The Skeptics Guide #1050 - Aug 23 2025

You're listening to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.

Hello, and welcome to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe.

Today is Wednesday, August 20th, 2025, and this is your host, Stephen Novella.

Joining me this week are Bob Novella.

Hey, everybody.

Kara Santa Maria.

Howdy.

Jay Novella.

Hey, guys.

And Evan Bernstein.

Good evening, everyone.

Jay, going to Kansas.

Have any of you been to Kansas before?

Of course.

I've been been through Kansas.

Okay.

I've been to Kansas.

I honestly can't remember.

I don't know.

I've heard about it.

In 1981, my family moved from Dallas, Texas to Denver, Colorado.

A part of it was a Midwest trip we took.

So we went south up through the north, straight up the center of Kansas.

Pretty much drove through.

Then when my family moved from Denver, Colorado to Connecticut back in 1983, we drove west to east.

So I literally did a crisscross of the state.

I mean, we may have stopped for a meal, but that was probably about it.

Well, stopping for a meal, I don't want to start beef here or anything, Evan, but

you lived in Dallas first.

Would you say Texas barbecue?

Oh, gosh, yes.

Texas barbecue.

I know.

I'm Texas all the way.

I'm very biased with that, though.

But I'm going to be open while we're there.

I'm going to eat me some Kansas City barbecue.

Absolutely.

Gosh, how can we not?

Well, Kansas is like right smack dab in the middle of the country, you know?

It is.

You know, watch some documentaries on things like the Dust Bowl from the 1920s.

It's an incredible just devastation of what happened in Kansas and much of that part of the country.

And it's like a little piece of American history that you don't hear about so often.

It's not talked about.

It's not recollected about, but it's still unbelievable to learn about.

Oh, yeah.

And the fears of a future Dust Bowl, which very well, as climate change continues, very well could happen again.

That was really a lot of soil mismanagement, right?

Sure.

Yep.

Well, the good news is that we're not going to be dealing dealing with that when we're there.

We're going to be dealing with two shows.

We have a, Steve, we like to call this the Private Show Plus,

which is a three-hour live podcast recording and random, fun, sometimes crazy or ridiculous entertainment with audience participation.

And George Hobb will be there with us.

Right.

And I say this every time, but it's worth noting that when we do these private shows, yes, we're recording a legitimate SGU SGU episode, but we go off the rails.

We don't hold back.

We don't edit ourselves.

Steve has to do all that.

Yeah, guarantee a minimum of eight curse words.

The editing happens afterwards.

Yeah.

Before it goes into the show.

A lot of post-production.

So those are a lot of fun, not just for us, but the audience always has a great time when we do those.

And then, you know, we got the extravaganza.

This is our stage show.

This is an hour and 45-minute to two-hour show where we, there's a few things going on.

It has a backbone of science to it.

We are teaching you about how you cannot trust your senses and how your brain fools you.

And mixed in with that, there is a lot of, you know, straight-up improv stuff.

George will pose crazy things at us, and we have not, we don't know what he's going to do.

And it's all kind of an impromptu that puts us all on the spot.

All the things that we've come up with, we've been honing this show for 10 years.

It's a ton of fun.

We really think that if you haven't been to one, you really should consider going to this.

So, this Kansas show is going to be just like all the others, it's going to be a really good time.

If you're interested, go to our homepage, that's the skepticsguide.org, and you know, the tickets are available there, and you'll get to see us.

There's VIP tickets also available for that extravaganza, which is another thing where we get a little wacky.

No, we take audience questions, and usually it turns into a conversation about one or two things that somebody brings up.

We get into details.

It's a lot of fun, and you get some swag, you get to hang out, you get signatures,

you know, whatever you want.

The other thing we have on the schedule, do we have the final dates?

We're going to Australia next summer.

Yeah, you want to hear all about that?

Oh, boy.

Oh, is this now official?

Yeah,

we're doing it.

This is official.

Okay, so we have, then we have dates?

Yay.

Okay, so it's a little complicated.

Well, isn't that what science is all about, Jay?

Because, you know, when you cross international date lines.

So we will be

very likely on

July 18th of 2026, we will be doing a SGU extravaganza that night and then a private show probably the next morning.

So

that'll be Sunday the 19th.

Where's that, Jay?

Where's the venue?

That's going to be in L.A.

L.A.

Yeah, I'm still in the hometown show.

I'm still picking the exact venue, but it's going to be, you know, central to L.A.

Can you see if the Hollywood Bowl's available?

I already had that rented out, but that's where we're sleeping.

Those, you know, it's going to be on those two dates.

There is a chance that we might do both shows on the 18th, you know, but of course, I'm going to work out these details very, very soon.

But, you know, it's a lot of things to consider, and I'm in charge of moving a lot of people to a lot of places.

So I've got to make sure that everything lands exactly correct.

But we will give you more info when that comes out.

And then what we are going to do then is we all fly to Sydney, Australia.

And then the conference will happen on Thursday the 23rd, Friday the 24th, and Saturday the 25th.

It'll start with something happening mid-afternoon on Thursday that like this year.

What did we do, Ev?

We did the board game.

Yes, the board meeting.

Yeah, that board meeting was so much fun.

We had a bunch of different games happening at about five or six different tables.

And, you know, things got pretty heated a couple of times.

Evan got into a fist fight with someone over Monopoly.

So, we played a bunch of different games.

Everybody got to give input on what the games are.

But the real thing is, is that we're getting, you know, kind of lubricated up for the conference.

And typically, and we're very likely going to do the Thursday night VIP that that morphs into a celebration for everyone to join at some time on Thursday night.

And then two full days of programming.

The thing about these conferences, these NATACON conferences, is that we give plenty of time for people to meet, socialize, and hang out, which, in our collective opinion, is the best absolute thing about all of these conferences that we go to.

It's being able to meet people, talk to people, make friends, whatever.

All of that is...

You know, the things that I remember the most, particularly about going to TAM, was that I ended up making friends with like a couple of hundred people during those years.

And the events that we do do, I said, do,

are very audience participation.

They're designed to have the audience not only interacting with us, but with each other.

So it even further fosters this community.

Correct.

So that's going to be that.

And then

it's possible that we might be doing some type of engagement in New Zealand.

I am still finalizing details.

A lot of people have a lot of decisions to make in order to check all these boxes, but we're talking to those guys.

If anything's going to happen there, it's going to happen the next weekend, which is the weekend of the 31st into August, into August 1st, and we'll let you know more about that.

But you're going to be able to buy these tickets for all of these shows very, very soon.

Hopefully, at least the conference within the next week.

And if you want us to come to your hometown,

send us an email.

But here's the thing, honestly, just getting an email from one person saying, hey, come to this remote part of the world and have a conference.

We'd love to, but

logistically, if you're going to fly seven of us out, which is really what it takes to do the live events, we need to know there's enough people there that are going to come out and see us.

So if you can give us any information about what the local skeptical audience is like there, that will help in our prioritization of where we can logistically go.

All right.

Thanks, brother.

Let's get started.

I want to start us off with a little bit of a quickie.

Boy.

Let me ask you a quick question, though.

What What do you guys think about turning base metals into gold?

Is this alchemy?

Is it fiction?

Is this ever all for it?

Witchcraft is for this.

I'm all for this.

I have to recuse myself, so I will.

I don't know.

All right.

When you think about turning a base metal into gold, what base metal do you generally do?

Lead, of course.

Lead.

Yeah.

Lead.

Lead.

Sometimes iron.

Iron into gold.

What about mercury?

Yeah, isn't mercury cold?

Is there a lot of gold in the planet Mercury?

Is that what you're saying?

No, I'm talking about the element Mercury.

All right.

So you know what that's called when you turn transmutation?

Transmogrification.

I like that word.

There's also a more technical term, chrysopoeia.

I don't like it.

Chrisopoeia.

That does not roll off the technical.

No, it does not.

And

it's got P in it.

Chrysopoeia.

All right.

It's like onomatopoeia, but it's Chrysopoe.

Anyway.

We got it, but what the hell?

So,

all right.

Some

silly physicists have

published.

This is in the archive, so it's a preprint of it, right?

They said, it's a really, at this point, it's like a thought experiment.

They basically said, they crunched the numbers, and it's possible to turn mercury into gold, into a stable isotope of gold, AU197 specifically, from Hg198, right?

Using the output of a fusion reactor, specifically a deuterium-tritium fusion reactor.

So they ran the numbers and they said that you could do this without in any way reducing the electricity output and also allowing for tritium breeding, which is critical.

So tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, right?

Hydrogen.

It has two neutrons, right?

Deuterium has one.

Hydrogen is just a proton, no neutrons.

Deuterium has one neutron.

Tritium has two neutrons.

So

it has a fairly short half-life, and it doesn't really exist in significant amounts naturally.

So we would have to create it as we go.

If we're going to have a fusion economy, we're going to need to make deuterium.

You could purify deuterium from water, but we're going to pretty much need to make tritium.

So one of the

ideas is that you could build a fusion reactor that breeds its own tritium from the hydrogen.

And so they said you could do that.

So so a deuterium, tritium, fusion, like tokamak plasma, you know, fusion reactor,

breaches its own tritium.

And as a side reaction, if you just line some

part of the chamber with this mercury-198, it will turn it into gold.

And they calculated the amounts that would be generated as just part of the

running of the fusion reactor.

And they concluded that the amount of gold that would be created would essentially double the revenue generated by the whole system.

That's huge right there, is my view.

Yeah, so if you think of it, they would make as much money from producing gold as they would from producing electricity.

That is freaking amazing.

But the price of gold plummet?

Well, yeah, that's the question.

The key would be not to destabilize the gold market, but it sounds like

it wouldn't do that.

It wouldn't be that much.

There's a lot of gold in the world.

It wouldn't plummet, but it might affect gold prices, yeah.

Well, it's at a couple of metric tons a year, so that's a lot.

And this is just a lot of fun.

Yeah, but the volume, if you think about how dense and heavy that is, it's not a lot of volume, but yeah,

I wonder how much of an impact.

But hey, man, even if it does drop gold prices a little bit, they're high enough anyway.

What's the limiting factor?

What's to stop a private corporation from ramping this up?

Jay, how much?

It's really going crazy.

How much gold do you think is mined every year?

I mean, I've read weird statistics, Steve, where the amount of gold that exists in the world is the size of an Olympic swimming pool or whatever.

Oh, no, it's way more than that.

I figured it it was, but I've read things like that.

It's not ridiculous.

2,500 to 3,000 tons of gold are mined each year.

So adding a couple of extra tons is negligible.

That's okay.

But tell me again, Steve, how renewable energy doesn't just blow away any other form of energy.

I mean, we're going to have unlimited power and gold.

How much energy does this take?

Or does it not?

