The following is a conversation with Clara Sousa Silva, a quantum astrochemist at Harvard,

specializing in spectroscopy of gases that serve as possible signs of life on other planets,

most especially the gas phosphine. She was a coauthor of the paper that in 2020

found that there is phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus and thus possible extraterrestrial life

that lives in its atmosphere. The detection of phosphine was challenged, reaffirmed, and is now

still under active research. Quick mention of our sponsors, Onit, Grammarly, Blinkist, and Indeed.

Check them out in the description to support this podcast. As a side note, let me say that I think

the search for life on other planets is one of the most important endeavors in science. If we

find extraterrestrial life and study it, we may find insights into the mechanisms that originated

life here on Earth, and more than life, the mechanisms that originated intelligence and

consciousness. If we understand these mechanisms, we can build them. But more than this, the discovery

of life on other planets means that our galaxy and our universe is teeming with life. This is

humbling and terrifying, but it is also exciting. We humans are natural explorers. For most of our

history, we explored the surface of the Earth and the contents of our minds. But now, with space

faring vessels, we have a chance to explore life beyond Earth, their physics, their biology, and

perhaps the contents of their minds. This is the Lux Friedman podcast, and here is my conversation

with Clara Sousa Silva. Since you're the world expert in, well, in many things, but one of them

is Phosphine, would it technically be correct to call you the Queen of Phosphine? I go for Dr.

Phosphine. Queen is an inherited title, I feel. Yeah. But you still rule by love and power, so,

but while having the doctor title. Yeah, kindness. Kindness, kindness. In September 2020,

you coauthored a paper announcing possible presence of Phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus,

and that it may be a signature of extraterrestrial life.

Big maybe. Big maybe. There was some pushback, of course, from the scientific community that

followed, friendly, loving pushback. Then in January, another paper from University of Wisconsin,

I believe, confirmed the finding. Where do we stand in this saga, in this mystery of what the

heck is going on on Venus in terms of Phosphine and in terms of aliens? Let's try to break it down.

The short answer is we don't know. I think you and the rest of the public are now witnessing

pretty exciting discovery, but as it evolves, as it unfolds, we did not wait until we had

years of data from 10 different instruments across several layers of the atmosphere. We waited until

we had two telescopes with independent data months apart. But still, the data is weak,

it's noisy, it's delicate, it's very much at the edge of instrument sensibility, sensitivity.

We still don't even know if it is Phosphine. We don't even really know if the signal is real.

People still disagree about that. I think at the most morphological end of how this happened,

I think it is a distinction, and myself and other coauthors were talking about this. It's a

distinction between hypotheses generation and hypotheses testing. Now, hypothesis testing

is something that I think is the backbone of the scientific method, but it has a problem, which is

if you're looking through very noisy data and you want to test the hypotheses,

you may, by mistake, create a superior signal. The safest, more conservative approach is hypothesis

generation. You see some data and you go, what's in there? With no bias. Now, this is much safer,

much more conservative, and when there's a lot of data, that's great. When there isn't, you can

clean the noise and take out the signal with it, the signal with a bathwater, whatever the equivalent

of the analogy would be. And so I think the healthy discourse that you described is exactly this.

There are ways of processing the data completely legitimate ways, checked by multiple people and

experts where the signal shows up, and then phosphine is in the atmosphere of Venus,

and somewhere it doesn't. And then we disagree what that signal means. If it's real, and it is

an ambiguously phosphine, it is very exciting because we don't know how to explain it without life,

but going from there to venusians is still a huge jump.

So that would be the title for the civilization if it is a living and thriving on Venus's venusians.

Until we know what they call themselves. That's the name, yes.

So this is the early analysis of early data. It was nevertheless,

you waited until the actual peer reviewed publication?

Of course. And analysis of the two different instruments months apart. So that's Alma and

JCMT, the two telescopes. I mean, it's still, I mean, it's really exciting. What did it feel like

sort of sitting on this data, like kind of anticipating the publication and wondering,

and still wondering, is it true? How does it make you feel that a planet in our solar system

might have phosphine in the atmosphere? It's nuts. It's absolutely nuts.

In the best possible way. I've been working on phosphine for over a decade.

Before it was cool. Before it was cool. Before anyone could spell it or heard of it. And at the

time, people either didn't know what phosphine was or only knew it for being just possibly the most

horrendous molecule that ever graced the earth. And so no one was a fan. And I'd been considering

looking for it because I did think it was an unusual and disgusting, but very promising sign

of life. I've been looking for it everywhere. I really didn't think to look in the solar system.

I thought it was all pretty rough around here for life. And so I wasn't even considering

the solar system at all and never my next door of Venus. It was only the lead author of the study,

Jane Greaves, who thought to look in the clouds of Venus and then reached out to me to say,

I don't know phosphine, but I know it's weird. How weird is it? And the answer is very weird.

And so the telescopes we're looking at, this is visual data.

That's what you mean by visual. You wouldn't see the phosphine.

Well, but I mean, it's a telescope. It's remote. It's remote. You're observing,

you're zooming in on this particular planet. I mean, what does the sensor actually look like?

How many pixels are there? What does the data kind of look like? It'd be nice to kind of

build up intuition of how little data we have based on which. I mean, if you look at like,

I've just been reading a lot about gravitational waves and it's kind of incredible how from just

very little, like probably the world's most precise instrument, we can derive some very

foundational ideas about our early universe. And in that same way, it's kind of incredible

how much data, how much information you can get from just a few pixels. So what are we talking

about here in terms of based on which this paper saw possible signs of phosphine in the atmosphere?

So phosphine like every other molecule has a unique spectroscopic fingerprint,

meaning it rotates and vibrates in special ways. I calculated how many of those ways it can

rotate and vibrate to the 16.8 billion ways. What this means is that if you look at the spectrum of

light and that light has gone through phosphine gas on the other end, there should be 16.8 billion

tiny marks left, indentations left in that spectrum. We found one of those on Venus,

one of those 16.8 billion. So now the game is, can we find any of the other ones?

But they're really hard to spot. They're all in terrible places in the electromagnetic spectrum

and the instruments we use to find this one can't really find any other one. There's another one of

the 16.8 billion we could find, but it would take many, many days of continuous observations.

And that's not really in the cards right now. I mean, how do you, there's all kinds of noise,

first of all. There's all kinds of other signal. So how do you separate all of that out to pull

out just this particular signature that's associated with phosphine?

So the data kind of looks somewhat like a wave and a lot of that is noise and it's a baseline.

And so if you can figure out the exact shape of the wave, you can cancel that shape out and you

should be left with a straight line and if there's something there, an absorption, so a signal.

So that's what we did. We tried to find out what was this baseline shape,

cleaned it out and got the signal. That's part of the problem. If you do this wrong,

you can create a signal. But that signal is at 8.904 wave numbers and we actually have more digits

than that, but I don't remember by heart. And ALMA in particular is a very, very good telescope,

array of telescopes and it can focus on exactly that frequency. And in that frequency, there are

only two known molecules that absorb at all. So that's how we do it. We look at that exact spot

where we know phosphine absorbs. The other molecule is SO2.

If there is extraterrestrial life, whether it's on Venus or on exoplanets where you looked before,

how does that make you feel? How should it make us feel? Should we be scared? Should we be excited?

Let's say it's not intelligent life. Let's say it's microbial life. Is there a threat to us?

Are we a threat to it? Or is it only, not only, but mostly a possibility to understand something

fundamental, something beautiful about life in the universe?

Hard to know. You would have to bring on a poet or a philosopher on the show.

So I feel those things. I just don't know if those are the right things to feel.

I certainly don't feel scared. I think it's rather silly to feel scared. Definitely don't

touch them sometimes in the movies. Don't go near it. Don't interfere. I think one of the things

with Venus is because of phosphine, now there is a chance that Venus is inhabited. In that case,

we shouldn't go there. We should be very careful with messing with them, bringing our own stuff

there that contaminates it. Venus has suffered enough. If there's life there, it's probably the

remains of a living planet, the very last survivors of what once was potentially a thriving world.

And so I don't want our first interaction with alien life to be massacre. So I definitely wouldn't

want to go near out of a, let's say, galactic responsibility, galactic ethics. And I often

think of alien astronomers watching us and how disappointed they would be if we messed this

up. So I really want to be very careful with anything that could be life. But certainly,

I wouldn't be scared. Humans are plenty capable of killing one another. We don't need extraterrestrial

help to destroy ourselves. Scared mostly of other humans. Exactly. But this life, if there

is life there, it does seem just like you said, it would be pretty rugged. It's like the cockroaches

or Chuck Norris, I don't know. It's something that survived through some very difficult conditions.

That doesn't mean it would handle us. It could be like war of the worlds.

You come just because you're resilient in your own planet doesn't mean you can survive another.

Even our extremophiles, which are very impressive, we should all be very proud of our extremophiles,

they wouldn't really make it in the Venusian clouds. So I wouldn't expect, because you're tough,

even Chuck Norris tough, that you would survive on a alien planet.

And then from the scientific perspective, you don't want to pollute the data gathering process,

but it should be showing up there. The observer can affect the observed.

How heartbreaking would it be if we found life on another planet and then we're like,

oh, we brought it with us. So this is my sandwich.

But that's always the problem, right? And it's certainly a problem with Mars,

because we visited that if there is life on Mars or like remains of life on Mars,

it's always going to be a question of like, well, maybe we planted it there.

Let's not do the same with Venus. It's harder because when we try to go to Venus,

and things melt very quickly. And so it's a little harder to pollute Venus.

It's very good at destroying foreigners.

Yeah. Well, in terms of Elon Musk and terraforming planets, Mars is stop number one,

and Venus maybe after that. So can we talk about Phosphine a little bit?

Love Phosphine.

Love Phosphine.

What's your Twitter handle that's like Dr. Phosphine?

It's Dr. Phosphine, yes. You'll be surprised here. It wasn't taken already. I could just,

I just grabbed it. Didn't have to buy it off anyone.

Yeah. So what is it? What's Phosphine? You already mentioned it's pretty toxic and

troublesome. And outside, troublesome, sorry.

No, I love it. I'm going to start calling it troublesome.

