Reporting back from a hotel in midtown Manhattan, having made it through the Colbert Report basically unscathed. In fact the experience was great from beginning to end. Update: here is the clip.
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
|
||||
Monday morning I talked on the phone with Emily Lazar, a researcher for the show. I was really impressed right from the start: it was clear that she wanted to make it easy for me to get across some substantive message, within the relatively confining parameters of what is basically a comedy show. From start to finish everyone I dealt with was a consummate pro.
We got picked up at our hotel in a car that brought us to the Colbert studio, and hustled inside under relatively high security — people whispering into lapel microphones that we had arrived and were headed to the green room. Very exciting. The green room was actually green, which is apparently unusual. I got pep talks from a couple of the staff people, who encouraged me to keep things as simple as possible. They made an interesting point about scientists: they make the perfect foils for Stephen’s character, since they actually rely on facts rather than opinions.
Stephen himself dropped by to say hi, and to explain the philosophy of his character — I suppose there still are people out there who could be guests on the show who haven’t ever actually watched it. Namely, he’s a complete idiot, and it’s my job to educate him. But it’s not my job to be funny — that’s his bailiwick. The guests are encouraged to be friendly and sincere, but not pretend to be comedians.
We got to sit in the audience as the early segments were taped, which were hilarious. I feel bad that my own interview is going to be the low point of the show, laughs-wise. But I went out on cue, and fortunately I wasn’t at all jittery — too much going on to have time to get nervous, I suppose.
I had some planned responses for what I thought were the most obvious questions. Of which, he asked zero. Right off the bat Colbert managed to catch me off guard by asking a much more subtle question than I had anticipated — isn’t the early universe actually very disorderly? That would be true if you ignored gravity, but a big part of my message is that you can’t ignore gravity! The problem was, I had promised myself that I wouldn’t use the word “entropy,” resisting the temptation to lapse into jargon. But he had immediately pinpointed an example where the association of “low entropy” with “orderly” wasn’t a perfect fit. So I had to go back on my pledge and bring up entropy, although I didn’t exactly give a careful definition.
As everyone warned me, the whole interview went by in an absolute flash, although it really lasts about five minutes. There was a fun moment when we agreed that “Wrong Turn Into Yesterday” would make a great title for a progressive-rock album. Overall, I think I could have done a better job at explaining the underlying science, but at least I hope I successfully conveyed the spirit of the endeavor. We’ll have to see how it comes across on TV.
I shouldn’t end without including some good words about the bag of swag. Not only does every guest get a goodie bag that includes a bottle of excellent tequila, it also includes a $100 gift certificate for Donors Choose. How awesome is that?
And as we left the studio, there were some young audience members lurking around hoping for a glimpse of the great man himself. They had to settle for me, but they sheepishly asked if I would pose for a picture with them. Not yet having perfected my diva act, I happily complied. I hope they take away some great memories of the night.
I had been covering the expansion of the Universe and the Big Bang in my ginormous intro class over the past week. Yesterday a student started to get all “second law of thermodynamics and entropy” on my ass, and I was able to say, “oh, just go watch the Colbert Report tonight.”
My education is now complete. I read the book, listened to the Audible audio book but now with the Colbert Report I finally get it 😉
Nicely done.
It was a good interview. Colbert is usually so quick witted he has a tendency to talk over people but he spent a lot of time just staring at you digesting what you had said.
Not a bad way to spend 5 minutes or so and I thank both of you, Mr. Colbert and you, Professor Carroll for being so quick witted. I’m amazed when he talks with scientists at how much attention he pays to the science, allowing some rays of light to be shed from a tangent. I laughed out loud when I heard “Wrong turn into yesterday.” I asked whether I had really heard that. A great moment. The formula was perfect: you were yourself and so was he.
Cheers, but beware, if ever I see you again, I’ll have a filled pen and will ask for an autograph.
Clifford: I understood Sean’s point to be that while cake may have lower entropy than batter, the entropy of “cake plus a hot oven” is higher than “batter plus a cold oven”. More or less.