It's already happening.

It's already happening.

It's just using

basically the radiation that's going to be produced by the whole process.

Which is otherwise wasted, not captured for anything else.

Yeah, basically.

Why not?

If it's just lying around doing nothing,

make it do something.

Would it be radioactive for a while?

Well,

yeah, out of the gold itself, I don't think.

No, it's a stable isotope AU-197.

Fusion reactors will create radioactive waste from the containment vessels that then have to be replaced, etc.

So there is going to be some radioactivity, but it's not like

it's not using fishable materials.

It's not going to be spent nuclear fuel.

It's just going to be in the structure itself.

So the gold won't be dangerous.

No.

It'll be a stable isotope of gold.

Right.

Yeah.

So again, this is all theoretical, of course, just like fusion is all theoretical at this point.

And there's a lot of non-trivial technical hurdles to getting to the point where we're going to be making commercially viable deuterium-tritium fusion.

But this is just an interesting wrinkle to that.

And yet, doubling the profitability of a tokamak fusion reactor is an interesting idea that certainly makes it seem like it would be more

commercially viable or commercially viable sooner or however, if this all works out.

That's true.

Interesting little tip in this.

All right.

Kara,

tell us about older Americans using artificial intelligence.

Yeah, so there was a recent poll that was, it was actually conducted at the University of Chicago for the University of Michigan's Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation.

It's called the National Poll on Healthy Aging,

and they've recently published their report.

They interviewed a randomly selected stratified group of U.S.

adults, 2,883 in total, with an oversample of non-Hispanic, black, Hispanic, and Asian American and Pacific Islander individuals.

Here's something I don't like.

The age range was 50 to 97.

But of course, in all of the write-ups of this, they show like somebody in their golden years.

And I'm like, 50?

That's not older.

That annoys me.

That's a beard scratcher.

Right.

So everything is like.

I was reading it right there.

This is how older adults, blah, blah, blah.

I get it.

I get it for use on a poll on healthy aging.

I know.

I may know why CAREA 50, because people are eligible for groups like AARP at age 50, and it could be just a

grab data from sets like that.

Totally.

Yeah, but you're

not eligible for

Medicare.

You're not eligible for Social Security.

No, unless you're disabled.

Correct.

Yeah.

So they basically asked a bunch of people, you know, almost 3,000 people between the ages of 50 and 97 about their AI usage.

And I'll give you some of the top line, but, you know, they kind of open, there's a write-up in the conversation by one of the study authors,

Robin Brewer, who is an associate professor of information at the University of Michigan.

And she basically wrote that, you know, when we talk about AI, we're often talking about like AI use in schools or AI use in the workplace, and it sort of biases the conversation toward younger people.

And I do wonder, I mean, when I think about AI, I guess I kind of just assume that most of the people using it are younger.

And that may still be true, but older adults do use AI.

They use AI maybe in different ways than you would think.

So, yeah, 55% of people who responded to the poll said that they have used AI technologies that you speak or type to for a bunch of different purposes.

But interestingly, what do you think is the top category?

And it's one I wouldn't have even thought of for use:

Google Home or Siri devices.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So 80% used AI-powered voice assistants.

96% used AI-powered home security devices.

I didn't even know that was a thing.

I mean, I guess it makes sense, but yeah, home security was by far the number one category.

And then AI-powered voice assistants.

After that, I think it was closer to

one in four had used A.

So of the people who used some type of AI technology that they could speak to or type to, voice assistants were much more popular.

About half of the people who reported using either of those reported using a voice assistant within the past year, and only one in four reported using a chat bot or something like Chat GPT.

So, that's actually one of the least popular mechanisms would be like an LLM or, you know,

possibly because they can't type as fast as younger people, maybe.

It could be that same thing we talked about a little bit on the show last week, like they might not see the utility or know how to do it.

And a lot of these other tools and technologies like home security devices like Alexa or Siri, it's like just built in to the technology they already have.

Over the past 10, 15 years of this technology being available.

Yeah.

So, you know, there are some, I'll give some more kind of outcomes of the poll, but I'll try to contextualize them a little bit.

The author of the

write-up here in the conversation and one of the authors of the study mentioned how independent living is a really important component to this conversation.

Most older Americans want to live at home, and they want to live at home independently or with minimal support.

And one of the ways that they can do it, because they either don't want to live in a long-term care community or they can't afford to, is to use AI tools.

And a lot of older adults say that AI in their homes is actually making it easier and it's helpful for them to live safely and more independently.

So I mentioned before AI-powered home security devices, nearly everybody said that they feel safer using one.

They also talked about

trust in AI in the study.

That, you know, a lot of older adults are struggling with whether or not they should trust content that was generated by AI, which I think is a good thing.

So, 54% of them said that they trust it, 46% said that they don't.

I wonder how that maps against younger people.

But, interestingly, the more people used it, the more they said that they trusted it.

Also, there are demographic differences in older adults who use AI.

Who do you think is more likely to use it?

More educated people.

Yeah.

Those with higher income and those with more education tend to use AI more often, which, you know, follows the same patterns of most technologies, right?

Like they're going to be more likely to use smartphones and to use tablets and to use different things.

Right.

Not a surprising result.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And so some more interesting things here, though, like there are some tools.

You know, they talk about how AI literacy tools are probably really important for older adults.

In the survey, nine in ten people said that they wanted to, like, some sort of label on AI-generated content.

And we do see that now.

Like, when you go to Google and you search for something and they give you an AI overview, it's labeled AI overview, right?

And different

states have different policies, but it seems like a lot of the enforcement, at least from this write-up, tends to be required only in political ads.

And

it varies by state, but other contexts, there doesn't seem to be a lot of regulation around whether or not you have to say if something was AI produced.

So, yeah, a lot of older adults are pushing to say, no, I think I need to know, because I'm not as good at telling the difference between something being authentic and something being produced, or I shouldn't say authentic, but something produced by AI and something produced by people.

And so so they talk a lot about how, yeah, AI can really support healthy aging when used, you know, appropriately and when there's good training on how to use AI.

Interestingly, only 12% of the respondents said that they used AI for social connections.

Still, not as much adoption, like using kind of like social media or using different apps.

14% say that they've used AI to receive health information.

And I think that that can be really empowering, especially when used appropriately.

I love that 11% said that they used AI to create text or images.

So, I mean, it's a low number, but like the fact that they're using it in that way.

I don't do it, but I'll be in your demographic in about eight and a half years.

And the 9%

said that they used it to plan like a trip or another activity.

Good.

Yeah, so it's interesting.

A lot of people are using AI across the board, and we shouldn't ignore or bias our literacy training and even our marketing towards younger people because it is a tool that I think can help everybody at any age.

Yeah, I love it as the idea of using it for

people who are in that gray zone, you know, to help people be independent longer for whatever reason, because of normal aging or because of any other disability.

So, you know, before I retired, you know, many of my patients are in that gray zone, right?

This is like an almost weekly conversation that I was having with some family member and patients about should they continue to drive?

Can they live independently?

What

support do they need?

And just because of our, at least in the United States especially,

we don't really live in extended families as much anymore.

When everyone was living together, that was kind of

people's parents would live in the house with them, and that's

how you would take care of it.

And now we don't really do that so much.

So, like, even GPS helps people who are in that gray zone where, like, they can drive, but they might get lost every now and then.

But if they always can hit take me home and can find their way home, it keeps them independent longer.

And, you know, I would love to see an AI app that's really designed to be

an AI assistant for people who are trying to live independently, who are kind of in that gray zone, who are kind of marketers.

Absolutely.

Like, just like that has all of the the reminders in one place.

Oriented, oriented, oriented,

help dispense your pills, too, right?

So many little things.

It's like just what we used to call like an ectopic brain.

Like this is just helping you remember all things you need to remember, checking in.

They can also give you reminders.

They can answer questions.

They could contact your family, your contacts, like your, in case of emergency kind of people, if necessary, like

remind you where you kept your keys, like all these little things that people can have difficulty with with like minimal cognitive impairment or early dementia, for example.

Absolutely.

And even humanized.

And it could be humanized too.

I mean, I think oftentimes we think about these things in sort of like a cold

clinical or like technological way, but obviously, an older adult who maybe is experiencing like mild cognitive impairment, to have some sort of app or AI assistant that's like on a device or on a phone, we could talk about, you know, connectivity, like the Internet of Things and tracking tags and things like that for like you mentioned, keys and their car, integrating all of that into one place, but also with photos, with voice notes, with a lot of like rich reminders of family and home, I think could be really beneficial psychologically.

And also make them feel less lonely.

Oh, for sure.

Yeah, yeah.

I think that's a huge part of it.

And so maybe it'll be interesting to watch these data and see if those numbers go higher as individuals or the numbers at least on on AI use for social connection go higher the more

AI becomes you know part of people's daily lives so let me pivot a bit because we spoke about AI last week you got a lot of feedback from it and I thought a lot of the feedback was quite honestly unfair and it was mostly of like you guys are too positive about AI

and like you didn't mention any of the negatives and it was like like you were as a commercial, or you were just gullible, all this stuff.

It's like, well, first of all, we were talking about one very specific thing.

We were talking about ChatGPT-5 and is it useful, right?

Just how good is it as a tool?

We can't go into every aspect of every complex topic every time it comes up.

Plus, Steve, the other component here was that this was just released.

I want to wait a little while at least before we get some real serious feedback.

And to be fair, I didn't, I mean, I went through a lot of websites looking at a lot of information, and by far,

the main thing that was being reported so soon after the release was this pushback, this major pushback of the release and how bad the release was.

Which we talked about.

You talked about it.

Which I talked about.

And of course, the other, you know, the people that felt like they had lost a friend because the earlier models were no longer available.

I mean, that was everywhere, everywhere.

And that definitely needed to be discussed.

So, yeah.

It would take us an hour to talk.

Every time we brought up, like on this news item, do we have to go through the litany of all the positive and negative on it every single time we bring it up?

I don't think so, but I do think that sometimes the critical feedback that we get, and you know, maybe I'm

an opposing voice here, is I'm often the person who's like, I don't use this and I don't really get it, and maybe I don't need it, maybe I do.

And I think that you guys did a good job of explaining to me like where it's helpful and why maybe it's not necessary.

I think what I want to remind listeners of is we have dedicated whole news items to the environmental impact of LLMs.

Yes, we probably could mention, because I think sometimes we can be gushy-gushy about new technology.

Like, this is so exciting, this is so exciting.

Yeah, sure.

And in the same breath, we have to be mindful of the fact that it could also be somewhat detrimental to the environment or these might be other drawbacks.

Yeah, but this is a chronic issue that comes up.

Like how sometimes we have to expect people to understand that when we talk about a complex topic like this, it's cumulative.