So maybe what are some things that make it interesting chemically, and why is it a good sign

of life when it's present in the atmosphere? Like you've described in your paper aptly titled

the Phosphine as a biosignature gas in exoplanet atmospheres. I suppose you wrote that paper

before Venus.

I did. Yes, I did. And no one cared. In that paper, I said something like,

if we find Phosphine on any terrestrial planet, it can only mean life. And I was like,

yeah, that sounds about right. Let's go. And then Venus shows up and I was like,

are you sure? I was sure before I was sure. Now that it's right here, I'm less sure

now that my claims are being tested. So Phosphine. Phosphine is a fascinating molecule. So it's

shaped like a pyramid with a phosphorus up top and then three hydrogens. It's actually quite a

simple molecule in many ways. It's the most popular elements in the universe, carbon, hydrogen,

nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur. When you add hydrogen to them, it makes quite simple,

quite famous molecules. You do it to oxygen, you get water. You do it to carbon, you get methane.

You do it to nitrogen, you get ammonia. These are all molecules people have heard of.

But you do it to phosphorus, you get Phosphine. People haven't heard of Phosphine because

it's not really popular on Earth. We really shouldn't find it anywhere on Earth because

it is extremely toxic to life. It interacts with oxygen metabolism and everything you know

and love uses oxygen metabolism. And it interacts fatally, so it kills in several very imaginative

and very macabre ways. So it was used as a chemical warfare agent in the First World War and most

recently by ISIS. So really bad. Most life avoids it. Even life that might not avoid it, so life that

doesn't use oxygen metabolism, anaerobic life, still has to put crazy amounts of effort into

making it. It's a really difficult molecule to make thermodynamically speaking. It's really

difficult to make that phosphorus want to be together with that hydrogen. So it's horrible.

Everyone avoids it. When they're not avoiding it, it's extremely difficult to make. You would

have to put energy in, sacrifice energy to make it. And if you did go through all that trouble

and made it, it gets reacted with the radicals in the atmosphere and gets destroyed. So we

shouldn't find it anywhere and yet we do. It's this kind of weird molecule that seems to

be made by life and we don't even know why. Life clearly finds a use for it. It's not the only

molecule that life is willing to sacrifice energy to make, but we don't know how or why life is

even making it. So absolutely mysterious, absolutely deadly, smells horrifically when it's

made. It produces other kind of diphosphines and it's been reported as smelling like garlicky

fishy death. Once someone referred to it as smelling like the, let me see if I remember,

the rancid diapers of the spawn of Satan. Oh, very nice. Yeah, very, very vivid.

And so you're a poet after all. I didn't call that someone else did. And so it's just this

horrific molecule, but it is produced by life. We don't know why. And when it is produced by life

is done with enormous sacrifice and the universe does not sacrifice. Life sacrifices. And so it's

this strange contradictory molecule that we should all be avoiding and yet seems to be an almost

unambiguous sign of life on rocky planets. Okay. Can we dig into that a little bit? So on rocky

planets, what, is there biological mechanisms that can produce it? And is there, you said that

why is unclear? Why life might produce it? But is there an understanding of what kind of mechanisms

might be able to produce it? This very difficult to produce molecule? We don't know yet. The enzymatic

pathways of phosphine production by life are not yet known. This is not actually as surprising

as it might sound. I think something like 80% of all the natural products that we know of,

so we know biology makes them. We don't know how. It is much easier to know life produces

something because you can put bacteria in a Petri dish and then watch and then that gas is produced

to go, oh, life made it. That actually happened with phosphine. But that's much easier to do,

of course, than figuring out what is the exact metabolic pathway within that life form that

created this molecule. So we don't know yet. Phosphine is really understudied. No one had

really heard of it until nowish. What you were presenting is the fact that life produces

phosphine, not the process by which it produces phosphine. Is there an urgency now? If you were

to try to understand the mechanisms, the enzymatic pathways that produce phosphine, how difficult

is that of a problem to crack? It's really difficult. If I'm not mistaken, even the scent of truffles,

obviously a billion dollar industry, huge deal. Until quite recently, it wasn't known exactly

how those scents, those molecules that create this incredible smell were produced. This is

a billion dollar industry. As you can imagine, there is no such pressure. There's no phosphine

lobby or anything that would push for this research. But I hope someone picks it up and

does it. And it isn't crazy because we know that phosphine is really hard to make. We know it's

really hard for it to happen accidentally, even lightning and volcanoes that can produce small

amounts of phosphine. It's extremely difficult for even these extreme processes to make it.

So it's not really surprising that only life can do it because life is willing to make things

at a cost. So maybe on the topic of phosphine, again, you've gotten yourself into trouble that

I'm going to ask all these high level poetic questions. I apologize. No, I would love it.

Okay. When did you first fall in love with phosphine? It wasn't love at first sight. It was

somewhere between a long relationship and Stockholm syndrome. When I first started by PhD,

I knew I wanted to learn about molecular spectra and how to simulate it. I thought it was really

outrageous that we as a species couldn't detect molecules remotely. We didn't have this perfect

catalog ready of the molecular fingerprint of every molecule we may want to find in the universe.

And something as basic as phosphine, the fact that we didn't really know how it interacted with light

and so we couldn't detect it properly in the galaxy, just I was so indignant. And so initially,

I just started working on phosphine because people hadn't before and I thought we should

know what phosphine looks like. And that was it. And then I read every paper that's ever been

published about phosphine. It was quite easy because there aren't that many. And that's when I

started learning about where we had already found it in the universe and what it meant.

I started finding out quite how little we know about it and why. And it was only when I joined

MIT and I started talking to biochemists that it became clear that phosphine wasn't just weird

and special and understudied and disgusting. It was all these things for oxygen loving life.

And it was the anaerobic world that would welcome phosphine. And that's when the idea of

looking for it on other planets became crystallized because oxygen is very powerful and very important

on Earth. But that's not necessarily going to be the case on other exoplanets. Most planets are

oxygen pole. Overwhelmingly, most planets are oxygen pole. And so finding the sign of life

that would be welcomed by everything that would live without oxygen on Earth seemed so cool.

And but ultimately, the project at first was born out of the idea that you want to find that

molecular fingerprint of any of a molecule. And this is just one example. And that's connected

to then looking for that fingerprint elsewhere in a remote way. And obviously that then

at that time where exoplanets already, when you were doing your PhD, and by the way,

should say your PhD thesis was on phosphine. It was all on phosphine, 100% on phosphine.

With a little bit of ammonia, I have a chapter that I did where I talked about

phosphine and ammonia. But no, phosphine was very much my thesis.

But at that time, when you're writing it, there's already a sense that exoplanets are out there.

And we might be able to be looking for biosignatures on those exoplanets.

Pretty much. So I finished my PhD in 2015. We found the first exoplanets in the kind

of mid to late 90s. So exoplanets were known. It was known that some had atmospheres.

And from there, it's not a big jump to think, well, if some have atmospheres,

some of those might be habitable. And some of those may be inhabited.

So how do you detect, you started to talk about it, but can we linger on it? How do you detect

phosphine on a faraway thing, rocky thing, rocky planet? What is spectroscopy?

What is this molecular fingerprint? What does it look like? You've kind of mentioned a wave,

but what are we supposed to think about? What are the tools? What are the uncertainties?

All those kinds of things. So the path can go this way. You've got light,

kind of pure light. You can crack that light open with a prism or a spectroscope or water

and make a rainbow. That rainbow is all the colors and all the invisible colors,

the ultraviolet, the infrared. And if that light was truly pure, you could consider that rainbow

to just cover continuously all of these colors. But if that light goes through a gas, we may not

see that gas. We certainly cannot see the molecules within that gas. But those molecules will steal,

absorb some of that light, some, but not all. Each molecule absorbs only very specific colors of

that rainbow. And so if you know, for example, that shade of green can only be absorbed by methane,

then you can watch. As a planet passes in front of a star, the planet's too far away,

you can't see it. And it has an atmosphere. That atmosphere is far too small, you definitely

can't see it. But the sunlight will go through that atmosphere. And if that atmosphere is methane,

then on the other side, that shade of blue, I can't remember if I said blue or green,

for that color will be missing because methane took it. And so with phosphine, it's the same thing.

It has specific colors, 16.8 billion colors, that it absorbs it and nothing else does.

And so if you can find them and notice them missing from the light of a star that went

through a planet's atmosphere, then you'll know that atmosphere contains their molecule. How cool

is that? That's incredible. So you can have this fingerprint within the space of colors,

and there's a lot of molecules. And I mean, I wonder, that's a question of how much overlap

there is. How close can you get to the actual fingerprint? Can phosphine unlock the iPhone

with its lights on? It says 16.8 billion. So presumably this rainbow is discretized into

little segments somehow. How many total are there? How a lot is 16.8 billion?

It's a lot. We don't have the instruments to break these, break any light into this many

tiny segments. And so with the instruments we do have, there's huge amounts of overlap.

Methane is an example. A lot of the ways it's detectable is because the carbon and the hydrogens,

they vibrate with one another, they move, they interact. But every other hydrocarbon,

acetylene, isoprene, has carbon and hydrogens, also vibrating and rotating. And so it's actually

very hard to tell them apart at low resolutions. And our instruments can't really cope with

distinguishing between molecules particularly well. But in an ideal world, if we had infinite

resolution, then yes, every molecule's spectral features will be unique.

Yeah, almost too unique. It would be too trivial.

At the quantum level, they're unique. At our level, there's huge overlap.

Yeah. But then you can start to then try to disambiguate the fact that certain

colors are missing. What does that mean? And hopefully, they're missing in a certain kind

of pattern where you can say, was some kind of probability that it's this gas, not this gas.

So you're solving that gaseous puzzle. I got it. Okay.

We can go back to Venus actually and show that. So with this, I mentioned those two molecules

that could be responsible for that signal, the resolution that we have. It was phosphine and

SO2, sulfur dioxide. And that resolution could really be one of the other. But in that same

bandwidth, so in kind of the same observations, there was another region where phosphine does

not absorb. We know that. But SO2 does. So we just went unchecked and there was no signal.

So we thought, oh, then it must be phosphine. And then we submitted the paper.

The rest is history. I got it. Well, yeah, that's beautifully told.

