a good question.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Herman I'm going to start with Adam Frank.

Go ahead.

>> I think just doing the the first level is just doing exactly what we're doing here is, is, you know, scientists talking to people about how they go about their business, of know of of learning things and being critical of our own results.

to science was invented by human beings as a way to not fool ourselves.

And that whole process.

>> Is a great description.

>> It is.

>> That is a great description of what science is.

>> Yeah, yeah.

And and so I think this is the beginning I think, you know, the problem really with the technology is, as we talked about information technologies over the last 15 years has really put a dent in our ability to do that.

and where do we go from here?

It's not actually, I'm not clear, but I do think there's a certain way in which it may take care of itself.

As we talked about.

>> Well, let me ask your colleague who's going to join us now, Kyla de Villa, who is with us?

PhD candidate at UC Berkeley.

Kyla, do we have a critical thinking problem in this country that as you look around, maybe your nonscientific colleagues, do you feel like you're on an island or how do you feel about it?

>> I certainly do see a critical thinking problem.

mostly in my generation.

Or maybe this is where I most perceive it, because that's what I interact with most.

I think the consumption of so much internet content we often take as like, ground truth, but then like, especially news that I see actually teaching people to get more specific information about what actually happens as opposed to taking what's given at surface value, I think has become problematic with this.

Just like flood of information, we get constantly spending time on the internet.

>> Well, I want to say, as we get Kyle's story, I feel the frustration that Herman feels and I feel it myself in that so many of the conversations I have with Adam, we cover a lot of stuff, but we always come back to the wonder of just being alive right now and the opportunity that we have.

We I mean, it seems like a good possibility that there's intelligent life elsewhere and we may never see it or find it or hear about it, and we may be the only one.

I mean, there's a lot that we will not know or maybe not know in our lifetimes, or maybe never know.

But there's a lot that we still can know right now.

There's so much great opportunity with all of the modern tools of technology.

It's almost like we don't have an excuse to be poor thinkers.

And yet so many people are just doing the laziest amount of work possible.

And I'm guilty of it, too, at times.

I mean, I've probably everybody except for the people on the panel who are like the top of the thinking food chain, but everybody can fall into the traps.

It's just recognizing it.

Yesterday we talked to an expert on on the usage of propaganda, A.I.

and social media around the world and the way that we are just trained to get on social media and get angry.

That's what literally governments around the world are want us to do.

And we're like, yeah, but there's somebody wrong on the internet, you know Max power 86 41238 said something mean and I need to respond for the next hour.

And now I'm angry.

I mean, it's just the worst use of our time.

Use of our time.

The best use is what people like Kyle are doing.

So let's get Kyla's story.

And Kyla, the floor is yours.

Tell us what you're working on as a PhD candidate and how you came to science.

>> Yeah, absolutely.

So as an undergrad, I studied chemistry and planetary science, and now as a PhD student, I study high pressure material science related to planetary interiors.

And so through Cmap, we have this awesome scientific collaboration between experimentalists like Matt and Ethan and people who do what I do, which is exclusively computational work.

And so really, what that means is that we use some of the biggest computers in the world which we have to beg for time at, to study materials at a huge range of properties.

And one of the most important reasons that we use computers here is that the conditions that we try and study for deep planetary interiors are at such extreme pressures and temperatures that it requires really intense instrumentation, like these lasers that Ethan and Matt use.

and so obviously this is quite expensive.

it's hard to get time on them as they've described.

and so using our computational methods, we can simulate these, these material properties that these conditions much more easily.

So they might have to wait a year to get a shot on their material of choice.

I could probably get a simulation going on this material by the end of the afternoon.

and so it really opens up our ability to understand what's happening deep inside planets.

And so particularly what I focus on is studying the deep interior properties of Uranus and Neptune, which are quite unlike all of the other planets in our solar system, but which have been shown to be some of the most like what we call ice giant planets, which are really dominated, we think, by large amounts of water and methane and ammonia seem to be one of the more common types of exoplanets in the solar system, at least by our current detection methods.

And these planets are incredibly strange.

They've only been visited by a single spacecraft in human history, which was going on 40 years ago now.

And so there's so much that we don't understand about them.

And that's really tied to having an incomplete understanding of how these materials behave at these really extreme conditions.

>> So Kyla de Villa.

>> Work is really.

>> Oh, I'm sorry.

I just want to jump in.

If we get a better understanding of them, what's the benefit to the scientific community?

>> Yeah, absolutely.

so I think foremost is just basic science, understanding what these planets are actually made of and what their geophysical properties are.

which I find really quite exciting.

And there was a point at which the American populace was, you know, really enthralled with space science as well.

perhaps a generation before now.

but studying these materials is also really important for things like fusion experimentation.

So, for example, the capsules that are used for fusion experiments are carbon and hydrogen.

so understanding these materials at high pressures is really important.

another, another study that we have going in a similar vein is that if you take these very basic materials and kind of smack them with the shock velocity of a giant impact, we say that you can form things like amino acids.