I say we've talked about this in 20 news items, and

we can't talk about what you want us to talk about every single time.

We're going to be talking about different aspects of it.

But let me just run through all of the issues very, like, and I did this when I wrote about it on my blog very quick.

So yes, LLM training is very expensive.

Data centers use a lot of energy.

Training can violate creators' rights to use their own material without compensation.

There's a lot of hype surrounding AI, and the reality is way more modest.

AI can be disruptive and cost jobs.

They still have problems with hallucinations.

They have a problem with psychophancy, and some people are falling into an emotional relationship with software owned and controlled by a corporation.

They are causing problems for teachers, as it is now trivial to have AI do your work for you.

And AI is creating a tsunami of deep fakes.

Yes.

So just every time we talk about AI, assume that we are caveating it with all of that.

Because that is, we have talked about all of those things before.

That is true of AI.

I don't think by saying, oh, it could be a useful tool, we're saying we're minimizing these problems or endorsing any particular regulation or non-regulation, whatever.

We've also been pretty clear that we feel AI needs to be regulated, that we feel that companies who are training AI need to be responsible for their own energy production.

These are trillion-dollar companies.

They could make sure that they're powering their data centers with green energy.

All those things.

That's not going to happen under the current administration, but whatever.

So give us a little bit of credit.

We talk about all these things.

You have to give us, recognize that this is a bit of a cumulative topic that we talk about over many, many episodes.

And no, we can't go into an hour-long discussion of all the negatives every time something comes up about AI.

And just I'll say for myself, it's a freaking useful tool.

We need to find a way to make it work.

I don't think just abandoning it because of these downsides is the way forward.

First of all, it's not going to happen.

So you're living in Nirvana.

Other countries are working on this as well.

It's too powerful a tool not to figure out how to make this work well, to fit in the problem.

But now is the time to be solvable.

They are all

solvable.

But now is the time to solve those problems.

And we don't want to get so deep that we go, oops, you know, because we are aware of it, and it is a clear,

you know, it's different than certain decisions that were made during the Industrial Revolution when we had no idea.

We probably did.

But, you know, we know this.

We know all of these issues and we need to be aware of that.

Totally.

None of us are endorsing the move fast and break things approach or the just let them run wild and no regulation.

And

the tech bros will sort it out.

None of us are endorsing that approach.

But the need for moral purity, I feel, is behind a lot of this.

You could say, yeah, these are the downsides, and some of these are very serious, and still say, but it is a damn useful tool when used properly.

That's the thing that I think is so dangerous about that type of, and I'll use like

an informological fallacy, like that type of black and white thinking.

Yeah.

Is that

we do it with fossil fuels too.

Like we can talk about all the dangers and all of these things, but like we couldn't just turn off the tap tomorrow.

Like civilization would collapse.

We do rely on these things and we need to work in a way to

obviously making our entire energy structure more sustainable.

But I think there's a tendency for people like I might be more critical and less

excited, and you guys might be more optimistic.

But we are all talking about both sides of that.

But there's a tendency for people to hear me be critical and be like, Kara's anti-AI, and hear you guys being excited and be like, you are so pro, you're not even looking at the negatives.

And it's like, no, no, no.

We're all somewhere in the middle.

Yeah, we're all doing both.

The same thing happens like whenever Musk comes up, right?

Because he's such a divisive figure.

Oh, yeah.

If we say anything positive about him, then we're a Musk fanboy.

If we say anything negative, then we're a Musk denier and

our hating on Musk.

It's like, no, he's both at the same time.

He's a complicated dude who has done some great things and some horrible things at the same time.

And our feelings about him are complicated.

And we're just trying to appreciate the full nuance here.

But you got to give the devil his due, right?

You always got to call it like it is, good or bad.

And it's most of reality is a mix of good and bad.

I say most of them.

The cyber cars suck.

Oh, yeah.

It's a a spectrum.

I love my tests.

Shades of gray.

Cyber trucks are ugly.

Right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

I love SpaceX.

I don't like Musk's mentorship of

X, formerly Twitter.

Whatever.

The guy is problematic.

But anyway.

Wait, can I say what I think about him?

Yeah.

Oh, no.

To me, he did a slippery slope.

You know, this guy slipped down some crazy pathways here and did some horrible things with the U.S.

government.

That wasn't really an invitation to dish on Musk.

I was just bringing him up as an example.

I'm with you.

I'm with you, Jane.

Yeah, he's a world-recognized example.

I get that.

Easy to make an example of.

Right, but

a big sense I get with a lot of these emails, like, no, it's got to be all good all the time or all bad all the time.

Yeah.

Because there are people who will not give Musk credit for the things that he has done, which I think is wrong.

Like, you've got to give him credit for bringing Tesla to what it was.

He didn't invent it himself.

He wasn't the engineer, but he did invest his money in that and pushed it through years ahead of what would have otherwise happened.

You've got to give him credit for that.

And even if you hate everything else about him, yep.

History and science are replete with examples like this of people who have done wonderful things and at the same time, either later or whatever.

Deal with it.

You know what I mean?

It's kind of

minus Pauling was a great scientist who became a crank in his later years.

Deal with it.

But yeah, just it's

we feel so uncomfortable, you know, having that to be able to say that there's good and bad in people.

We just like there to be this, again, this morally pure narrative.

Anyway, welcome to reality.

Jay, tell us about semi-solid state EVs.

Yeah, you know, I keep up on these.

Like, you know, we all like to talk about the latest battery technology and what's happening.

There's a ton of money being spent on battery technology.

And there are some goals that the industry is trying to get to.

And of course, like everything else, you know, that whole five to 10 year thing is

always hovering around any of these claims that are being made.

So I thought I'd clarify some things that are going on right now.

Like I said, there's a ton of companies out there that are trying to make batteries safer, you know, faster

charging longer lasting, you know, bigger energy storage.

And solid state batteries have been pretty much thought of as some kind of holy grail that will replace the flammable liquid electrolytes in conventional lithium-ion cells.

And, you know, it seems like this is true.

So far, you know, everything is pointing to these batteries will be much safer.

They should have the capacity increases that we want.

But there are some things that are going on here that I think you should know about.

There is a Chinese automaker called SAIK or SAIC.

This is under its MG brand, and they announced the launch of the MG4 EV.

This is a vehicle of theirs with a semi-solid state battery.

This was developed by, and forgive me for my pronunciation, Suzhu Qingtao Power Technology, and it's been promoted as the world's first production electric vehicle to carry something close to a solid state battery.

And I will remind you, though, this is a hybrid battery.

It's a hybrid.

It's a hybrid.

Which is fine.

You know, it's not fully solid state, but it's taking serious steps in that direction.

They're calling it like a technological bridge, then a final destination.

That's all good.

The creators of the battery say it has better cold weather performance, a longer life cycle, enhanced safety compared to traditional lithium-ion batteries.

These are all good things.

If it's all good.

About the specific energy density.

Yeah, I'll get into that.

At the same time, Nissan announced a partnership with LICAP LICAP Technologies to accelerate the development of an all-solid state EV battery with a goal of commercial production around 2028.

Now, that is sub-five years, and anything that goes below that five-year mark, my ears perk up because it makes me think, okay, they're definitely not.

It's in the pipeline, it's not just a theory.

Correct, yes.

Things are actually really happening here.

So, meanwhile, another company, Quantumscape, which is a well-funded U.S.

startup, they revealed a new Cobra process for producing ceramic separators, right?

What's a ceramic separator?

These are thin, heat-resistant membranes that go inside of a solid-state battery that keeps the anode and the cathode apart while allowing the lithium ions to pass, making the cells safer, more stable than

the current ones that have plastic films in that same position.

Sure, these could significantly improve manufacturing speed, which is a huge part of the problem.

It is one of the biggest bottlenecks that are preventing solid-state batteries from scaling up.

So this right there, that one piece of technology that was developed by this company could solve that problem.

And solid-state batteries are no longer going to have the

manufacturing bottleneck to prevent them from going worldwide.

Now, there's another company called Stellantis.

Have any of you guys ever heard of this company?

No, Stellantis.

I haven't heard of it.

Stellantis.

It's one of those companies that it wouldn't be a big surprise if you hadn't heard of it, but you know of it in a sense.

Stellantis made headlines earlier this year when it validated solid-state cells from factorial energy that can reportedly charge from 15 to 90 percent in just 18 minutes at room temperature.

And those are good numbers.

Now, what is Stellantis?

They are ranked among the world's largest car makers.

And this year, they are the fifth largest in global sales volume.

And they own 14 car brands.

And I'll just name some of them here.

You might recognize: Alfa Romeo, Chrysler Dodge, Fiat Jeep, Maserati, Peugeot, Ram Trucks.

You know, that's not all of them, but that's the ones I thought most people would know.

Incredible company.

They own all those brands, and this is a huge player in the car market.

So, what we're seeing here is that there is real potential.

There is real growth happening.

They're making improvements, and they're knocking down these hurdles as the years go by.

We don't have anything right now that is like, here it is, we've got a finished product, and it's this much better.

And

all of the traits that it has blow away what we currently have.

That's not, we're not here yet, but I do believe that that is coming.

So

there's a payoff for them to develop this new technology because solid electrolytes could allow for denser energy storage, which is a big deal.

And it also means that the batteries could be lighter and longer range.

All these properties are super important to batteries.

They can suppress dendrite formation.

We've talked about this on the show several times.

These are like these needle-like lithium growths that can cause short circuits in the lithium-ion cells.

Very bad.

We don't want any of that going on.

And without the flammable liquids inside, the risk of horrible fires happening significantly drops.

Wait, are they flammable or are they inflammable?

Inflammable means

are flammable.

If you haven't seen a video, look up a video of batteries catching on fire or whatever.

And it's crazy what happens.

It's very flammable when the battery is compromised.

So these new solid-state batteries are supposed to be much, much, much less flammable.

And again, like imagine if they're using these on future electric airplanes or electric flying vehicles.

You know, you don't want to be up 300 feet, 1,000 feet, whatever, and have a fire happen.

You know, that's like snakes on a plane.

Like, no good.

Don't want it.

You know, we got to do everything we can to prevent that.

On the consumer side, faster charging could help make EV ownership feel more like filling up a gas tank, which is great, right?

Because

it's essentially how much time is it going to take?

I went through this with Steve when we went to that conference together about a month ago, and it was really not that big of a deal to charge up the car.

It was fine.

We had lunch.

Yeah, so what they're saying is, you know, the newer batteries, you know, you plug in for 10 minutes and you'll get most of your range back, which is really nice.

They say for grid-scale storage, the solid-state batteries can make renewable energy more practical.

This would be by storing larger amounts of energy, safer, longer periods, everything.

It's got all the features that we want to hear about.