Is there, so the telescopes we're talking about are sitting on Earth. What can it help solving

this fingerprint molecular fingerprint problem if we do a flyby? Does it help if you get closer

and closer? Or are telescopes pretty damn good for this kind of puzzle solving?

Telescopes are pretty good, but the Earth's atmosphere is a pain. I mean, I'm very thankful

for it. But it does interrupt a lot of measurements and a lot of regions where

phosphine would be active. They are not available. The Earth is not transparent in those wavelengths.

So being above the atmosphere would make a huge difference. Then proximity matters a lot less.

But just escaping the Earth's atmosphere would be wonderful. But then it's really hard to stay

very stable. And if there is phosphine on Venus, there's very little of it in the clouds. And so

the signal is very weak. And the telescopes we can use on Earth are much bigger and much more

stable. So it's a bit of a trade off. So is it, are you comfortable with this kind of remote

observation? Is it at all helpful to strive for going over to Venus and like grabbing a scoop

of the atmosphere? Or is remote observation really a powerful tool for this kind of job?

Like the scoop is not necessary? Well, a lot of people want to scoop. I get it.

I get it completely. That's my natural inclination, yeah.

I don't want to scoop specifically because if it is life, I want to know everything I can

and remotely before I interfere. So that's my, I've got ethical reasons against the scoop,

more than engineering reasons against the scoop. But I have some engineering

reasons against the scoop. Scoop is not a technical term, but I feel like now it's too late.

Thank you for going along with this. It's too late to take it back.

I appreciate it.

We don't understand the clouds well enough to plan the scoop very well.

Because it's not that saturated, like there's not that much of it present.

No, and the place is nasty. It's not going to be easy to build something that can do the task

reliably and can be trusted. The measurements can be trusted and then pass that message on.

So actually, I'm for an orbiter. I think we should have orbiters around every solar system body,

whose job is just to learn about these places. I'm disappointed we haven't already got an orbiter

around every single one of them. It's small. It can be a small satellite,

splitting data, figuring out, you know, how do the clouds move? What's in them?

How often is there lightning and volcanic activity? Where's the topography? Is it changing?

Is there a biosphere actively doing things? We should be monitoring this from afar.

And so I'm for over the atmosphere, hopefully around Venus. That would be my choice.

Okay. So now recently, Venus is all exciting about phosphine and everything. Is there other stuff

maybe before we were looking at Venus or now looking out into other solar systems? Is there

other promising exoplanets or other planets within the solar system that might have phosphine

or might have other strong biosignatures that we should be looking for like phosphine?

There's a few, but outside the solar system, all our promising candidates, we know so little

about them. For most of them, we barely know their density. Most of them, we don't even know if they

have an atmosphere. Never mind what that atmosphere might contain. So we're still very much at the

stage where we have detected promising planets, but they're promising in that they're about the

right size, about the right density, they could have an atmosphere, and they're about the right

distance from their host star. But that's really all we know. Near future telescopes will tell us

much more, but for now, we're just guessing. So you said near future. So there's hope that

there'll be telescopes that can see that far enough to determine if there's an atmosphere and

perhaps even the contents of that atmosphere? Absolutely. JWST, launching later this year,

will be able to get a very rough sense of the main atmospheric constituents of planets

that could potentially be habitable. And that's this year. What's the name? JWST, the James Webb

Space Telescope. Okay. And that's going to be out in space past the atmosphere? Yes. Is there

something interesting to be said about the engineering aspect of the telescope?

That's an incredible beast, but it's a beast of many burdens. So what it's going to do,

it's good. See, you are a poet. You're, yeah, I love it. This is very eloquent. You're speaking

to the audience, which I appreciate. So yeah, so it's a giant engineering project. And

is it orbiting something? Do you know? So it's going to be above the atmosphere. And it will be

doing lots of different astrophysics. And so some of its time will be dedicated to exoplanets.

But there's an entire astronomy field fighting for time before the cryogenic lifetime of the

instrument. And so when I was looking for the possibility of finding phosphine on distant

exoplanets, I used JWST as a way of checking with this instrument that we will launch later this

year. Could we detect phosphine on an oxygen poor planet? And there I put very much a hard stop where

some of my simulations said, yes, you can totally do it, but it will take a little under the cryogenic

lifetime of this machine. So then I had to go, well, that's not going to, no one's going to

dedicate all of JWST to look for my molecule that no one cared about. So we're very much at that edge.

But there'll be many other telescopes in the coming decades that will be able to tell us

quite a lot about the atmospheres of potentially habitable planets.

So you mentioned a simulation. This is super interesting to me. And this perhaps could be

a super dumb question, but I'm going to prove you wrong on that one. You simulate molecules to

understand how they look from a distance is what I understand. Like, what does that simulation

look like? So it's talking about which colors that the rainbow will be missing. Is that the

goal of the simulation? That's a goal, but it's really just a very, very nasty Schrodinger's

equation. So it's a quantum simulation. Also, it's simulating at the quantum level.

Yes. So I'm a quantum astrochemist. Hi, I'm Clara. I'm a quantum astrochemist.

That's how we should have started this conversation. Can you describe the three components of that

quantum astro and chemist and how they interplay together?

So I study the quantum behavior of molecules, hence the quantum and the chemist,

specifically so I can detect them in space and see astro. So what I do is I figure out the

probability of a molecule being in a particular state. There's no deterministic nature to the

work I do. So every transition is just a likelihood. But if you get a population of that molecule,

it will always happen. And so this is all of the quantum level. It's a Schrodinger equation on,

I think, 27 dimensions. I don't remember it by heart. And what this means is I'm solving these

giant quantum matrices. And that's why you need a lot of computer power, giant computers,

to diagonalize these enormous matrices, each of whom describes a single vibrational behavior of

a molecule. So I think phosphine has 17.5 million possible states it can exist in.

And transitions can occur between pairs of these states. And there's a certain likelihood that

they'll happen. This is the quantum world. Nothing is deterministic. There's just a likelihood

that it'll jump from one state to another. And these jumps, they're transitions,

and there's 16.8 billion of them. When energy is absorbed, that corresponds to this transition,

we see it in the spectrum. This is more quantum chemistry than you had asked for, I'm sorry.

No, no, I'm sorry. Brain's broken. So when the transitions happen between the different states,

somehow the energy maps the spectrum. Exactly. Energy corresponds to a frequency,

and a frequency corresponds to a wavelength, which corresponds to a color.

So there's some probability assigned to each color then?

Exactly. And that probability determines how intense that transition will be, how strong.

And so you run this kind of simulation for particular, so that's 17.5 square or something

like that. Exactly. 17.5 million energies, each one of whom involves diagonalizing a giant matrix

with a supercomputer. Which I wonder what the most efficient algorithm for diagonalization is.

But there's some kind of... There's many.

Depends on kind of the shape of the matrix. So they're not random matrices. So some are more

diagonal than others. And so some need more treatment than others. Most of the work ends up

going in describing this system, this quantum system, in different ways until you have a matrix

that is close to being diagonal. And then it's much easier to clean it up.

So how hard is this puzzle? So you're solving this puzzle for phosphine, right?

Is this... Are we supposed to solve this puzzle for every single molecule?

Oh boy. Yes, I calculated if I did the work I did for phosphine, again, for all the molecules for

which we don't have spectra, for which we don't have a fingerprint, it would take me 62,000 years.

A little over. 62,000 years. What time flies when you're having fun? Okay. But you write that

there are about 16,000 molecules we care about when looking for a new Earth or when we try to detect

alien biosignatures. If we want to detect any molecules from here, we need to know their spectra

and we currently don't. Solving this particular problem, that's my job.

What was that? I mean, that's absolutely correct. I could have not said it better myself. Did you

take that from my website? Yeah, I think I stole it. And your website is excellent. So it's worthy

place to steal stuff from. Thank you. How do you solve this problem for the 16,000 molecules we care

about, of which phosphine is one? Yes. And so taking a step a little bit out of phosphine,

is there... But we were having so much fun. We were having so much fun. No, we're not saying...

No, no, no, I... It's sticking around. I'm just saying we're joining more friends coming to the

party. How do you choose other friends to come to the party that are interesting to study as we

solve one puzzle at a time through the space of 16,000? So we've already started. Out of those 16,000,

we understand water quite well, methane quite well, ammonia quite well, carbon dioxide.

I could keep going. And then we understand molecules like acetylene, hydrogen cyanide,

more or less. And that takes us to about 4% of those 16,000. We understand about 4% of them,

more or less. Phosphine is one of them. But the other 96%, we just really have barely any idea

at all of where in the spectrum of light they would leave a mark. I can't spend the next 62,000

years doing this work. And I don't want to, even if somehow I was able, that wouldn't feel good.

So one of the things that I try to do now is move away from how I did phosphine. So I did

phosphine really the best that I could, the best that could be done with the computer power that

we have, trying to get each one of those 16.8 billion transitions mapped accurately calculated.

And then I thought, what if I do a worse job? What if I just do a much worse job?

Can I just make it much faster and then it's still worth it? How bad can I get

before it's worthless? And then could I do this for all the other molecules? So I created exactly

this terrible, terrible system. So what's the answer to that question,

that fundamental question I ask myself all the time in other domains?

How crappy can I be before I'm useless? Before somebody notices.

Turns out pretty crappy because no one has any idea what these molecules look like.

Anything is better than nothing. And so I thought, how long will it take me to create

better than nothing spectra for all of these molecules? And so I created rascal, rapid,

approximate spectral calculations for all. And what I do is I use organic chemistry and

quantum chemistry and kind of cheat them both. I just tried to figure out what is the fastest

way I could run this. And I simulate rough spectra for all of those 16,000. So I've

managed to get it to work. It's really shocking how well it works considering how bad it is.

Is there insights you could give to the tricks involved in making it fast? Like what are the

maybe some insightful shortcuts taken that still result in some useful information about the spectra?

The insights came from organic chemistry from decades ago. When organic chemists wanted to

know what a compound might be, they would look at a spectrum and see a feature and they would go,

hmm, I've seen that feature before. That's usually what happens when you have a carbon

triple bonded to another carbon. And they were mostly right. Almost every molecule that has a

carbon triple bonded to another one looks like that. Has other features different from that

distinguish them from one another, but they have that feature in common. We call these functional

groups. And so most of that work ended up being abandoned because now we have mass spectrometry,

we've got nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. So people don't really need to do that anymore.