So important questions of origin of life on Earth.

>> Amazing.

I mean, it's amazing that you can even find that out.

I mean, I I'm blown away by what the students are telling us about.

But, Kyla, do you want to tell us about a tough day, your own sort of moment of scientific frustration?

>> Yeah, absolutely.

So I think we certainly have moments of like technical frustration, like, oh, the simulation is not working well because our parameter choices are not accurate enough.

but I think the toughest days are really like what hurts as a human in doing science because as one example, like we need to go ask for funding so that we can actually, you know, support ourselves and our families while we try and do you know, what we think is important work.

And that doesn't always come through.

Or I mentor a lot of undergraduates and they deal with a lot of their own frustrations.

in terms of feeling like, are they capable, you know, impostor syndrome, which is people questioning like, are they actually good enough to what they think is, you know, a very sacred task of doing science is something that affects a lot of students in particular.

So I'd say that these are really the hardest days.

>> What do you wish Kylo, the general public, understood a little bit better about your profession?

>> I think foremost that scientists are people that are just really trying their absolute best to improve our understanding of the world in a way that that, you know, furthers the human experience, furthers technology, and that scientists really don't come into results with this.

politicized opinion.

And by that I mean, like scientists come to result and they share it, but they're not really married to it.

Like what they really want is for the truth to be known, not for a specific truth to be known.

>> I think that's well said.

>> That was very well said.

>> Very well.

>> Said, very well said.

>> All right, Kylo, you got to weigh in on the simulation.

What's the percentage chance of a simulation?

>> Okay, I am a simulation person.

>> All right.

>> We got a debate going.

>> Yes, absolutely.

>> 0%.

>> I would prefer to wait.

You set us up there.

I thought you were like pro simulation.

Yeah.

>> No.

The complexity of the simulation, like, I would love to have the computers that would take that it would take to run an Earth simulation.

>> I see.

>> So I say 0%.

>> I see.

So what you're saying is you do a lot of simulations.

You know how hard it is to do simulations.

This ain't a simulation.

>> But this is great.

This is like this is where you know this.

And this is the great thing.

>> About being a graduate student, right?

Because.

Right.

You're, you know, you're hanging out with your friends.

Most of your friends are graduate students, right?

Because you're hanging out all day together.

And it's these kinds of topics will come up like, you know, you'll get into a discussion about alien life or something.

In fact, you know, the whole the Fermi paradox, the very famous Fermi paradox was a bunch of scientists on their way to lunch.

>> It was like a lunch break.

>> It was a lunch break, and they're like, hey, man.

>> Where is everybody?

Where is everybody?

>> Right.

So this this kind of question about simulations, you just and, you know, sometimes it'll lead to research, right?

Sometimes you'll have a discussion and be like, oh, well, what about how would you think about the probabilities of this?

And then three days later there's a paper that you wrote and that you send in.

>> Well.

>> I apologize for in telling you that David, who's listening, wants to email about this subject.

He says, what's the evidence of simulation stuff that doesn't make sense in the real universe?

There's some sort of hidden variable reality that governs wave function collapse.

Like Einstein said, that's the only thing that makes sense, but it's too involved to simulate would require more computational power than the simulation is able to perform.

By definition, would require the entire real universe.

So in your simulation, you throw in a couple of random number generators to select to select up or down or left or right and call it a day.

His my next one.

The simulation can't handle all the particles in the real universe, but without them, the simulated universe flies apart.

So you invent stuff to hold it together in the simulation that appears as dark matter and dark energy.

That's David.

>> All right, way.

>> To go, David.

I have I can't even begin to say, but go for it.

David.

>> I think what.

>> Adam is trying to tell you is that's wrong.

>> There's so much in there you don't even know where to start.

But it's good that David is like David's.

David's clearly having a good time thinking about these.

>> There you go.

>> There you go.

No, that's that's fun.

George wants to a quick definition on the scientific method for the public.

Can you guys do that?

>> One.

Do you guys want to.

>> Want to hit that?

>> Oh, they're all looking at you.

All right, you're up.

>> So scientific method in general you start with a hypothesis.

you know, a scientific question that you're pondering.

you probably have an opinion how it's going to go.

So you design an experiment to test that hypothesis.

You do.

The experiment probably doesn't work, but eventually you get it to work.

You get a result that either confirms or refutes the hypothesis, provides, provides evidence, or provides evidence against that hypothesis.

And you draw your conclusions based on that, on the best available data that you have in order to, you know, sort of improve your understanding of the world around us.

And that's sort of the essence of the scientific method, in my view.

>> Matt, can we use it in everyday life outside of science?

>> Absolutely.

In fact yeah.

Pretty much everything you do in life, every hobby you have, you could apply science to and, you know, pretty much like any hobby that you might have outside.