So to look at this with a hard, skeptical angle, there's a couple of catches here.

We've been here before.

Solid states have been five years away, like I said, for over a decade.

These laboratory breakthroughs that we hear about in the news, I'm reading probably all of them, right?

I'm sure you guys are reading them too.

They rarely translate into mass production because, you know, they're talking about like, hey, we achieved this, but you know, they haven't achieved mass production, which that's where the tires hit the road.

Because great, you can do it in the lab and it's really small, but you want to build them out, make them, you know, have a huge amount of storage with all the other properties that we want.

You know, most advancements don't make it in regards to everything when it comes to technology of any kind.

However, the MG4 has the semi-solid, solid-state pack.

It's impressive.

It offers energy density similar to existing lithium-ion batteries.

Scaling up solid electrolytes, it's difficult.

It's a very hard thing for them to figure out.

The solid state manufacturing defects can easily ruin their performance to produce large quantities of these batteries at a reasonable cost.

This hasn't been fully demonstrated.

Even if Nissan hits their 2028 goal, the batteries won't instantly replace lithium-ion batteries across the industry like we were all hoping.

Again, the adoption is going to be gradual.

As the costs slowly drop and the supply chain constraints slowly go away, we should see these batteries picking up momentum.

But it isn't going to be a wake up in three months and they got it.

And

the next year, your EV is going to have it.

That's not where we're at.

We have to get confirmation that they can be mass-produced at a competitive price.

That's huge.

We need them to show real-world improvements in their range and their recharge cycle life, and they have to be independently validated for safety and performance.

So, as critical thinkers, you know, that's what we're looking for.

So, watch out for the claims.

You know, be mindful of the fact that technology is progressing, and we're looking forward to hearing what happens over the next two to three years.

Now, let me give you some numbers, Steve.

You asked for numbers.

The new solid-state batteries that we're talking about here, they're expected to be 20 to 50 percent higher energy density compared to today's typical lithium-ion packs.

So, do you have a watt hours per kilogram?

Well, I'm going to tell you mileage just so you can understand it.

It's more readily accessible because watt hours might mean something to you, but I bet for most people that listen to the show, it doesn't really speak that much.

So, let's just talk about miles.

The current batteries we have: 250 to 350 miles, or 400 to 560 kilometers per charge for mid-range EVs.

The first version of the solid-state batteries that are expected to come out 400 to 450 miles or 640 to 725 kilometers

with the same battery weight.

With the same vehicle, I'm assuming, and all the variables being in the same.

But keep in mind that their density is more, meaning that because they have a higher density of energy storage, if they bring the weight up to the weight of current batteries, I think that's where we're getting the gain from, right?

Because it's, you know,

you want to compare the weight to weight because it really, with batteries, it comes down to how heavy they are.

Yeah, or you can give the watt-hour per kilograms.

Yeah.

So I am, I'm like a lot of other things going on, you know, mRNA technology, CRISPR, fusion, all these things.

Like, I'm hopeful.

I'm sitting in the wings.

I'm waiting for the right people to say, we got it.

It's not, you know, happening across the board with all these technologies.

What we are seeing is slow incremental process, which tracks perfectly with everything that is going on with science and technology advancements.

All right, but let me

know.

What do you got?

Let me come back to you because now when I'm looking up the watt hours per kilogram, which is now you're comparing apples to apples, of the MGEV semi-solid state battery, they say it has an energy density of 180 watt hours per kilogram.

Right?

180.

Current lithium-ion batteries are 160 to 250, so it's right in the same range.

But not only that, the current silicone anode lithium-ion batteries are already reaching 500 watt-hours per kilogram, with prototypes getting up to 700.

Wow, that's a lot.

Solid state could potentially get up to 800,

but here's the thing.

I read 900, but that's pie in the sky.

Yeah, that's fine, but whatever.

But the ultimate potential.

So the thing is, silicone anode lithium-ion batteries are already in production, already in mass production, and they use the same production equipment as the lithium-ion batteries.

And so I think for the next five years, that's going to become the state of the art.

They're coming out in 26, 27 EVs with these batteries.

Oh, I see.

Basically, with twice the energy density of the current

typical.

Yeah, we've talked about this.

We've talked about it.

That's coming for sure.

So these solid-state batteries

are years away from beating that.

But how safe

are those new batteries?

They're safer than the current ones that we're using.

That's fantastic.

Now, I think the solid state has more potential, but

I think that's the battery of the 2030s, to be honest with you.

That the next five plus years are going to be the age of the silicone nanode, lithium-ion batteries.

And then sometime in the 2030s, we might see solid state, unless something else eclipses it.

But that's what I think.

Because it's going to take that long to get the production costs down and the watt-hour per kilograms, the energy density to, it's not fair to compare it to last year's battery.

You got to compare it to the thing that's going to be coming out in a year.

You know what I mean?

At the same time,

which is already in the 400, 500 watt-hour per kilogram range.

So we'll see how it plays out, but it's all good.

It's a good problem to have, right?

We have two great options on the horizon.

like predicting which one is going to eclipse the other.

Who cares?

Whichever one does,

we're poised for doubling basically energy density in our car batteries, which is going to be great.

What we need is Tony Stark to create a real arc reactor

and put them in everything.

Is he listening now?

Maybe he can.

He probably is.

Okay, good.

Yeah, I should only put it in his own chest and never use it for anything else.

I know.

Well, I guess he says it's dangerous.

He doesn't want that's too that amount of power is dangerous.

Yeah, but the radiation can make gold.

So

that's like double the price, double the value.

Either way, way, you know what?

I'm glad to see technological progress happen.

I love it when these big companies are spending billions, billions, and billions of dollars to push the ball forward because, you know, of course, they're doing it to make money, but everybody benefits.

All right.

Thanks, Jay.

Bob, tell us about non-surgical LASIK.

Yeah, this one was fascinating, guys.

Researchers have described a new technique for fixing common vision issues like nearsightedness, and their experiments on rabbit test eyeballs show show that it could really be an alternative to LASIC surgery that is completely non-invasive, pain-free, and other interesting adjectives.

So,

they released this information at a recent fall meeting of the American Chemical Society, and these researchers were from Occidental College and the University of California at Irvine.

All right, so imagine treating your myopia or nearsightedness, right, in less than a minute, non-invasively, no scalpels, no lasers, no cutting, no pain.

It seemed to me when I was reading this, it seemed more at home at the Enterprise's sick bay

rather than a clinic of the near future.

It was really fairly remarkable, I think.

It was such a cool idea that I never would have even guessed was even possible.

Retinax 5.

Yeah, right.

And this might be possible before we all die, except you, Steve.

And this technique is called

electromechanical reshaping.

This is where Steve should have said something similar to like, yeah, but you're older than me, Bob.

And I would have said, yeah, but I'm Bob.

But okay, that joke failed.

Sorry.

So lead you the line you were hoping, Bob.

Yeah, you know, it was, you know, it was a

reasonable probability.

I didn't play your game, Bob.

Yeah, that's okay.

Still, everyone was laughing at you.

All right, so this works.

All right, guys.

Serious.

This works by essentially relaxing your cornea so that it can be molded into the optimum shape and then making it rigid again so it holds its new shape.

So that's kind of like the

40,000-foot overview of what's happening here.

So it's like taking jello.

This is this is the lame analogy I came up with.

It's like taking jello and making part of it softer so you can change its shape and then making it stiff again.

So how do they do this?

That's the key, right?

How do you even do this?

How do you soften the cornea like that?

They do it by putting a platinum contact lens on your eye over specifically

right over your cornea that has a the precise dire desired shape of your for your cornea, right?

So it's like a mold of what they want your cornea to be.

So now that the contact lens acts as an electrode and they apply a small current to it.

And then that current, now here's the critical part: the current changes the pH of that part of your cornea that's actually touching the contact lens.

And that's really the critical part because some of the components of your cornea are positively charged and some of them are negatively charged.

And that attraction, these pieces of your cornea that are attracted to each other, that's what makes the cornea firm and taut.

That's what makes it have, you know, the feel.

And if you could touch your, you know, if you put on contact, you've touched your cornea.

It's, it's stiff and firm.

That's what's doing it, is these negative, these negative and positive charges that are trying to get to each other.

But when you change the pH, though, it weakens this positive-negative attraction so that the upper part of the cornea, the part that's specifically touching that platinum contact lens, that's going to relax a little bit.

And when it relaxes and de-stiffens if you will it makes it fit into that contact lens mold can you can you picture that it it softens up and then it kind of just goes slurp into into the the contact lens and the difference between the cornea as it was and the and the contact lens the difference is super small I mean it's not like this big change it's really really tiny I mean that's all it takes to fix some of these these these vision problems so then what they do is they take the they turn the current off of the device and and your cornea re-stiffens into its new shape and with no cuts, no tissue damage, and just pretty, pretty amazing.

So how slick is that?

I mean, they say there's no pain, but I think it probably would feel kind of weird, but who knows?

Who knows?

I'm sure it's pretty.

I mean, I've had injections in my eyelids, so this probably would be absolutely not even noticeable by me.

They probably, do they make like kind of numbing drops that aren't overly intense?

I've had, yeah, I've had numbing eye drops that are, that they might have to to do.

I don't know.

It seems they've mentioned multiple times that this, you know, this is, there's no, there's no cutting, there's no blades or lasers, so it's, it just, I think it just might feel weird.

I don't know.

Yeah, but I mean, for people for whom it's like it eeks them out to have like somebody pushing on their eyeball or like just that weird feeling you can

do numb it.

That's true.

Yeah, sure.

Do the drops.

That's fine.

They're nothing.

All right, so to test the technique, they tried it on.

enucleated rabbit eyeballs.

And so that means they use just rabbit eyeballs with no other parts of the rabbit rabbit attached.

Ex vivo, if you will.

Poor bunnies.

So they used 12 of them.

They did the electromechanical reshaping procedure on them to correct for nearsightedness on these 12 rabbit eyeballs.

All the tests succeeded.

There was no trauma to the eye.

And then they did subsequent, of course, they did some measurements and close-up measurements of the cornea, and they showed that it was all the corrections that they wanted to get to were absolutely successful.

And one of the articles I read showed that it reached a desire, it showed a negative 3.12 diopter change in the refractive power of the corneas.

So I think I'm not familiar with, I mean, I don't have, I just have readers, I don't really have regular normal glasses, so I'm not familiar with

diopters.

But 3.12, I think that's fairly standard.

It seems to me they could make almost any change that you would normally make with LASIC.

They could probably do with this procedure, it seems.

And then they also said that there were some other experiments that apparently show that this procedure can also potentially treat some chemical-caused cloudness to the cornea.

There's some, you know, we've all heard of your lens being clouded, but also apparently the cornea can get cloudy.