But these ancient textbooks still exist. And I've collected them all as many as I could.

And there are hundreds of these descriptions where people have said, oh, whenever you have

iodine atom connected to this one, there's always a feature here. And it's usually quite sharp.

And it's quite strong. And some people go, oh, yeah, that's a really broad feature every time

that combination of atoms and bonds. So I've collected them all. And I've created this giant

dictionary of all these kind of puzzle pieces, these Lego parts of molecules. And I've written a

code that then puts them all together in some kind of like Frankenstein's monster of molecules.

So you ask me for any molecule and I go, well, it has these bonds and this atom dangling off this

atom and this cluster here. And I tell you what it should look like. And it kind of works.

So this creates a whole portfolio of just kind of signatures that we could look for.

Rough, very rough signatures. But still useful enough to analyze the atmospheres,

the telescope generated images of other planets.

Close. Right now, it is so complete. So it has all of these molecules that I can tell you,

say you look at an alien atmosphere and there's a feature there. It can tell you, oh,

that feature, that's familiar. It could be one of these 816 molecules. Best of luck.

Yes. So I think the next step, which is what I'm working on is telling you something

more useful than it could be one of those 816 molecules. That's still true. I wouldn't say

it's useful. So it can tell you, but only 12% of them also have a feature in this region. So

go look there. And if there's nothing there, it can't be those and so on. It can also tell you

things like you will need this much accuracy to distinguish between those 816. So that's

what I'm working on. But it's a lot of work. So this is really interesting, the role of computing

in this whole picture, emission code. So you as a quantum astrochemist, there is some role for

programming in your life, in your past life, in your current life, in your group. Oh yeah,

almost entirely. I'm a computational quantum astrochemist, but that doesn't roll off the tongue

very easily. So this is fundamentally computational. If you want to be successful in the 21st century

and doing quantum astrochemistry, you want to be computational? Absolutely. All quantum chemistry

is computational at this point. Okay. Does machine learning play a role at all? Is there some

extra shortcuts that could be discovered through like, you see all that success with protein

folding, right? A problem that thought to be extremely difficult to apply machine learning to

because it's mostly because there's not a lot of already solved puzzles to train on. I suppose

the same exact thing is true with this particular problem, but is there hope for machine learning

to help out? Absolutely. Currently, you've laid out exactly the problem. The training set is

awful. And because there's so, a lot of the data that I'm basing it on is literally many

decades old. The people who worked on it and the data that I get, often they're dead. And

the files that I've used, some of them were hand drawn by someone tired in the 70s.

So I could of course have a program training on these, but I would just be perpetuating

these mistakes without hope of actually verifying them. So my next step is to improve this training

set by hand and then try to see if I can apply machine learning on the full code and the full

16,000 molecules and improve them all. But really, I need to be able to test the outcomes with

experimental data, which means convincing someone in a lab to spend a lot of money putting very

dangerous gases in chambers and measuring them at outrageous temperatures. So it's a work in

progress. And so collecting huge amounts of data about the actual gases. So you're up for doing

that kind of thing too. So actually, like doing the full end to end thing, which is like having

a gas collecting data about it, and then doing the kind of analysis that creates the fingerprint,

and then also analyzing using that library, the data that comes from other planets. So you do the

full full from birth to death. Yes, I worked in an industrial chemistry laboratory when I was

much younger in Slovenia. And there I worked in the lab actually collecting spectra and

predicting spectra. What's it like to work with a bunch of gases that are like not so human friendly?

It's fine. It's horrific. It's so scary. And I love my job. I'm willing to clearly sacrifice a lot

for it, job stability, money, sanity. But I only worked there for a few months. It was really

terrifying. There's just so many ways to die. Usually you only have a handful of ways to die

every day. But if you work in a lab, there's so many more, orders of magnitude more. And I was

very bad at it. I'm not a good hands on scientist. I want a laptop connected to a remote supercomputer

or a laptop connected to a telescope. I don't need to be there to believe it. And I am not good

in the lab. Yeah, when there's a bunch of things that can poison you, a bunch of things that could

explode and they're gaseous and they're often maybe they might not even have a smell or they

might not be visible. So many of them give you cancer. It's just so cruel. And some people love

this work, but I've never enjoyed experimental work. It's so ungrateful. It's so lonely.

Well, most, I mean, so much work is lonely if you find the joy in it. But you enjoy the results of

it. Yes. I'm very thankful for all the experimentalists in my life. But I'll do the theory. They do

the experiment and then we talked one another and make sure it matches. Okay, beautiful.

What are spectroscopic networks? Those look super cool. Are they related to what we were talking

about? The picture looked pretty. Oh, yes, slightly. So remember when I mentioned the 17.5

million energy levels? Yes. There are rules for each molecule on which energy levels they can jump

from and to and how likely it is to make that jump. And so if you plot all the routes it can take,

you get this energy network for which is like a ball. So these are the constraints of the

transitions that could be taken. Exactly for each molecule. Interesting. And no, they're not,

so it's not a fully connected. It's like, it's sparse somehow. Yes, you get islands sometimes.

You get a molecule can only jump from one set of states to another and it's trapped now in this

network. It can never go to another network that could have been available to other siblings.

Is there some insight to be drawn from these networks? Like something cool that you can

understand about a particular molecule because of it? Yes, some molecules have what we call forbidden

transitions, which aren't really forbidden because it's quantum. There are no rules. No,

there are rules. It's just the rules are very often broken in the quantum world. And so forbidden

transitions doesn't actually mean they're forbidden. Low probability. Exactly. They just

become deeply unlikely. Yeah, cool. And then so you could do all the same, like coming from a

computer science world, you know, I love graph theory. So you can do all the same like graph

theoretic kind of analysis of like clusters or something like that or all those kinds of things

and draw insights from it. And they're unique for each molecule. So the networks that you mentioned,

that's actually not too difficult a layer of quantum physics. By then all the energies are

mapped. So we've had high school children work on those networks. And the trick is to not tell them

they're doing quantum physics until like three months in when it's too late for them to back out.

And then you're like, you're a quantum physicist now and it's really nice.

Yeah. Okay. But like the promise of this, even though it's $16,000, even just a subset of them,

that's really exciting. Because then you can do as the telescope day to get better and better,

especially for exoplanets, but also for Venus, you can then start like getting your full like,

you know, how you get like bloodwork done or like you get your genetic testing to see what your

ancestors are, you can get the same kind of like high resolution information about interesting

things going on on a particular planet based on the atmosphere, right? Exactly. How cool would

that be if we could, you know, scan an alien planet and go, oh, this is what the clouds are made of.

This is what's in the surface. These are the molecules that are mixing. Here are probably

oceans because you can see these types of molecules above it. And here are the Hadley cells. Here are

how the biosphere works. We could map this whole thing.

Wouldn't it be cool if the aliens like are aware of these techniques and like would spoof

like the wrong gases just to like pretend that's how they can be. It's like an invisibility cloak.

They can generate gases that would throw you off or like, or do the opposite. They pretend they

would artificially generate phosphine. So like, like the dumb, the dumb apes on earth again,

like go out like flying in different places because it's just fun. It's like some teenager alien

somewhere just pranking. Yeah. I was asked that exact question this Saturday by a seven year old

boy in Canada. Oh, seven? Yes. But it was the first time I'd been asked that question this

the second in a week. Were kindred spirits him and I? We can. They can prank us to some extent,

but the this work of interpreting an alien atmosphere means you're reading the atmosphere

as a message. And it's very hard to hide signs of life in an atmosphere because

you can try to prank us, but you're still going to fart and breathe and somehow metabolize the

environment around you and call that whatever you call that and release molecules. And so that's

really hard to hide. You know, you can go very quiet. You can throw out some weird molecule to

confuse us further, but we can still see all your other metabolites. It's hard to fake. Is there,

so you kind of mentioned like water, what other gases are there that we know about that are like

high likelihood as biosignatures in terms of life? I mean, what are your other favorites?

So we've got phosphine, but what else is a damn good signal to be that you think about that we

should be looking for if we look at another atmosphere? Is there gases that come to mind or

are there all sort of possible biosignatures that we should love equally? There's many,

so there's water. We know that's important for life as we know it. There's molecular oxygen

on earth. That's probably the most robust sign of life, particularly combined with small amounts

of methane. And it's true that the majority of the oxygen and atmosphere is a product of life.

And so if I was an alien astronomer and I saw Earth's atmosphere, I would get a Nobel, I think.

What would you notice? I mean, this is really... I would be very excited about this.

About the oxygen. About 20%, 21% of oxygen atmosphere. That's very unusual.

So would that be the most exciting thing to you from an alien perspective about Earth

in terms of analyzing the atmosphere? What are the biosignatures of life on earth,

would you say, in terms of the contents of the atmosphere? Is oxygen high amount of oxygen

pretty damn good sign? I mean, it's not as good as the TV signals we've been sending out. Those

are slightly more robust than oxygen. Oxygen on its own has false positives for life,

so there's still ways of making it. But it's a pretty robust sign of life in the context of

atmosphere with the radiation that the sun produces, our position in relation to the sun,

the other components of our atmosphere, the volcanic activity we have, all of that together

makes the 20% of oxygen extremely robust sign of life. But outside that context,

you could still produce oxygen without life. But phosphine, although better in the sense of

it is much harder to make, it has lower false positives, still has some. So I'm actually

against looking for specific molecules unless we're looking for like CFCs. If we find CFCs,

that's definitely aliens. I feel confident chlorofluorocarbons. And so if aliens had been

watching us, they would have been going, oh no, CFCs, I mean, they're not going to last long.

Let's see, everyone's writing their thesis on the end of the earth. And then we got together,

we stopped using them. I like to think they're really proud of us. They literally saw our ozone

hull shrinking. They've been watching it and they saw it happen. I think to be honest,

they're more paying attention to the whole nuclear thing. I don't think they care,

it's not going to bother them. Oh, I mean, worried about us. Oh, yes. No, worried about us.