So music is very scientific.

writing can you can make that scientific yeah.

Apply it, apply it.

>> Cooking is actually, I think, a great idea.

Cooking is like, oh, I made this last time and now I'm making a game.

I'm going to change something, I'm gonna change a recipe.

And it's like, oh, that was horrible.

You know, that didn't work.

So, you know, so.

>> Yeah.

>> Scientific method.

>> Scientific method.

>> George, thank you for that.

Jim wants to know if our guests think that A.I.

will lead to more critical thinking or a collapse of critical thinking because people rely on A.I.

So we've talked a lot about A.I.

A.I.

is obviously going to be used in the scientific community in different ways, and that's a whole other show, but just will be briefly, and I'll start with Adam.

A.I.

is going to help with critical thinking or will be outsourcing our critical thinking.

>> Actually, let's pass this to Kyla.

Just because she's a simulation.

>> Oh yeah, there you go.

>> So what do you think, Kyla A.I.

critical thinking.

>> I think that eventually A.I.

will lead to an improvement in critical thinking, because I think that for anything that requires deep thought, A.I.

is still quite poor.

and I think that university students in particular are learning this right now.

Is there you know, finding that A.I.

does not do a good job plagiarizing their essays.

And so I think that or I hope that A.I.

use, you know, will show students you actually need to go back to a primary source and do some real reading, as opposed to just trusting what, what some online page is telling you.

>> My opinion Adam Frank, is that Kyla is correct for what the potential of A.I.

is, and that there will be a subset of the human population that will use it that way to be smart and thoughtful about it and see its limitations, but want to level themselves up.

I'm concerned about the nonscientific population of human beings, and I think 95% are going to see their critical thinking erode with it.

That's what I that's what I worry about.

>> Like I said, I think, you know, this this whole idea of A.I.

slop, which is a whole other conversation.

I mean, it's growing so rapidly that I think it's quite possible that within five years you won't be able to trust anything on the internet, and it'll become, I think people are going to in some sense, we may be seeing the death of this version of the internet coming and coming faster than we.

>> Think about.

Really interesting.

>> And so I think in some sense it will come a point where, like, nobody uses the internet that way anymore because it's all just junk, you know?

And so it's a really interesting moment.

We're living in.

Yeah, in.

>> That way.

>> Yeah.

And Matthew Signor is going to be disappointed that we only have 90s left.

We can't talk aliens.

You want to come back?

You want to come back another day?

>> Oh, I'd love to.

>> Next year.

You want to talk alien?

Because you got to be very high on alien existence.

Come on.

>> Oh, of course, I think you know.

>> Now, that's 99.99999999.

There we go.

Now we have some agreement.

You're like 99.99.

Okay.

>> With a lot of nines and then.

>> A zero.

Yeah okay.

>> no that's a question for another day.

because we've got questions on that.

every time Adam's on, people want to talk aliens like the latest aliens.

we try to avoid things like Avi Loeb.

We talked about it one time.

We're.

>> Avi Loeb.

>> See, there's examples of scientists who lose the plot.

However, I want to thank the students for taking their time.

And Kyla joining us remotely as a PhD candidate at UC Berkeley.

you are all welcome back to share your adventures and to share your stories in the future.

Our listeners and the American public at large will be better for your skillful scientific communication.

It is really important and you're all very good at it.

So I'll start with Kyle and say thank you.

Thanks for joining us, Kyla.

Great having you on here.

>> Thank you for having me.

It's always fun.

>> Ethan Smith all right.

Same deal here.

Come on back here.

Tell us how things are going.

And thank you for for taking the time to engage with the public on this.

We really appreciate that.

>> Thank you.

>> Appreciate it.

Matthew Signor you're you know that laser is going to work.

One of these I mean it works.

One of these days.

>> This year is my year.

>> This is it.

We're like four weeks away.

>> He's like a Mets fan.

>> This is the year.

This is the year.

This is the year.

>> Bills are gonna win.

>> I can feel it.

Good luck to you.

>> Big month coming up here.

We'll be thinking about you.

Thanks for being here.

Thanks.

And Adam Frank with the University of Rochester.

Thank you very much.

This is such a great conversation.

>> Super fun.

>> These students are remarkable.

They are from all of us.

Thank you for listening.

Thanks for being with us on our various platforms.

It's been a packed day here and thanks for being wherever you're at, whether on YouTube, please like and subscribe.

Thanks for joining the WXXI News YouTube channel there.

Or if you're listening on the podcast, if you're listening live, wherever you are.

Thank you.

And we're back with you tomorrow on member supported public media.

>> This program is a production of WXXI Public Radio.

The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of this station.

Its staff, management or underwriters.

The broadcast is meant for the private use of our audience.

Any rebroadcast or use in another medium, without express written consent of WXXI is strictly prohibited.

Connections with Evan Dawson is available as a podcast.

Just click on the link at wxxinews.org.