And if that happens, if it gets bad

from what I briefly read on this, is that you would need a corneal transplant.

And that doesn't sound like fun, but this technique could potentially treat that as well.

So that's pretty much the extent of

the news item in terms of what they've accomplished, where they are right now.

So, what's the future of electromechanical reshaping?

So, this is the initial stages of research.

They go to pains to say, Yeah, we're just really getting started with this.

There's still a lot of work to do.

Dr.

Brian Wong, who's a professor and surgeon at the University of California, described the next steps as the long march through animal studies that are detailed and precise.

What do you think?

Five to ten years?

So, he's like girding his loins.

For this type of thing, I have no idea what it could take.

I mean, so I'm not even going to throw out a number here.

So

it could be 10 to 20.

Yeah,

that wouldn't surprise me at all.

Obviously, what the team's going to do in the near future is determine what kind of cornea corrections are possible with the electromechanical reshaping.

Certainly, they'll be trying, you know, for the full trifecta, near-sightedness, far-sightedness, and astigmatism.

But remember, presbyopia can't be directly corrected with this technique

since that's a lens issue.

And this this is the cornea.

It's treating the cornea.

It's not treating the lens.

But apparently, it may also, it may be able to help a little bit by tweaking the cornea to fix, to help or at least improve presbyopia.

So there's a little bit of hope for me for this because that's what I have.

So that's unfortunate for me.

But still, fascinating technique that could potentially

be a really viable alternative for LASIC.

And LASIK's great.

There's like a 95%

success rate.

Almost everyone in my family's had it.

Many people in my family have had it and they've all done fantastic with it.

But there are people, there are some people that don't tolerate it.

Or don't forget,

when you do LASIC,

you're using a laser to cut into the cornea.

So

you are destabilizing the cornea.

And it could have, your worst case scenarios, I'm sure, are not fun with that type of, you know, when you mess with the structural integrity of the cornea.

You know, things,

when it it goes bad, it goes bad, even though it's extremely rare.

So, it seems to me that this type of technology, where you're not even doing anything like that, that it would potentially be even, you know, even greater than 95% success rate, it seems, based on this technique, as far as I could tell anyway.

But so, just an interesting little new

research that these guys have done that look interesting and very promising.

All right, we'll have to give an update on this in five to ten years.

Yes, all right, thanks, Bob.

Sure, man.

All right, guys, again, I'd like to start my news items with questions.

There was a recent study looking at the comments online, and this was to videos on YouTube and Twitter.

And what do you think was the most common response when somebody objected to the content of the video or a previous comment?

You mean how did those people reply in the negative?

Yeah.

You're a jerk.

I mean, probably some.

Oh, yeah.

Probably just being like, you're you're yeah, you're a dick or something.

Didn't address the subject at all, just didn't like.

You're a shill for big pharma.

That's exactly correct.

It was an ad hominem attack.

That's the most common response online, which I do not find surprising at all.

So they examined 6,500 comments, replies to trending news videos on YouTube and Twitter, and identified seven distinct objection tactics.

And they said, like, which one was the most common?

And the most common was the ad hominem.

So I just want to mainly use this as a jumping off point to talk about that phenomenon.

So, first of all, I want to make a distinction between an ad hominem logical fallacy and an ad hominem attack.

They're just talking about an ad hominem attack, which, like, if I said, Jay, your meatballs suck, that would be kind of a, or you're a bad,

more to the point, you suck at making meatballs, that would be an ad hominem attack.

Right?

But an ad hominem logical fallacy would be like, Jay, you're wrong about this because your meatballs are terror, because you can't make meatballs.

So concluding that someone's wrong because of their negative characteristics is the fallacy.

Just saying.

Well, it's like what we were talking about earlier.

Like, Elon Musk is a dick, so Teslas sucks.

Right, right.

Saying someone's a jerk is not a logical fallacy.

It's just a personal attack.

Saying that they're wrong about something because they're a jerk is a logical fallacy.

There you go.

Does that make sense?

Yep.

Yes.

So oftentimes I will have people make that mistake.

They do the fallacy fallacy thing.

Like, oh, you're wrong because you're committing an ad hominem fallacy.

It's like, first of all, no, they're just calling you a jerk because you are a jerk.

And second, that doesn't make them wrong anyway.

Right.

It just means that that's not

a good or

a nice or a viable really line of argument.

It doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong.

That's the fallacy fallacy.

And I'm sure you guys do as well.

I'm not sure if you do as much as I do because I'm managing two blogs.

And managing blogs involves paying somewhat attention to the comments.

I occasionally dip into the comments on my TikTok videos and on our YouTube and sometimes even on our, just when we put the show up on our Patreon page.

You know,

it is absolutely the default mode.

of most comments is to be attack anyone you disagree with.

And oftentimes, you know, I had an anti-vaxxer come onto my my blog recently, and out of the gate opens up with a frontal assault of ad hominem attacks.

You know, in terms of like, you never look at the evidence, you're a shill, you're corrupt, blah, blah, blah.

Of course, it could also get even worse if people use,

you know, people have like racist, sexist, whatever.

Yeah.

Can be part of those attacks.

But the thing is, is that skeptics do it too.

For sure.

And we do have to be very aware that we tend to do that.

It's so tempting.

And again, it's not necessarily even wrong.

But

as soon as you frame your feedback towards the person, like not that this argument is weak or this argument is wrong or it's not backed up by

citations of evidence or whatever, but saying that you're gullible or

you have these negative attributes or

you're a true believer or whatever,

that's really, it's a weak form of argument.

Sometimes it evolves into a logical fallacy if you start to use that as the basis for saying that they're wrong.

So you have to be very, very careful with that.

And this happens almost every time.

time.

We talk like when we do, we were just doing this today on a live stream.

We were doing a long format review of a video, and it was horrible.

The person was a psychiatrist who was basically shilling her book where she says there's evidence for life after death and

dualism and all these things.

And she's just trying to brand herself, make her own guru brand for herself, right?

But it's just inevitable that we get into a conversation of

how much does she believe her own nonsense?

How much is she just straight up lying?

Is she a fraud?

Or is she a true believer?

Is she sincere?

And

how fake is this whole thing?

The thing is, like, we usually don't know, and it usually doesn't matter.

You know what I mean?

You're better off just not focusing on that.

Don't go there.

Yeah, I mean, unless, again, my standard is if somebody, if I have actual evidence that someone's a fraud, that's different.

Right?

Like we've, we've talked about psychic surgery before where somebody's palming, you know, the chicken puns and pretending to pull them out of people.

That's not a true believer.

That's a magic trick.

That is deliberate deception.

There's really no other way to interpret that.

If you catch somebody in explicit deception, then you could draw conclusions from that.

Peter Popoff, right?

Peter Popoff, yeah.

You have the radio

signals from backstage, right?

Like things like that.

That's clear fraud.

But most of the time, it's again, we talked, this gets back to the clean narrative type of thing.

Most of the time, it's a complicated mix.

And I think people have, you know, some kind level of belief, right?

But then they cut corners and they have some awareness that they're cutting corners.

And they engage in motivated reasoning.

And they may have some sense that, you know, yeah, they're really, you know, making a lawyer's case for one position.

And, you know what I mean, like really pushing hard on the narrative that is in their interest.

That's not the same thing as lying or being a fraud.

It is more of what psychologists call bullshit, literally as a technical term, meaning an indifference to whether something is true or not.

Lying means you have to know it's not true, bullshit means you don't care if it's true or not.

So I think that most people are somewhere between sincere and self-deluded and bullshitting

or sort of the pious fraud where they are saying something that they know isn't strictly true, but they think it's justified because they do believe the conclusion.

You can't read people's minds and you can't really know.

So

just police yourself.

Don't just go right for the ad hominem.

It's cheap.

It's easy.

doesn't really get you anywhere.

You know, try to discipline yourself to, in my opinion, this is just more effective, especially if you're tussling, you know, in the comments section of something online.

Because, you know, the conversation just degrades so quickly once somebody goes at hominem.

Especially if somebody else, that's what I find myself doing it most, when somebody else goes there first.

You know what I mean?

Like, they come at me guns blazing.

Whoa.

Yeah.

You know, it's hard to be charitable at that point.

But you are always charitable.

I tend to be, at least the first time.

But I do, I will occasionally say, oh, yeah, yeah, that's spoken like a true conspiracy theorist nutjob.

You know, like that

occasionally, those kind of things will come out.

I love that.

Seriously, what do you want to do?

Invest your time in somebody who's going to throw ad hominins around or invest time with someone who's going to try to, you know,

make some rational points about things.

I mean, it's a no-brainer to me.

I wouldn't waste my time with those people.

Yeah, again, remember, most of the time I'm engaging in a conversation with somebody online, it's for the audience, not for them.

It's not about them, it's about people who are onlookers to the conversation, setting the record straight, especially in my own blog.

I'm not going to let propaganda drop on my own blog and not straightening it out.

And then

I also have continuously confronted, and you guys tell me what you think about this, the endless dilemma of how heavy-handed moderation you do.

Because the way I see it, it's a catch-22.

If you have light moderation, You can't have no moderation, right?

No moderation is just crazy time.

You can't do that.

But then you will just accumulate psychopaths over time, right?

You have to be able to at least get rid of the psychopaths.

But if you have light moderation, you do end up with a lot of trolls, although I would argue that troll is in the often, yes, there are some behaviors, but it's also in the eye of the beholder.

If you have heavy moderation, you end up with an echo chamber.

Then you can have a pleasant conversation only with people you agree with.

So there's some utility to allowing the trolls in.

Well,

I'm always trying to allow enough for there to be active conversation

and as long as I feel like it's being handled.

But

again, there's this big gray zone of people who are.

But it's good to practice those skills too.

Yeah.

But then again,

other commenters complain about not having more heavy-handed moderation.

Well, but you know, it's kind of a no-win scenario.

You can't satisfy it.

It's kind of a no-win scenario.

I know.

It's like they poison it for everybody.

As long as you're consistent in your policy, policy, I think, then

you set one, and that's it.

It's the way it is.

Oh, yeah.

I mean, but

there's always going to be some subjectivity in that kind of policy.

Oh, yeah.

You can't avoid that.

Oh, no.

Yeah, I'm fairly consistent.

I don't moderate science-based medicine.

Other people do that, and they're way more heavy-handed than I am neurologically.

I'm pretty light.

I've banned people on a regular basis, but it's only the worst of the worst.

I have a pretty high tolerance for people who I completely disagree with, as long as they're having a conversation.

You know what I mean?

As long as I think there's some utility to it, it's still frustrating.

It is frustrating for people to drop absolute propaganda or to be corrected on the same misinformation over and over and over again.

There's no learning curve.

It's frustrating.

But if I banned everyone who did all of those things, there would be nobody left.