They, I mean, this is why the aliens have been showing up recently. It's like, if you look at,

I mean, there is interest, I mean, it's probably there's a correlation with a lot of things. But

what the ufologists, quote unquote, often talk about is that there seems to be a much higher

level of UFO sightings since like in the nuclear age. So like if aliens were indeed worried about

us, like if you were aliens, you would start showing up when the living organisms have first

discovered a way to destroy the entire colony. Couldn't the increase in sightings not have to

do with the fact that people now have more cameras? It's an interesting thing about science. Like

with UFO sightings, it's like either 99.9% of them are false or 100% of them are false. The

interesting thing to me is that in that 0.01%, there's a lot of things in science that are like

these weird outliers, they're difficult to replicate. You have like, there's even physical phenomena,

ball lightning, there's difficult things to artificially create in large amounts or observe

in nature in large amounts in such a way that you can do to apply the scientific method.

There could be just things that like what happened like a few times like or once and you're like,

what the hell is that? And that that's very difficult for science to know what to do with.

I'm a huge proponent of just being open minded because when you're open minded about aliens,

for example, is it allows you to think outside of the box in other domains as well. And somehow

that will result like if you open mind about aliens and you don't, you know, don't laugh it off

immediately, what happens is somehow that's going to lead to a solution to a P equals on P or P

not equals on P. Like in ways that you can't predict the open mindedness has tertiary effects

that will result in progress, I believe, which is why I'm a huge fan of aliens because it's like

because too many scientists roll their eyes at the idea of aliens, alien life. And to me,

it's one of the most exciting possibilities and the biggest, most exciting questions

before all of human civilization. So to roll your eyes is not the right answer. To roll your eyes

presumes that you know anything about this world as opposed to just knowing point zero, zero, zero

one percent of this world. And so being humble in the face of that, being open to the possibility

of aliens visiting Earth is a good idea. Not everything though, I'm not so open minded to the

flat earth hypothesis is there's a growing number of people believing in. But even then

or the inner earth, I've got shouted at in a public talk about it. So like the Earth is hollow?

Yeah, my understanding is that there's this conspiracy theory that as far as I can tell

has no grounding in reality is that there's a slightly smaller earth inside this one, which is

just too cute as a concept. And you can access it, I think, from Antarctica. And that's where we

keep, and I quote, the mammoths and the Nazis. Yeah, I mean, that one is ridiculous. But like,

I do like, hey, I thought you were keeping an open mind. I genuinely think that's more likely than

aliens visiting the Earth. And I say this as someone who has dedicated her life to finding alien life.

And so that's how improbable, I think, the visitations are. Because interstellar distances

are so huge, that it's just not really worth it. See, I have a different view on this whole thing.

I think the aliens that look like little green men are like extremely low probability event.

Like mammoths and Nazis under that level. But other kind of ideas, the sad thing to me, and I think,

in my view, if there's other alien civilizations out there, and they visited Earth,

neither them, or perhaps just us, would be even able to detect them. We wouldn't be open

minded enough to see it. Because our understanding of what is life, and I just

talked to Sarah Walker, who's Sarah. Yeah, we talked for three hours about the question of what is life.

Sarah's a good person to talk to about what is life. But the whole point is, we don't really,

we have a very narrow minded view of what is life. And when it shows up, and it might be already here,

trees, and dolphins, and so on, or mountains, or I don't know, or the molecules in the atmosphere,

or like I, people make fun of me. But I do think that ideas are kind of aliens themselves,

or consciousness could be the aliens, or it could be the method by which they communicate.

We don't know shit about the way our human mind works. And the fact that this thing is a quantum

process. Please don't. I understand this. It's not woo woo. But it very well could be. There

could be something at the physics level, right? It could be at the chemical or the biological

level. Things that are happening that we're just too close minded, because our conception of life

is at the level of us, like at the jungle level of mammals. And on the time scale, that's the

human time scale, we may not be able to perceive what alien life is actually like. The scale at

which their intelligence realizes itself, we may not be able to perceive. And the other thing that's

really important about alien visitations, whether it happened or not, is especially after COVID in

2020, I'm losing a little bit of faith of our government being able to handle that well, not

our government, but us as a society, as a collective, being able to deal with new things

in an effective way that's inspiring, that's efficient, that like, whether it's if it's a

dangerous thing to deal with it to alleviate the danger, whether it's the possibility of

new discoveries and something inspiring to ride that wave and make it inspiring, all those kinds

of things. I honestly think if aliens showed up, they would look around, everybody would ignore them,

and the government might like hide it, try to like see to keep it from the Chinese and the

Russians, if it's the United States, call it a military secret in a very close minded way.

And then the bureaucracy would drown it away to where through paperwork, the poor aliens would

just like waste away in a cell somewhere, like there's a certain that would never happen. Part

of the reason that I feel so confident that aliens have no visited, because they would have had to

visit just to have a look remotely, you know, from Neptune or something, which makes no sense,

because interstellar travel is so difficult, that it would be quite a ridiculous proposition,

but that's the bit that I think is technically possible. If they did come here, and they were

visible by anyone, detectable by anyone, the thought that any government, no matter or any

military could just contain them, these beings are capable of traveling interstellar distances

when we can barely go to the moon, like barely go to the moon.

So these things would be way, way, way, way.

Way, and the fact that we think our puny military of any, even if all the military in the world

got together, and the fact that they could somehow contain this, it's that.

The ants trying to contain it, human that visited them.

Exactly. And scientists, you would have to bring scientists on board. You've met a lot of scientists.

How good are they at keeping secrets? Because in my experience, they're absolutely appalling

at keeping secrets. Yeah, that's terrible.

Even the Phosphine on Venus thing, which was a pretty well kept secret.

Oh, this is true. You had a bunch of people there were.

I told my dad, you know, my dad knew, and hopefully didn't tell anyone, but if there had

been an alien visiting, he probably would have told the mate. And so these secrets could not be

kept by any scientist that I know, and certainly not collaborative scientists, which would be

needed. You would need all sorts of scientific teams. So between the pathetic power of any

world's military compared to any civilization capable of traveling and our absolute inability

to keep secrets, absolutely not. I will bet everything that we have not been visited because

we are too pathetic to hold that truth. Well, let me put it back if we're just

making like a $10 bet. The possibility here that the main alien, say there exists one alien

civil, other intelligent alien civilization in the galaxy. To me, if they visit Earth,

what's going to visit Earth is like the crappy, like the really crappy.

Short straw. Yeah, yeah.

Like this like really dumb thing that's, I don't know, like the early Game Boys or something.

I think there's a cartoon about this. There's an alien that gets sent to Earth, Commander Spiff or

something, and it's kind of a punishment or something. But that's not possible. That's the

thing because interstellar distances are so hard to cross. You have to do it on purpose.

You have to do it on purpose. It has to be a big, big deal. And we know this because, yes,

you're right. We don't know enough about galactic biology. We don't know what the universal rules

of biology or biochemistry are because we only have the Earth. But we do know that the laws of

physics are universal. We can predict behavior in the universe and then see it happen based on

these laws of physics. We know that the laws of chemistry are universal. We know the periodic table

is all they have to choose from. So yes, they may be some sort of unimaginable intelligence,

but they still have to use the same periodic table that we have access to. They still have

a finite number of molecules they can do things with. So they still have to use the resources

around them, the stars around them, the universe around them, and we know how much energy is in

these places. And so, yes, they may be very capable, capable beyond our wildest dreams,

but they're still in the same universe. And we know a lot of those rules. We're not completely

blind. But there's a colleague here at Harvard, Kamran Vafa. He's a theoretical physicist. I

don't know if you know him. I've only joined Harvard about six months ago. Okay. It's time to

meet all the theoretical physicists. So he's a string theorist, but his idea is that aliens

that are sophisticated enough to travel interstellar like those kinds of distances will figure out

actually ways to hack the fabric of the universe enough to have fun in other ways. Like this

universe is too boring. Like you would figure out ways to create other universes like you go

outside the physics as we know it. So the reason we don't see aliens visiting us all over the place

is they're having fun elsewhere. This is like way too boring. We humans think this is fun,

but it's actually mostly empty space that no fun is happening. Like there's no fun in visiting Earth

for super advanced civilizations. So he thinks like if alien civilizations are out there,

they found outside of our current standard models of physics ways of having fun that don't involve

us. That's probably true. But even the notion of visiting, that's so literally pedestrian.

Of course, we want to go there because going there is the only thing we know. We see a thing we

want. We want to go there and get it. But that is probably something they've no longer gotten

need for. I specifically don't particularly want to go to space. Sounds awful. None of the things

I like are going to be there. And my whole work is my whole career is finding life and

understanding the universe. So I care a lot. But I care about knowing about it. And I feel no need

to go there to learn about it. And I think as we develop better tools, hopefully people will feel

less and less in need to go everywhere that we know about. And I would expect any alien civilization

worth assault have developed observation tools and tools that allow them to understand the

universe around them and beyond without having to go there. This going is so wasteful.

Yeah. So more focus on the knowledge and learning versus the colonization, the conquering and all

those kinds of things. That's beneath them. That's beneath them. I mean, that said, do you think

there's any hopeful search for life through phosphine and other gases? Do you think there's

other alien civilizations out there? First, do you think there's other life out there? First,

do you think there's life in the solar system? Second, do you think there's life in the

galaxy? And third, do you think there's intelligent life in the solar system or galaxy outside of

Earth? So intelligent life, I have no idea. It seems deeply unlikely possible, but I'm not even

sure if it's plausible. So that's a special thing to you about Earth is somehow intelligent life

came to be. Yes. And it's only very briefly, probably extremely briefly. Uh oh. You mean

it's always going to be like we're going to destroy ourselves? Exactly. Oh boy. And life will

continue on Earth happily, probably more happily. The trees and the dolphins will be here, I'm

telling you. And the cockroaches and the incredible fungi, they'll be fine. So life on Earth was

fine before us and will be fine after us. So I'm not that worried about intelligent life,

but I think it is unlikely. Even on Earth is unlikely. Out of what is it, five billion species

across the history of the Earth? Yes. There's been one, an intelligent one. And for a blink of an eye,

possibly not much longer than that. So I wouldn't bet on that at all, though I would love it, of

course. You know, I wanted to find aliens since I was a little girl. And so of course I initially

wanted to find ones that I could be friends with. Yeah. And I've had to let go of that dream because

it's so deeply implausible. But see, the nice, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the nice thing about

intelligent alien civilizations, they may have more biosignatures than nonintelligent ones.

So they might be easier to detect. That would be the hope. On Earth, that's not the case,

but it could be the case elsewhere. Oh, it's not the case on Earth. Most of the biosignatures we

have on Earth are created by quite simple life. If you don't count pollution, pollution is all.

So you don't see polluting gases as a possible, like... I look for polluting gases. I would love

to find polluting gases. Well, you know, I'll be worried for them, of course, the same way I

think about my alien colleagues all the time looking at us, and I'm sure they worry about our

pollutions. But it would be a really good, robust, unambiguous sign of life if we found

complex pollutants. So I look for those too. I just don't have any hope of finding them. I think

intelligent life in the galaxy at the same time that we're looking is deeply implausible. But life,

I think, is inevitable. And if it is inevitable, it is common. So I think there'll be life

everywhere in the galaxy. Now, how common that life is, I think will depend a lot on whether

there's life in the solar system beyond Earth. So I'll adjust my expectations very much based

on there being life in the solar system. If there's life in the Venusian clouds,

if there's life in the, if there are biasingers coming out of the plumes of Enceladus, if there's

life on Titan. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, yeah, plumes of Enceladus. That's the Saturn one.

It's the moon that has the geysers that come out. And so you can't see the under the subterranean

oceans. But it's supposed, so it would be in the atmosphere. I was going to ask you about that one.

Have you looked at that? Have you? Is that a hope for you to use the tools you're using with

Rascal and other ways for detecting the 16,000 molecules that might be biosignatures to look at

Enceladus? Yes, that's absolutely the plan. What's the limiting factor currently? Is it the

quality of the telescopes? What's the quality of the data? Yeah, the quality of the data,

the observational data, and also the quality of Rascal and other associated things. So we're missing

a lot of fundamental data to interpret the data that we get, and we don't have good enough data.

But hopefully we will, in the coming decades, we'll get some information on Titan. We have

Dragonfly going over. We'll get the plumes of Enceladus. We will look at the clouds of Enus,

and there's other places. And so if we find any life or any sign of life ever, like on Mars,

then I'll adjust my calculations, and I'll say life is not just inevitable and common,

but extremely common. Because all of these places we've mentioned, the Subterranean Oceans on Enceladus,

the methane oceans of Titan, the clouds of Enus, the acidic clouds of Enus, these are places that

are very different from the places where we find life on Earth, even the most extreme places.

And so if life can originate in all of these completely different habitats, then life is

even more resourceful than we thought, which means it's everywhere.

That's really exciting if it's everywhere. If there's life on just one of the moons,

if it's on Mars. Anywhere in the solar system, and I will bet everything I own that every solar

system, every planetary system has a potential for habitability. Because even if they don't have a

habitable planet, they'll have moons around other giant planets, and there'll be so much life. So for

me, that's the only thing to figure out now, whether life is inevitable and quite common

throughout the galaxy or everywhere. But it's somewhere between those two.

Intelligent life, I make no bets. And if I had to bet, I would be against.

Yeah, to me, like two discoveries in the 21st century would change everything.

One is, and maybe I'm biased, but one is a discovery of life in the solar system.

I feel like that would change our whole conception of how unique we are in the universe.

I think I'm much more eager than you are to jump from basic life to intelligent life.

I feel like if there's life everywhere, like the odds are, we cannot...

Oh, I see. You're saying there could have been many intelligent civilizations out there,

but they just keep dying out. It's like little... Yeah, I was detecting them, ships in the night.

Ships in the night. That's ultra sad. Just like... Is it sad? The earth is not better for having us.

Is it... It doesn't owe us anything. Would you be sad to find alien giraffes?

Would you be disappointed if you found alien giraffes? Because I would not.

No. Well, giraffes, first of all, they look goofy with their necks and everything, but...

No, we do not shit on giraffes. Giraffes are wondrous animals that are deeply understudied.

We still know so little about them because no one does PhDs and giraffes. I am,

there's a point I made at PhD in Phosphine when people aren't doing PhDs and giraffes.

We do not know enough about giraffes. I think it was like Ricky Gervais that

did a whole, like, long thing about... You don't trust Ricky Gervais to talk about

giraffes. That is not his expertise. Yeah, but it's a stupid necks. It doesn't make any sense.

I mean, that's fine. Giraffes are very resourceful animals who do incredible things and can

kick a lion in the face. Why don't you climb the tree? Why don't you climb the tree? You don't

need to grow through the lengthy evolutionary process. You don't need to be shitting on giraffes.

Giraffes are wondrous animals. I would very appreciate it. Take it back.

I take it back. I apologize. I trust your expertise on this. The thing that makes humans really

fascinating and I think the earth, but I'm a human, is we create things that are,

yes, there's all the ugliness in the world. There's all the biological and the chemical

level. There's the pollution, but we create beauty. If you, even from a physics perspective,

look at symmetry as somehow capturing beauty, the breaking of symmetries, stuff grounded in all

the different definitions of symmetry, we're good at, like, creating things. So as fighters.

But not giraffes. Okay, but yes, this is... There are fighters that create little bubbles of air

so they can breathe underwater. They can literally scuba dive. There are spiders that can create

parachutes so they can glide and talk about symmetry. Look what spiders can do. I just thought

of spiders, but if I was an alien species coming to earth, there'll be plenty to wonder and we

would just be one. One of the things. Yeah, clunky, naked monkey. Yeah, the ants might be

even more fascinating. The ants. Ants can figure out exactly through some emergent consciousness

what the maximum distance between their trash, their babies, and their food is just from without

any of them knowing how to do this. And collectively, they've learned how to do this. If I was an alien

species, I'll be looking at that. Well, so that was the other thing I was going to mention. The

second thing is I tend to believe we can engineer consciousness, but at the basic level, understand

the source of consciousness because if consciousness is unique to humans and if we can engineer it,

that gives me hope that it can be present elsewhere in the universe. That's the other thing that makes...

It's an open question that makes humans perhaps special is not maybe the presence of consciousness,

but somehow a presence of elevated consciousness. It does, again, maybe human centric, but it feels

like we're more conscious than giraffes, for example, in spiders. Yes, I won't deny that.

There is something special about humans. They're my favorite species. They are.

Some of my best friends are humans. I think Kylie of humans, it's great. I just don't have

great hope for our longevity and specifically, I don't have great hope given that we're the only

species that are 5 billion that did this cool consciousness trick. I don't want to bet on

finding a kinship elsewhere. That's quite interesting to think about. I don't think I've

even considered that possibility that there would be life in the solar system. That indicates that

very possibly life is literally everywhere. Yeah, everywhere can happen. It does.

Yeah, and especially what we're discovering with the exoplanets now,

they're how numerous they are, or Earthlike habitable, quote unquote planets. They're everywhere.

The most common type of planet is rocky, it seems.

But I didn't consider the possibility that life is literally everywhere and yet intelligent life

is nowhere long enough to communicate with each other, to form little clusters

of civilizations that expand beyond the solar system and so on.

Man, maybe becoming a multiplanetary species is a less likely pursuit than we imagined.

But one of the things that makes humans beautiful is we hope.

But I hope for humanity. And one of the things I hope for is that we become less

obsessed with conquering and we become less obsessed with spreading ourselves.

I hope that we transcend that, that we're happy with the universe without having to go and take it.

So you can hope for the species without hoping for a multiplanetary existence. That is only,

I think, the drive of our most primitive instincts to go and take, to go and plant a

flag somewhere. We love planting a flag somewhere. And maybe we could overcome that minor drive.

And once we do, the AI systems we build will destroy us because we're too peaceful and they

will go and conquer and plant the flags. Best of luck to them. The cockroaches will be happy to

keep to the business as they always have. I tend to believe that robots can have the same

elegance and consciousness and all the qualities of kindness and love and hope and fear that

that humans have. In principle, they could, yes. I don't really trust the people who make them.

This is about the giraffe comment, isn't it? I haven't forgiven you for shitting on

giraffes. What have they done to you? Just as a small tangent, your master's thesis is also

fascinating. Maybe we could talk about it for just a little bit. It's titled,

Influence of a Star's Evolution on His Planetary System. So this interplay between a star and a

planet, is there something interesting you could say about what you've learned about this journey

that a star takes and the planets around it? Well, when I was younger and I was told what

would happen ultimately to the Earth as the sun expands towards a red giant and

then Mercury would just fall in and then Venus fall in and the sun doesn't care.

I felt so small. I felt like the Earth and everything on it, the universe doesn't care.

Even our sun doesn't care. I think I felt like our sun should feel some sort of responsibility

for its planets. It just felt like such a violent and neglectful parent.

It's like a parent eating its own children. It's horrible. It's just a horrible notion.

But it made me think, what if there's some sort of generation? And so at the time when I was doing

my masters, there was a notion of the white dwarf cemetery, which is this idea that when

stars become white wolves, that death is so horrible that planets, potentially habitable

planets that could have been habitable before, they're now gone. There's no chance for life.

But then I thought, what if life returns? Now it's a white dwarf. It's calmed down.

It's not going to go anywhere. White dwarfs are very stable across universal time scales.

And so could you have planets around the white dwarf that could themselves get life again?

You know, life doesn't care. And so my work was basically killing dozens of planets,

thousands of times. I just ran thousands and thousands of body simulations.

But you simulated this?

Yeah. So I simulated the star growing and just eating all these planets up and just

absolute chaos. The orbits of the planets would change as the star loses mass. So you would have

like Jupiter planets just crashing into the other planets, throwing them into the sun early.

It was terrifying to watch these simulations. It was absolute carnage.

But if you run thousands of these simulations, some systems find new balance ways of staying alive.

Some systems post star death find stable orbits again for billions of years,

more than enough for life to originate again. And so that was my idea during that time that

thesis was trying to explore this notion of life coming back. And this idea of the universe

doesn't care if you're here or not. And it will go about its business. Andromeda will crash into us

and doesn't care. No one cares if you're alive in the universe. And so letting go of that

preciousness of life, I found very useful at that stage of my career. And instead,

I just thought, what if life is inevitable? It doesn't matter that it came by four billion

years ago. It can start again four billion years later. And maybe that is nice. Maybe that's where

hope lies, the phoenix rising everywhere, planets being destroyed and created. And we're here now.