You know what I mean?

There would be like three people who all agree with each other.

that's like disappointing to hear.

It's just, I know, it's unfortunate.

It's unfortunate.

And part of it also is cultivating sort of a culture by example.

That's why I think it's, you know, especially like for me, like if it's my own blog, if I let loose, then that gives everybody permission to do it, right?

In a way.

But yeah, I struggle.

I'm just saying, I struggle with where's the optimal moderation policy.

I don't think you could fix the problem of internet balls and

all the problems with social media,

with comment policy.

It's just trade-offs.

And it's like, pick your trade-off.

But

there's no solution.

There's only trade-offs, right?

There's only trade-offs.

The saying goes.

But I do think that this one is kind of a no-brainer.

It's like just police yourself as much as you can about the ad hominems.

just poisons the conversation.

It brings it down.

It doesn't accomplish anything.

And it earns you a lot of credit for that it allows you to point out the nonsense and the bad arguments and all that stuff.

Anyway, food for thought.

You guys have any other thoughts on that?

It's tough.

I mean, yeah, obviously

it's not just a problem for you.

Oh, I know.

Yeah, it's like a mass.

It's variant.

This is the problem.

Exactly.

Yeah.

It's like a mass problem.

Most people respond with an ad hominem attack.

That's just

how we go.

I'm online all the time.

arguing with people and everything.

I mean, I take what you said to heart many, many, many years ago, Steve, and that is you're going to give yourself like, you know, a minute of satisfaction typing, you know, the thing,

basically, oh, yeah, you know, getting, you know, pushing back on that person.

But if you take the high road all the time, you know, and they're the only one that is throwing insults and everything, the people who read it are going to feel that difference significantly.

The other sort of guiding principle,

it's a cliche, but it's true.

Don't mud wrestles with the pigs, right?

Because you're going to lose and they like it.

You know, you're just getting down in the mud with them.

Yeah, they like it.

So don't argue on their level.

They want you to argue on that level

because

all of the superiority of your arguments and your evidence goes away if you're arguing, if you're trading personal insults.

You've now brought yourself down to their level, basically.

That's actually a strategy that they might consciously use, if not, I think it's often

trap people?

Sure, it's a trap.

It's a trap.

Yeah, but if you keep it as let's just keep it with the on the level of evidence and logic, that's the area where we have the distinct advantage, or should, right?

All right, Evan,

you have yet another update on 3i Atlas.

What is that bad boy doing now?

This is going to be in the news until this thing makes its closest approach in October.

It leaves the solar system.

Yeah, well, that too.

So I don't know.

Is this like one of the main news items of the year?

So, science news items?

Maybe.

3E Atlas.

Is it making its own light?

That's a provocative claim that has bubbled up around 3E Atlas, which is that

newly discovered interstellar visitor now cruising through the inner solar system.

It might be emitting its own light rather than merely shining reflected sunlight.

Now, can anyone guess as to who the prime mover behind this particular claim is?

Aviloeb.

Aviloeb, of course.

Is there anyone else more invested on this planet in this object being a spacecraft?

I can't think of a single person.

And more on Avi in a minute.

And yes, his claims are at odds with the best available observations, which continue to describe 3E Atlas as an active comet whose visible glow comes from sunlight scattering off of dust and gas.

A real quick reminder of what exactly 3i Atlas is.

That is an interstellar comet, basically, that's coming on through our system.

It was discovered July 1, 2025, by the Atlas Survey Telescope in Chile, hence its name.

3i, because it's the third of these objects that has been discovered.

So 4i, 5i will someday make their appearances, but until then, 3i is what we're looking at.

It is on a strongly hyperbolic path, and that's proof that it came from outside of our solar system.

The perihelion will be October 29, 2025.

So that's why I said in October, well, what is that?

Near Halloween, right, Bob?

Yeah.

The Halloween comet.

I'm loving it.

That's cool.

They're still figuring out exactly how big this thing is.

Hubble imaging.

Hubble's been keeping track of this thing.

A few others have as well.

But they're saying it's somewhere between about half a kilometer and maybe as large as almost six kilometers in diameter.

That seems like a wide range, but I guess that's the best that they've got right now.

The Rubin Observatory has also taken images of it, and

it was analyzed as part of a commissioning study, independently verified that there is no evidence for significant non-gravitational acceleration.

In other words, this thing is not propelling itself.

It is working under the known forces of gravity and how gravity works.

So not a rocket-like push that you would otherwise perhaps see from something

that would be of alien design, shall we say.

And yeah, so multiple teams have now reported these observations.

They are consistent with an icy-dusty comet.

Water-ice features inferred in the coma, material that reflects sunlight rather than generating it.

That is where the evidence is pointing right now.

But, you know, Avi Loeb has other thoughts.

I took this, let's see, I took one paragraph from his blog from the other day that he wrote about this.

Alternatively, 3i Atlas could be a spacecraft powered by nuclear energy, and the dust emitted from its frontal surface might be from dirt that accumulated on its surface during its interstellar travel.

This cannot be ruled out, but it requires better evidence to be viable.

Interesting thought.

You know, and

why would he posit that?

And is anyone else really positing that?

I couldn't find anyone else who is suggesting that that is the likelihood or really

comes into the equation here at all.

I suppose it could be, but if you know Avi Loeb, he kind of has a predisposition again for this thing.

And so far, all the objects that have come through,

one eye, two eye, and now three eye, as being interstellar spacecraft.

Heck, he wrote a book about it.

Extraterrestrial, the first sign of intelligent life beyond Earth, published in 2021.

And yeah, so yeah, he has definitely a history of this.

But the data is showing otherwise.

And again, this is high-resolution imaging from Hubble Space Telescope, among other observations that have been made.

They're keeping a very close eye on this.

Everything is, there's no clear evidence for central condensation from the analysis.

It is classic comet behavior.

attributable to a star-like point source nucleus dominating the light is not the case.

This is definitely, definitely what you would see.

It's well within the range, well within the range of how we observe comets and the light it admits.

So I really don't know where Avi Loeb is coming up with this other than he's trying to do some retrofitting here to meet his preconceived.

Evan, my understanding is that the argument is, so it has a coma and it's glowing, but there's no tail.

If it were a comet, it should have a tail.

Therefore, it's not a comet.

Therefore, it's not a coma, and it's glowing for some other reason.

But here's the thing: it has a freaking tail.

Right, that's everything I've read.

It's a short tail, it's not a typical dramatic cometary tail, but there's one definite and another probable reason for that.

The definite one is that it's not that close to the sun yet.

Give it time.

So, the closer it gets,

the more of a tail it's developing, like a typical comet.

The second thing is, though, that it may not have the same composition as regular comets.

You know this is the first interstellar comet that we have detected.

If there's more dust on the comet on the surface then that may delay the volatiles becoming gas gaseous and forming a big dramatic tail and right now there's the short dusty tail.

But once all that dust goes away, then we'll start to see a more of a dramatic typical comet tail.

We'll see.

But again, it's all within the realm of astronomy, right?

There's no reason to go for, to reach for the alien hypothesis here unless you're, I don't know, just trying to promote yourself and sell books and get donations and stuff.

But yeah, it's just

and every prediction he's made has turned out to be wrong.

Correct.

Every time he says, oh, it's doing that, you know, it's

it has this feature.

It's bigger than it should be.

It's actually not that big.

It doesn't have a tail.

Actually, it does have a tail.

You know, everything with all these interstellar objects.

So it's not impressive.

No, not impressive.

And he has a bad track record of doing this.

You know, I brought up a news item, I think it was two years ago when

they got some of these metal spherical

collected off the floor

of the Pacific Ocean.

And Avi Loeb said, oh, yeah, that was from the

interstellar meteor that crashed, and here it was.

But

it turns out it wasn't from that because he was using data.

It was seismic data, basically suggesting that there was a loud explosion over here.

There's where the crash was.

No, what it turned out is that where the instruments had recorded that, there was a truck driving by the facility, and it recorded the rumble of the truck, not the right.

So, it's like the kind of thing.

Right, exactly.

Bad science and stuff, you know, like, you know, we've seen, what was it, in

Virginia or West Virginia, where the microwave was interfering with signals, and they thought it was alien signals, right?

So, those kinds of ideas, though, don't even come into his entire calculus

before he's making the suggesting these things.

He must certainly know about terrestrial interference on measurements and things.

He'll bring it up.

He'll pay it lip service.

But the thing is,

there's no reason at this point to even hypothesize this could be alien.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Other than to try to retrofit what he's talked about before, because he has said what the

Umumua was a

interstellar visitor

under its own propulsion of some system.

So that's basically the rehashing of this again.

So that's it.

And, you know, certainly the media likes it.

It made it to headlines everywhere.

So, which is probably why it's happening.

We'll know a lot more about it as it gets closer.

All right.

Thanks, Evan.

Jay, it's Who's That Noisy Time?

You want to do that again, huh?

I do.

All right, guys.

Last week I played This Noisy.

Yeah, so that's the thing.

Don't like it.

I'm not surprised, Kara.

Don't like that thing.

Anybody want to take a stab?

It's some kind of critter, right?

Animacule?

A living organism made those noises.

Or it's two living organisms.

Donald Duck on meth.

Somebody wrote in about Donald Duck.

Well, the first person here, the name is, they gave me their name phonetically, so I'm loading that into my head.

So it's Kiron.

Kiran Ruane.

Cool name.

I said, hi, Jay.

Greetings from Dublin.

First time guessing, this sounds like a duck laughing at a fountain.

I thought that that was a very on-the-nose guess.

Somebody did write in something about Daffy Duck.

So there is a duck noise in there.

Evil Ike wrote in and said, I don't know why, but my guess is a pissed-off

catfish.

I know they can make the sound of chewing rubber, but this guy sounds like he's being noodled.

Whatever that means.

Cooper Parrish said, Howdy, sounds like an underwater recording of a beaver to me.

Okay, so straight out of the gate, nobody won this week, and I was certain that this one was going to be easy.

Now, Carrie, you're onto something.

I know you, and you know me.

So what is it?

Oh, is it a a marine mammal?

It is.

Wow.

My dislike for the noises they make is really consistent.

Yeah, it is.

I mean, when you said that, I'm like, oh, my God.

And nobody guessed it.

I can't believe it.

I only guessed it because you said that.

I never would have thought that was a marine mammal.

Yeah, but you still didn't like it.

Exactly.

My brain knew it was a marine mammal.

From the person who sent it in, Andrew Denman, he said, apparently it's the vocalation.

Apparently,

it's the vocalization vocalization of a monk seal.

But it does kind of sound like a human in there.

And he thought it was funny.

He said, it sounds like he's saying, work, work, work, work.

So listen to it again.

It's like a chance, so it's a Gregorian monk seal.