And others will be more or less here ish billions of years later.

So accepting the cycle of death and life. And not taking it personally. Not taking it personally.

The sun doesn't owe us anything. It's not a bad parent. It's not a parent at all.

Yeah. I was looking at the work of Freeman Dyson and seeing how this universe eventually will

just be a bunch of supermassive black holes before they also evaporate. A bunch of tiny

black holes too. Absolutely quiet. Everyone, all the black holes a little too far away from one

another to even interact until it's just silence forever. But until then, many, many cycles of

death and destruction and rebirth. And rebirth. You kept bringing up sort of coding stuff up.

I wanted to ask two things. First of all, what programming language do you like? And also, what

because you're as a computational quantum astrochemist? No.

No, that's correct. That's right. You're kind of, you could say you're

actually understanding some exceptionally complicated things with one of the things

you're using is the tools of computation, of programming. Is there a device you can give to

people? Because I know quite a few that have not practiced that tool and have fallen in love with

a particular science, whatever it's biology and chemistry and physics and so on. And if they

were interested in learning to program and learning to use computation as a tool in their

particular science, is there advice you can give on programming and also just maybe a comment on

your own journey and the use of programming in your own life? Well, I'm a terrible programmer.

A lot of scientists, the programming is bad because we never learned formal programming.

We learned science, physics, chemistry. And then we were told, oh, you have to get these

equations modeled and run through a simulation. And you're like, oh, okay, so I'm going to learn

how to code to do this. And you learn just as much as you need to run these simulations and no more.

So they're rarely optimized. They're really clunky. Six months later, you can't read your own

code. My variable names are extremely embarrassing. I still have error messages for different

compilation errors. I say things like, at least your dad loves you, Clara. You know,

it doesn't help me at all. So it's like humor. Yeah. Just like you suck at coding. But there's

other things in your life. So I'm a bad programmer. And so if that will give hope to anyone else who's

a bad programmer, I can still do pretty impressive science. Yes. But I learned, I think I started

learning Matlab and Java when I was in college. It did me no good at all. It has not been particularly

useful. I learned some Fortran that was very useful, even though it's really not a fun language,

because so much of legacy code is in Fortran. And so if you want to use other people's code who

have now retired, Fortran will be nice. And then I used IDL to visualize. So that simulation and

body simulation, that was all Fortran and IDL. But thankfully, since I've left college, I've

just learned Python like a normal person. And that has been much nicer. So most of my code now is in

Python. I should also make a few quick comments as well. So one is you say you're sort of bad at

programming. I've worked with a lot of excellent scientists that are quote unquote, bad at programming.

They're not, it gets the job done. In fact, there's a downside to sort of especially getting a

software engineering education. If I were to give advice, especially if you're doing a computer

science degree and you're doing software engineering, is not to get lost in the,

in the, like optimization of the correct, there's an obsession, you can see it in like stack overflow

of the correct way to do things. And I think you can too easily get lost in constantly trying to

optimize and do things the correct way when you actually never get done. The same thing happens,

you have like communities of people obsessed with productivity. And they keep researching

productivity hacks, and then they spent like 90% plus of their time figuring out how to do things

productively, and they never actually do anything. So there's a certain sense if you focus on the

task that needs to be done, that's what programming is for. So not over optimizing, not, not focus,

not thinking about variable names in the, in the following sense. Sometimes you think, okay,

I'm going to write code that's going to last for decades. In reality, your code, if it's well

written or poorly written, will be very likely obsolete very quickly. And the point is to get

the job done really well. So there's a trade off there that you'll, you have to, you have to make

sure to strike. I should also comment as a public service announcement, or a request, if there's

any world class Fortran or Cobalt programmers out there, I'm looking for them, I want to talk to

you. Because that will not be me. I'm a terrible Fortran programmer.

But it's fascinating because so much of the world in the past, and still runs programming

languages. And there's like no experts on it. So they're all retiring. Yeah. I, I disagree slightly

in that I think because I can get the job done, I'm a programmer. But because no one else can look

at my code and know how I got my job done, I'm a bad programmer. That's how I'm defining it.

Including yourself, including myself six months later, I'm working with a new student right now.

And she sent me some messages on Slack being like, what is this? What is this file that you've got

with some functions around? And I was like, I, I, this was from 2018. It wasn't that long ago.

And I can no longer remember what that code does. I'm going to spend now two days reading through

my own code and trying to improve it. And I do think that's frustrating. And so I think my advice

to any young people who want to get into astronomy or astrobiology or quantum chemistry

is that I certainly find it much easier to teach the science concepts to a programmer

than the programming to a scientist. And so I would much, much faster hire someone who knows

programming but barely knows where space is than teach programming to an astronomer.

Oh, that's fascinating. Yeah. Okay. This is true. I mean, yeah, there's some basics.

I'm, I'm focusing too much on the silver lining because I have the people that were like MATLAB

code. Yeah. Single variable, single letter variable names, those kinds of things.

And it's accessibility, right? It's, I want my, my code to be open source. But, and it is,

it's on GitHub, anyone can download it. But is it really open source if it's written so cryptically,

so poorly that no one can really use it to its full functionality? Have I really published my work?

And that weighs on, on me. I feel guilty for my own inadequacies as a programmer.

You can only do so much. I've already learned quantum chemistry and astrophysics. So, you know.

Yeah. I mean, there's, there's, there's all kinds of ways to contribute to the world. One of them

is publication, but publishing code is, is a fascinating way to contribute to the world,

even if it's very small, very basic element, great code. I guess I was also kind of criticizing the

software engineering process versus like, which is a good thing to do is code that's readable,

almost like without documentation. It's readable. It's understandable. The variable names, the

structure, all those kinds of things. And that's the dream. That's the dream. This is a dumb question.

No, I'll tell you a dumb question. I want to hear it.

Okay. I mean, okay. This is the question about beauty. It's way too general. It's very impossible.

It's like asking, what's your favorite band? What's your favorite music band?

Oh, I thought you meant wavelength band. I was like, I definitely have favorite wavelength bands.

Absolutely. Well, it's hard to narrow down. Okay.

Okay. What, what do you use the most beautiful idea in science?

It's not a dumb question. Do you want to try that question again, proudly?

Okay. I have a really good question to ask you.

Okay. Don't, don't oversell it. I've got an okay question to ask you, you know?

I've, yeah. What, what do you, is the most beautiful idea in, in science, something you

just find inspiring or just maybe the reason you got into science or the reason you think science is

cool? My favorite thing about science is kind of the connection between the scales. So

when I was little and I wanted to know about space, I really felt that it would make me feel

powerful to be able to predict the heavens, something so much larger than myself

that felt really powerful. It was almost a selfish desire. And that's what I wanted.

There was some control to being able to know exactly what the sky would do.

And then as I got older and I got more into astronomy and I didn't just want to know how

the stars moved. I wanted to know how the planets around them moved. And,

and then as I got deeper into that field, I really didn't care that much about the planets.

I want to know about the atmospheres around the planets and then the molecules within those

atmospheres and what that might mean. So I ended up shrinking my scale until it was literally the

quantum scale. And now all my work, the majority of my work is on this insane quantum scale.

And yet I'm using these literal tiny, tiny tools to try and answer the greatest questions

that we've ever been able to ask. And this crossing of scales from the quantum to the

astronomical. That's so cool, isn't it?

Yeah. It spans the entirety, the tiny and the huge. That's the cool thing about, I guess,

being a quantum astrochemist is you're using the tools of the tiny to look at the heavenly bodies,

the giant stuff. And the potential life out there, that this is the thing that connects us,

that you can't escape the rules of the quantum world and how universal they themselves are,

despite being probabilistic. And that makes me feel really pleased to be in science,

but in a really humbling way. It's no longer this thirst for power. I feel less special the

more work I do, less exceptional the more work I do. I feel like humans in the earth and our

place in the universe is less and less exceptional. And yet I feel so much less lonely. And so it's

been a really good trade off that I've lost power, but I've gained company.

Wow, that's a beautiful answer. I don't think there's a better way to actually end it. You're

right. I asked a mediocre question and you came through, you made the question good

by a brilliant answer. You're the Michael Jordan and I'll be the Dennis Rodman.

I don't know enough about basketball. I mean, literally you've reached the peak of my basketball

knowledge because I know though those people are basketball pros, I believe, but only because

I watch Space Jam, I think. Are there books or movies in your life long ago or recently?

Do you have any time for books and movies? Had an impact on you? What ideas did you take away?

I absolutely have time for books and movies. I try as best I can to not work very hard.

I mostly fail, I should point out. But I think I'm a better scientist when I don't work evenings

and weekends. If I get four good hours in a day, I often don't. I often get eight crappy hours,

emails, meetings, bad code, data processing. But if I can get four high quality scientific hours,

I just stop working for the day because I know it's diminishing returns after that.

So I have a lot of time. I try to make as much time as I can.

Can you dig into what it takes to be one productive, two to be happy as a researcher?

Because I think it's too easy in that world to basic, because you have so many hats,

you have to wear so many jobs, you have to be a mentor, a teacher, head of a research group,

do research yourself, you have to do service, all the kinds of stuff you're doing now with

education and interviews. Yeah. So as a public science, like being a public communicator,

that's a job. Yeah. The whole thing. It's very poorly.

I'll pay you in Bitcoin. Okay. I'll take Bitcoin.

So is there some advice you can give to the process of being productive and happy as a researcher?

I think sadly, it's very hard to feel happy as a scientist if you're not productive.