They make lots of other noises.

But, you know, the underwater noise was there.

It has that same sound as all the other aquatic animals that, that, you know, like seals and stuff.

So, anyway, I'm surprised, but I'm not disappointed because I know how hard this game actually is.

I'm the guy, you know, coming from the guy who knows the answers every single time, like even before I listen to it, I usually know the answer.

So, anyway, good try, everybody.

Lots of fun guesses.

There was a hell of a lot of not ready for prime time guesses that people sent me that are funny, but I couldn't use for obvious reasons.

You know who you are, but still send me that stuff because I laugh.

We have a new noisy this week.

This was sent in by a listener named, and here we go.

Good luck pronouncing my name.

It's Gabor Fogarashi.

Gabor, let me know if I did good on that one.

And here it is.

I did pick that one because it has the same cadence as the previous one.

I thought that would be fun.

So if you think you know what this week's noisy is or you heard something cool, you can email me at wtn at the skepticsguide.org.

The only thing I want to tell you is if you enjoy the work that we do, if you think it's important, please consider becoming a patron to help support the work.

You can go to patreon.com forward slash skepticsguide and you can join our mailing list.

You can go to the skepticsguide.org and you can find a link.

for that there.

Thanks.

All right.

Thanks, Jay.

Gonna do a quick email.

A bunch of people wrote in about this, and I'm gonna read one example.

This comes from Simon, who says, Hi, Stephen Team.

I'm probably not the only one to point out that there are many elemental drugs apart from lithium.

While many indications are for replacement in physiological deficiency, for example, iron, these have pharmacodynamic properties used to treat a distinct disorder.

And then he lists several: magnesium and eclampsia, calcium and hemorrhage and massive transfusion, arsenic and chemo, gold and rheumatoid arthritis, silver and burns, and it's an antimicrobial, iodine and thyroid disease.

So, I hope this provides some additional information for listeners.

I use many in my work as an anesthetist, anesthesiologist in your parlance.

I guess I think he means Americans.

Kind regards.

So, yeah, so and other people wrote in with other examples.

Some, I think, of the examples that people wrote in with were straight up wrong.

Like, somebody was claiming that oxygen is a drug.

So,

it might, in some instances, be a regulatory drug.

You might have to write a prescription for it if you're using it to treat something specific.

But oxygen is not a pharmaceutical.

This is, at the end of the day, let me just say this: at the end of the day, this is about another categorization issue.

How do you categorize a drug?

What is the difference between a drug and a nutrient, or something that is just an electrolyte, or something that's physiological?

What makes it an actual pharmaceutical?

And it is actually tricky, right?

To have an operational definition that is absolutely consistent.

A couple of people mistook things, like they said, well, you know, like divalproix sodium counts because of the sodium.

It's like, well, the sodium isn't the active part, that just makes it into a salt that you could digest.

But it's the divalproix, which is the drug, right?

So the difference is it's lithium

carbonate or lithium oritate.

Lithium is the drug.

But what about I take sodium oxybate?

Yeah, so for.

That is sodium.

Yeah, what do you take it for?

Zywave.

It's my sleep medication.

Oh, yeah, yeah, but that's what, but so that's the other thing is.

Yeah, it's an oxybate of sodium.

But does

it are the properties derived from the sodium or are they derived from a new chemical structure?

It's the sodium salt of hydroxybutyric acid of GHB.

Yeah, so that is that's the

ingredient.

So this is where it all gets funny.

So, he's had arsenic, and from what I could find, the chemotherapy of arsenic is arsenic trioxide.

Is that still counted as elemental arsenic?

And, of course, the lithium is not in its elemental form, it's the salt form, but trioxylate is not the same thing.

It's just putting it into a salt so you could consume it.

It's changing the chemical properties of it.

I do think his gold example is correct.

Gold for rheumatoid arthritis, as far as I can see, it is just gold.

Different forms of gold, but at the end of the day, it's basically gold the way lithium is lithium.

What about something like, you know, I take iron, like venifer, which is just iron sucrose in my vein because I don't make enough iron, or I don't have enough iron.

Yeah, I would consider that a nutrient, right?

Yeah, but it's but it's called a drug.

It's regulated like it's a regulatory drug.

So, again, so what's a in the United States, you're a drug if you are, if you treat a disease.

That's it.

It doesn't matter what it is.

And if you make a drug-like claim for it, you're regulated like a drug, no matter what it is.

So you can't use that.

That's like the oxygen thing.

You can't use that definition

to say that this is scientifically a pharmaceutical.

So how would you describe a pharmaceutical like or how would you describe what you would consider a drug?

So again, it's hard to come up with

an ironclad operational definition, but I would include it's something that has pharmacological-like activity in the body.

It is doing something beyond its effects physiologically as just a nutrient.

It's not just a source of calories.

It's not just balancing your electrolytes.

It's not just, again, something that a vitamin or something that's a basic nutrient.

And

it is acting, it is having specific

pharmacological activity in the body.

It's binding to a receptor or something like that.

But granted, there are things things in the gray zone, 100%.

So silver for

as an as a topical antimicrobial.

Antimicrobials are interesting because they could do nothing to your body.

Their activity is against bacteria or viruses, right?

Something else.

And if it's topical, well, a lot of things could be a topical antimicrobial that aren't really drugs.

You know what I mean?

Is honey a drug if you put it on a wound in order to have antimicrobial effects?

Here's one that's, I think, solidly in the gray zone.

And again, I hate the name nutraceutical for how overused it is.

But if there's anything that I think legitimately is a nutraceutical, it's this, and that's magnesium.

So magnesium is an electrolyte, right?

You get it in food.

It's a nutrient.

It's a micronutrient.

However, if you take it in a high dose, it begins to have drug-like activity, right?

So magnesium at 400 milligrams a day can treat seizures or migraines or eclampsia or cardiac rhythm.

What's eclampsia?

It's hypertension at the end of pregnancy.

And it could also give you, it could treat constipation.

It could loosen your stools.

It could even cause diarrhea if you take too much of it.

So it's really having not just nutrient effects, but pharmacological effects in high enough doses.

Yeah.

But that's true of most nutrients, right?

In a high enough dose, it becomes a toxin, and toxins are drugs.

That's basically the same thing.

So, definitionally, it's tricky.

And there's lots of things that you could say are having

drugs from one perspective or another, but I think their primary action really is as a nutrient.

Lithium, I think, still is kind of different, you know, in that it really is just lithium that is having real straight-up pharmacological effects.

They're not nutrient, they're not radiation.

Another one, like

saying

radioactive elements, if it's that that the radioactivity, does that make it a drug?

Right?

That's interesting to think about that.

Yeah, I mean, because

it again, it totally depends.

Because I think for a lot of people, their definition of a drug is it's something that treats something.

That's a therapeutic, but is it a pharmacological agent?

So iodine is a great one because iodine is just really just a nutrient.

But if you take iodine when you're exposed to radioactivity, it could block the uptake of radioactive iodine and protect you from that.

But also, you can give people radioactive iodine to

kill their thyroid gland.

And is that a drug, or is that just a way of delivering radioactivity to a targeted location?

There's no right or wrong answer here.

It's like, how many continents are there, right?

It's like there's no necessarily objectively right or wrong answer.

But it did bring up this categorization thing yet again, where it's like, wow, it really is hard to fully, fully operationally define like a pharmaceutical.

You know what I mean?

We tend to use a little bit of wiggle room verbiage when we describe things like that.

And like it typically has this,

but we leave the room open for these edge cases, like high doses of magnesium or radioactive isotopes or whatever.

You know what I mean?

Interesting.

Okay.

Google's AI says there are seven continents on the

same.

We've had that conversation on the show before, yeah.

We'll get 12 emails.

I know.

Like, is Europe and Asia one continent or two?

Why is it two?

New Zealand, yeah?

Zealand, yeah.

Did my favorite is so when they made the Panama Canal, did they separate North America and South America into two continents?

Was it one continent before?

How thin does the land bridge have to be for it to not count as one continent?

There's no right or wrong answer here, right?

All right, let's move on with science or fiction.

It's time for science or fiction.

Each week, I come up with three science news items where facts two real and one fake, and then I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake.

Just three regular news items this week.

Y'all all ready?

Yep.

Here we go.

Item number one: astrophysicists have published exact solutions to Einstein's gravity relativity equations that allow for pre-Big Bang cosmology.

I number two, scientists observe a unique supernova that observationally confirms for the first time the layers of different elements that make up the deep internal structure of massive stars.

I number three, researchers have created a protein qubit that can function inside biological systems and potentially be used for imaging inside living cells.

Jay, go first.

Okay, Steve.

Astrophysicists, they have published exact solutions to Einstein's gravity relativity equations and that allow for pre-Big Bang cosmology.

I mean, come on.

Do I even have to read the other ones?

I don't know about you guys.

Like, that just seems utterly impossible.

That's what the cow said.

Item number two.

Scientists observe a unique supernova that observationally confirms for the first time the layers of different elements that make up the deep internal structure of massive stars.

I completely believe that one.

I think that one is science.

Researchers have created a protein qubit that can function inside biological systems and potentially be used for imaging inside living cells.

A protein qubit.

I don't understand that.

A qubit is the fundamental component of a quantum computer.

It's like a bit to a conventional computer.

They created a protein one.

That's incredible.

I don't know, Steve.

I mean, I got to go with the first one here about the astrophysicists.

I mean, how could they possibly

absolutely claim that they can do?

Nope, that one's a fiction.

I can't imagine that there's anything based on reality with that.

Okay, Bob.

Exact solutions to Einstein's gravity relativity equations.

I mean, just pre-Big Bang cosmology.

Well, that allows.

Oh, man, you're just.

Fuck.

That one might be worded in a way that allows for pre-Big Bang cosmology.

Let's see.

Bob Fry.

Bob Fry.

Two sounds reasonable.

Let me see, but even this one, you've got a supernova, a unique supernova, where you can actually see the layers, where you have enough information.

I mean, we're talking about a supernova that's...

almost certainly not in our galaxy and they're getting that level of detail but was it a um see, but even that one's tricky.

And then the third one,

really a qubit inside biology that doesn't interact with the environment in microseconds?

Where are you getting this crap?

I mean, this would decohere in moments.

It would be utterly useless.

That's why you need super exotic conditions for qubits.

You know, whether it's

typically ridiculously cold that can function inside.

Yeah, you just did some tricky bullshit here and potentially be imaging.

I mean, I'm just going to do some meta crap and just go with

the star and say that that's fiction.

I don't know what to think about any of this crap.

So

I'll say number two, the layers, that's fiction.

Because there's some tricky stuff about the other ones that just make them see that make them somewhat reasonable because they don't seem reasonable right now.

Okay, Kara.