It's a bit of a trap, but I certainly find it very difficult to feel happy when I'm not being

productive. It's become slightly better if I know my students are being productive,

I can be happy. But I think a lot of senior scientists, once they get into that mindset,

they start thinking that their student science is theirs. And I think this happens a lot of

senior scientists. They have so many hats, as you mentioned, they have to do so much service

and so much admin that they have very little time for their own science. And so they end up

feeling ownership over the junior people in their labs and their groups. And that's really

heartbreaking. I see it all the time. And that I think I've escaped that trap. I feel so happy,

even when I'm not productive, when my students are productive. I think that sensation I was

describing earlier, they only need to be half as productive as me for me to feel like I've done

my job for humanity. So that has been the dynamic I've had to worry about. But to be productive

is not clear to me what you have to do. You have to not be miserable otherwise. I find it extremely

hard when I'm having conflicts with collaborators, for example, kind of very hard to enjoy the work

we do, even if the work is this fantastical phosphine or things that I know I love,

still very difficult. So I think choosing your collaborators based on how well you get along

with them is a really sound scientific choice. Having a miserable collaborator ruins your whole

life. It's horrible. It makes you not want to do the science. It probably makes you do clumsy

science because you don't focus on it. You don't go over it several times. You just want it to be

over. And so I think in general, just not being a douchebag can get so much good science done.

Just find the good people in your community and collaborate with them. Even if they're not as

good scientists as others, you'll get better science out. Yeah, don't be a douchebag yourself

and surround yourself by other cool people. Exactly. And then you'll get better science.

And if you would try to work with three geniuses who are just hell to be around.

Yeah. I mean, there's parallel things like that. I'm very fortunate now. I was very

fortunate at MIT to have friends and colleagues there. They were incredible to work with.

But I'm currently sort of, I'm doing a lot of fun stuff on the side,

like this little podcast thing. And I mentioned to you, I think robotics related stuff.

I was just at Boston Dynamics yesterday checking out their robots. And I'm currently,

I guess, hiring people to help me with a very fun little project around those robots.

Want to put an ad in? No. I have more applications I can possibly deal with. There's thousands.

So it's not an ad. It's the opposite. We need to put an ad out for someone to help

you go through the applications. Well, that too is already there. That's over 10,000 people applied

for that. An infinite master of application management. But the point is, it's not exactly,

the point is like what I'm very distinctly aware of is life is short and productivity

is not the right goal to optimize for, at least for me. The right goal to optimize for

is how happy you are to wake up in the day and to work with the people that you do.

Because the productivity will take care of itself. Agreed.

And so it's so important to select the people well. And I think one of the challenges with

academia as opposed to the sort of thing I'm currently doing is saying goodbye is sometimes

a little bit tougher because your colleagues are there. I mean, goodbye hurts. And then if you

have to spend the rest for many years to come, still surrounded by them in the community,

it's tougher. It kind of adds, puts extra pressure to stay in that relationship,

in that collaboration. And in some sense, that makes it much more difficult, but it's still

worth it. It's still worth it to break ties. If you're not happy, if there's not that magic,

that dance. I talked to this guy named Daniel Kahneman. Oh, I know. Danny Kahneman. Danny, yeah.

Boy, did that guy make me realize what a great collaborator is. Well, he had Tversky, right?

Yeah. But they had, obviously, they had a really deep collaboration there. But I collaborated

with him on a conversation, just like talking about, I don't know what we're talking about.

I think cars, autonomous vehicles. But the brainstorming session, I'm like a nobody. And

the fact that he would, with that childlike curiosity, and that dance of thoughts and ideas,

and the push and pull, and the lack of ego, but then enough ego to have a little bit of a stubbornness

over an idea, and a little bit of humor, and all those things. It's like, holy shit, that person,

also the ability to truly listen to another human. It's like, okay, that's what it takes to be a good

collaborator. It makes me realize that I haven't been, I've been very fortunate to have cool people

in my life, but there's like levels even to the cool. Yeah, I don't think you can compete with

Danny Kahneman on cool. He's just incredible. But it was like, okay, I guess what I'm trying to say

is that collaboration is an art form. But perhaps it's actually a skill, is allowing yourself

to develop that skill, because that's one of the fruitful skills.

And praise it in students. And I think it is something you can really improve on. I've become a

better collaborator as the years have gone on. I don't have some innate collaborative skills.

I think they're skills I've developed. And I think in science, there's this

really destructive notion of the lone wolf, the scientist who sees things where others don't.

Then that's really appealing. And people really like either fulfilling that or pretending to

be fulfilling that. And first of all, it's mostly a lie. Any modern scientist, particularly in astronomy,

which is so interdisciplinary, any modern scientist as doing it on their own is doing a crappy job,

most likely. Because you need an independent set of eyes to help you do things. You need

experts in the subfields that you're working on to check your work. But most importantly,

it's just a bad idea. It doesn't lead to good science, and it leaves you miserable.

I recently had some work that I was avoiding, and I thought, maybe I should pursue this scientific

project, because I don't care enough about the outcome, and it's going to be a lot of hard work.

And I was trying to balance these two things. It's really difficult, and the outcome is that

maybe 10 people will cite me in the next decade, because it's not. No one's asking for this question

to be answered. And then I found myself working with this collaborator, Jason Dipman. And I spent

a whole afternoon, hours with him working on this, and time flew by, and I just felt taller, and

like I could breathe better. I was happier. I was a better person when it was done. And

that's because he's a great collaborator. He's just a wonderful person that brings out joy out

of science that you're doing with him. And that's really the trick. You find the people

that make you feel that way about the science you're doing, and you stop worrying about being

the lone wolf. That's just a terrible dream that will leave you miserable, and your science will

be shit. And since I'm Russian, just murder anybody who doesn't fall into that beautiful

collaborative relationship. We were talking about books. Books, yes. Is there books, movies?

Why was I talking about my productivity? Oh, you said you maybe don't have time for books and

movies. And you said you must make time for books and movies. Make time to not work. Make time to

not work, whatever that looks like to you. But there's plenty. When I was younger, I found a lot

of my scientific fulfillment in books and movies. Now as I got older, I have plenty of that in my

work. And I try to read outside my field. I read about Danny Kahneman's work instead.

But when I was little, it was contact, the book, the Carl Sagan book. I really thought I was just

like Ellie. And I was going to become Ellie. I really resonated with me, their character and the

notions of life and space in the universe. Even the idea of then the movie came out and I got to put

Jodie Foster in that, which helped. But even the notion of if it is just us, what an awful waste

of space. I found extremely useful as a concept to think. Maybe we are special, but that would suck

is a really nice way of thinking of the search for life, that it's much better to not be special

and have company. I got that from Carl Sagan. So that's where I always recommend.

Let me ask one other ridiculous question. We talked about the death and life cycle

that is ever present in the universe until it's not, until it's supermassive and little black

holes too at the end of the universe. What do you think is the why, the meaning of it all?

What do you think is the meaning of life here on earth and the meaning of that life that you look

for, whether it's on Venus or other exoplanets? I think there's none. I find enormous relief

in the absence of meaning. I think chasing for meaning is a human desire that the universe

doesn't give two shits about. But you still enjoy... I enjoy finding meaning in my life.

I enjoy finding where the morality lies. I enjoy the complication of that desire

here, and I feel that is deeply human, but I don't feel that it's universal.

It's somehow absolute. We conjure it up. We bring it to life through our own minds,

but it's not any kind of fundamental way real. No. And the same way the sun is not to be blamed

for destroying its own planets, the universe doesn't care because it has no meaning. It

owes us nothing. And looking for meaning in the universe is demanding answers. Who are we? We're

nothing. We don't get to demand anything, and that includes meaning. And I find it very reassuring

because once there is no meaning, I don't have to find it. Yeah. Once there's no meaning, it's a

kind of freedom in a way. You sound a bit like... I'm happy about it. This isn't a depressing outlook

as far as I'm concerned. It's happiness. Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, there's, I don't know if you know

who Sam Harris is, but he, despite the pushbacks from the entirety of the world, really argues

hard that there's that free will as an illusion, that the deterministic universe and it's all

already been predetermined, and he's okay with it. And he's happy with it, that he's distinctly

aware of it. The quantum world will disagree with him on the deterministic nature of nature.

Well, he's not saying it's deterministic, but he's saying that the randomness doesn't

help either. Like, randomness does not help in the experience of feeling like you're the

decider of your own actions. That he kind of is okay with being a leaf flowing on the river,

like, or being the river, right, as opposed to having or being like a fish or something,

they can decide its swimming direction. He's okay just embracing the flow of life. I mean,

that same way, it kind of sounds like your conception of meaning. I mean, it just is,

it doesn't, the universe doesn't care. It just is what it is and we experience certain things

and some feel good and some don't. And that's life. But I don't feel like that about life.

I think life does have meaning and there's, and it's laudable to look for that meaning in life.

I just don't think you can apply that beyond life and certainly not beyond Earth, that this

notion of meaning is a human construct. And so it only applies within us and the other life forms

and planet types that suffer from our intrusions or rejoice from our interactions. But this meaning

is ours to do as we please. We've created it. We've created a need for it. And so that's our problem

to solve. I don't apply it beyond us. I think we as humans have a lot of responsibilities,

but they're moral responsibilities. And a lot of those responsibilities are much more easily

fulfilled if you find meaning in them. So I think there's value to meaning, whether it's real or not.

I just think we gain nothing from trying to anthropomorphize the entire universe. And also,

that's the height of hubris. That's not for us to do.

Yeah, it also could be just like duality in quantum mechanics. It could be both

that there is meaning and then there isn't. And we're somehow depending on the observer,

depending on the perspective you take on the thing.

I mean, even on Earth, that's true. Whether things have meaning or not depends a lot on who's looking.

Whether it's us humans, the aliens, or the giraffes. Clara, this was an incredible conversation.

I mean, I learned so much, but I also am just inspired by the passion you have.

Not finding meaning in the universe. I'm very passionate about not finding meaning in the

universe. You're the most inspiring nihilist I've ever met. I'm just kidding.

I mean, you are truly an inspiring communicator of everything from

phosphine to life to quantum astral chemistry. I can't wait to see what other cool things you do

in your career, in your scientific life. Thank you so much for wasting your valuable time with

me today. I really appreciate it. It was my pleasure. I had already got my four hours of

productivity before I got here and so it's not a waste. It's all downhill from there. Thank you.

Thanks for listening to this conversation with Clara Sousa Silva and thank you to

On It, Grammarly, Blinkist, and Indeed. Check them out in the description to support

this podcast. And now let me leave you some words from Konstantin Zilkovsky.

The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever.

Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.