Yeah, I'm always trying to look for like language that you're using.

Obviously, I don't really know enough here, but okay, it's pronounced qubit, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So a protein qubit that can function inside biological systems and potentially be used.

Okay, so how long is it functioning?

You know, how long does it last?

Like that, that's really left out.

So that's like, okay, maybe that's possible.

The first time is interesting in the supernova one.

So scientists observe a unique supernova that observationally confirms, okay, so there's an observation there that affirms for the first time the layers of different elements that make up the deep internal structure of massive stars.

That sounds like something we absolutely wouldn't be able to do.

I would think that we need, like, that this is all inference.

And then I have no...

My take, okay, astrophysicists have published exact solutions to Einstein's gravity relativity equations.

What is an exact solution to an equation?

I don't even know what that means, but my guess is that that's like a real thing in physics.

Like an exact solution is something, and that if they did an exact solution, it doesn't mean they have, that they solved a grand unified theory.

It means that they have some sort of solution.

So I think I'm going to go with Bob on this because it feels like that, the observational confirmation for the very first time seems harder to achieve.

Okay, and Evan.

A qubit was the length of measurement for Noah's Ark.

So therefore, that

protein qubits must be the fiction.

No.

I will just jump right to it.

I'm going to join and lock arms with Jay.

And I have a feeling that, yeah, exact solutions, I think exact could be the operative, the key word here about that.

And

it almost sounds how this is written, Steve, that if this were to have happened, this could have been some kind of enormous news in science.

And I don't know.

I haven't seen it cross my desk.

And so, therefore, I'll use that personal bias to declare that it is fiction.

All right, so even split.

So, you all agree on the third one, on the qubit one.

Researchers create a protein, created a protein qubit that could function inside biological systems and potentially be used for imaging inside inside living cells.

You all agree that this one is science, and this one is

science.

It is science.

Oh my god.

This is a fluorescent protein spin qubit.

Okay.

Yeah, so spin qubit.

Yeah, it's made.

It's a protein.

So the part of it that is qubit.

That is the qubit.

And superposition makes it superposition here.

Is the spin of electrons in one particular part of the protein?

So, another way that they've done this spin qubits before is to have the voids inside these nitrogen vacancy centers in diamonds.

That's another spin qubit material, right?

So, the reason why they were using fluorescent proteins is because they're genetically encodable, right?

And they could be used in biological systems.

So, this could be potentially used to make a quantum sensor,

and it functions at room temperature, right?

And that therefore they could use optically detected magnetic resonance in order to image even inside living cells, potentially.

So yeah, this is the thing.

This is, again, this is the basic science.

They made the protein and they showed that it functions as a spin qubit.

The applications are to be determined, right?

That's down the road.

But yeah, that's it.

I don't know enough about those spin qubits, I guess.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I had to do, I had to spend some time trying to figure out the basics of not that I fully understand, just to say what I said.

All right, let's go back to number one.

Astrophysicists have published exact solutions to Einstein's gravity relativity equations that allow for pre-Big Bang cosmology.

Jay and Evan think this one is the fiction.

Bob and Kara think this one is science.

And this one is.

Now, what do you think I mean by pre-Big Bang cosmology specifically?

I didn't even get that.

You forget that.

Cosmology that goes beyond the observable.

It just means that they could think about,

they could pose questions about what came before the Big Bang, and they have

some basis.

They have some basis of asking

whether or not one or another

thing is viable or consistent with

that.

So, what happened before there was time?

How does that work?

So

this one

is

the fiction

But not necessarily finally not necessarily for the reason that you think Evan actually

pretty much hit the nail on the head

because they did come up with they did publish a paper looking at Einstein's gravity equations.

They didn't come up with an exact solution.

They came up with a numerical solution which means that it's just they basically use what's called numerical relativism.

So instead, they just use simulations to brute force like what the answers could be, not solving the equations themselves.

Does that make sense?

And they said, with this, you can

address questions about

big cosmological questions, such as

what happened before the Big Bang?

What's the ultimate fate of the universe?

Are we going to come up, is there going to be a big rip?

All these kinds of things.

They said, yeah, if you just forget about trying to solve the equations, because that's why physicists have been focusing on trying to come up with specific, exact

solutions to general relativistic equations.

You know, to come up with the quantum loop gravity or whatever, whatever, these ultimate unifying solutions

to quantum gravity, basically.

They said, forget that.

We're just going to come up with probabilistic ones based upon simulations and then use those to test.

How helpful could that possibly be?

Steve, aren't there certain questions that immediately turn into a blue screen of death?

I mean,

this is one of them.

You can't even begin to ask that question.

You can, because even though the universe began with the Big Bang, you could ask, all right, from what happened

within tiny fractions of time after the Big Bang, does that tell us anything about maybe what happened before the Big Bang?

It isn't necessarily this absolute

stopping point.

What's on the other side of dividing the universe by zero?

Right, but that's the equation part of it, right?

That's where we...

You can't.

Yeah, but you've got to go through that.

You got to go through it,

man.

That's the point.

They solve that problem by not trying to come up with solutions to the equation itself.

So they're pulling a data move of not trying to win, but just trying not to win.

Basically, I guess, you could put it that way.

But again, this is the fiction.

I don't have to endorse any of this.

I'm just telling you, this is where I got it from.

I have one question, though, Steve.

If it were science, if there were an exact solution, would that not be a normal thing?

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

The part that Bob is saying is correct.

We don't have exact solutions because they don't work.

That's the problem.

Right.

And there won't be a European.

Unless we come up with a deeper equation,

the quantum gravity, basically.

All right.

Which means

a unique supernova that observationally confirms for the first time the layers of different elements that make up the deep internal structure of massive stars.

Now, what am I talking about here?

So, you know,

stars begin their life as mostly hydrogen, and as they fuse that hydrogen into helium, helium collects at the core until

so much of it collects that there isn't enough heat and pressure to fuse more hydrogen.

The star collapses until the helium gets so hot and dense that it starts fusing into even heavier elements.

And then that cycle goes through again until each successive time the heavier element at the core of the star starts to fuse into still more heavier elements.

And the bigger, the more massive the star, the farther you can go until the most massive stars can fuse down to what?

What's the stopping point?

Lead.

Iron.

Iron.

Because iron,

it costs energy to fizz or fuse, right?

That's sort of the bottom of the trough.

So you can't get any energy out of it nuclear-wise.

And so that's it.

So you end up with this: it's the theory, right?

So you have this layer, you know, the massive stars will have this onion-layer structure where you have hydrogen, then helium, then lithium, then whatever, then heavier.

Yeah, then all the way down to iron.

But the thing is, we've never observed this.

This is just theory.

Wow, so that's

directly observed it.

We have observed.

Now, in a supernova, right, when a star blows out its outer layers,

we can see the inner layers, but we can only see a couple of layers deep.

We've never gotten to the deep internal layers of the most massive stars until this most recent supernova, which had the deeper layer.

When it exploded, we were seeing, oh my god, there's the deeper layers.

So, how did that happen?

So, they're not sure, but it seems as if before it went supernova, something happened to cause it to shed its outer layers.

So

when it did go supernova, it was already stripped down to silicon and sulfur.

And those are the ones that we could see when

it blew those layers away, right?

Did that make sense?

So it was just we happened to catch a supernova of a stripped-down star that had the inner layers exposed.

And that allowed us to visually confirm, like, yep, those are the layers.

When you get a star that big, it will have those layers on the inside.

And specifically, it was silicon and sulfur.

So, cool.

Spectroscopy.

But they were looking at it after it already blew.

So, they're pulling this information out of an exploding star.

So, yeah, that's really cool.

Do you know what they were using for that, Steve?

They used spectra photometry.

The Lick Observatory and the Keck Observatory.

Oh, the Keck.

That's the one in Hawaii, right?

The European Southern Observatory.

So they had multiple observatories collecting data.

I didn't realize that we didn't really have any observational confirmation of that, you know, that notion.

Pretty cool.

Yeah, but if they could detect all those layers after the explosion, why can't they detect those layers with a regular observation?

I guess because they don't get blown away because they just collapse, I guess, into the core.

You lose the outer layers.

So that's the thing.

They didn't know if these inner layers could themselves explode into a supernova, but apparently they can.

Oh, yeah, that makes sense.

But they

didn't know that before.

Can we get back to the fact that me and Evan were...

Yeah, you guys did it.

Good job.

Thanks for leading the way, Jay.

I appreciate it.

I thought you might be a solo win this week, Jay, but Evan joins you.

No, I'm happy to be joined.

These were three hard items this week.

Very, very tough.

They were effing ridiculous.

Yeah, but you guys have been kicking my ass this year, so that's what you get.

Give me a break.

Yeah.

All right, Evan.

You're welcome.

Here's the quote.

I should have just totally gone with the pre-Big Bang bullshit.

That's That's what should have made me pick that.

He's going to be talking about that.

Yeah, that's all that.

That makes your brain kind of go

right off the side.

Yeah, no way.

But,

see,

Steve is evil.

I can hear him chuckling.

This is really going to get Bob.

I don't target you specifically, Bob.

Oh, it's just a

bit of a bad thing.

I thought that way.

All right.

Here's this week's quote: I'm going to get Bob.

Steve Novella.

No.

The human understanding is unquiet.

It cannot stop or rest, and still presses onward, but in vain.

Therefore, it is that we cannot conceive of any end or limit to the world, but as always, as of necessity, it occurs to us that there is something beyond.

That was written by Francis Bacon,

very, very early scientists.

He was pretty awesome.

English philosopher, born in 1561, he died in 1626.

Essayist who is considered a founder of modern scientific thought.

There's always something we don't know.

What a legacy.

Right.

And you keep going, and it's unquiet.

You never rest.

You never stop.

That's the nature.

We have to keep going.

We always learn.

There's always, always, 100% of the time, more to learn.

What that comedian or Brian or something, he said, if science knew everything, it would stop.

Right.

Science was wrong because it got this wrong.

No, it evolved and added to its body of knowledge.

How often have we heard that throughout our lives?

They used to think X, now they think Y.

Yeah, that's what happens when you gather new information.

What do you do?

Yeah, right.

Welcome to reality.

Doggedly stick with your old beliefs no matter what, I guess.

All right, well, thank you guys for joining me this week.

Of course.

Thanks, Steve.

And until next week, this is your Skeptic's Guide to the Universe.

Skeptic's Guide to the Universe is produced by SGU Productions, dedicated to promoting science and critical thinking.

For more information, visit us at the skepticsguide.org.

Send your questions to info at the skepticsguide.org.

And if you would like to support the show and all the work that we do, go to patreon.com/slash skepticsguide and consider becoming a patron and becoming part of the SGU community.

Our listeners and supporters are what make SGU possible.