WRT Cake: The problem is that the batter just doesn’t turn into cake. If we say baked the cake in a wood oven, one would have to visualize not only the batter, but the cord of wood needed to heat the oven, and indeed the air needed to oxidize the wood. Collect the ashes when you’re done, plus the hot air balloon filled with smoke from the oven (and everything else warmed by the stove). You can see that you had to make a big mess just to get the cake out of the batter.
I didn’t do a great job with the cake question — again, it was a more sophisticated question than I was anticipating. I tried to say that you don’t just make cake, you make heat and light and so forth, as Tod says. Which is true, as far as it goes. But it brings up the more interesting question of how the evolution of the universe leads to complex and apparently-organized things — like living beings! — in the course of increasing in entropy. I could have taken advantage of the chance to talk about that, but wasn’t quick enough.
Don’t worry Sean … in a parallel universe, you did!
You totally rocked! You definitely got the main point across: time is weird. And “Wrong turn into yesterday” is a genius soundbyte. You came across as knowledgeable and approachable; you’re going to mislead the world into thinking we’re all witty and well-dressed. Plus, Colbert got to make some jokes, and the chemistry was good. Hopefully this is just the first of many such appearances…enjoy that tequila! You’ve most certainly earned it.
SO ADORABLE!! Both of you, loved the interview….
A star is born.
Apparently Steven hasn’t made a cake lately. My kitchen goes from completely organized, everything clean and put away, to a complete wreck. Flour, sugar, and egg shells everywhere, dirty pans, bowls, and spoons, the additional miniwreck of the frosting, and of course the finished cake or cupcakes. The last time I made cake was when I turned 0x28 🙂
Great job on the show! I’m getting the book. Ya know the Colbert bump is a real thing!
saw it, liked it.
I think Sean was excellent. He explained everything in his usual clear and concise way.
One of the great things about the Colbert Report is that people get a glimpse into questions and their answers that they wouldn t have spent even a second thinking about.
Good job Sean!
“Wrong turn into yesterday” is a great springboard for scientific discussion, and it was nice that, given the brief interview, you focused on that statement.
How about “Right turn into yesterday”…death followed by our eternal re-appearance in the delivery room? The problem of course is that entropy related matters in a space-time universe prevent our remembering such “time travel”…everything would seem so fresh- and “new”…but then we wouldn’t want the life experience to be boring anyway!
Just watched it on the DVR. Sean did a great job of keeping it simple for the casual TV viewer but intriguing enough I hope he’ll get some readers out of it. And leave it up to the masterful Stephen Colbert to make cosmology comical! Loved the way he wrapped it up by asking how he and Jon Stewart would stack up in the multiverse.
I really enjoyed this interview (saw it three times). Even my ten year old son “sorta” understood some of what you were saying, but that’s probably because I periodically pepper him with graphics about the big bang. Your descriptions, while admittedly crude, were very approachable.
And you are correct, it would need to be a “Yes” album.
You say that there may be more universes where Colbert has the better time slot. Are you talking about chaotic inflation or are you talking about hte many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? Are they related somehow? The whole multiverse thing sounds really cool, but it would be cooler if the terminology was more clear. It would also be great if it was more firmly established.
In response to Samual A. Cox. I don’t think eternal return really makes any sense. Basically that assumes that there is a Cartesian-ego. The self is like a narative center of gravity. You are a pattern that represents itself to itself and when you die the pattern will no longer exist. I recommend you read I am a Starng Loop by Hofstadter. Eternal return used to fascinate me, but its a mistake.
Pingback: links for 2010-03-12 « Rumblegumption
Pingback: Sean Carroll on The Colbert Report « Taking up Spacetime
Just saw the interview, that was GREAT! Colbert went easy on you, he often completely ambushes and derails guests, he really let you explain yourself. I thought he would get confrontational (mock or not, it still shuts off the guests) about science not “having all the answers”, but he didn’t harp on it. And you were cool and collected throughout – great job! You give good mass media, doctor!
#45…Hi Craig,
Eternal return is characteristic of a static universe and I don’t agree with that idea either.
Observing the universe electromagnetically from the center of a marginally closed spherical geometry brings pi into play, since the (4D) particulate event horizon surfaces are on the circumference…the relationship between actual existence and the electromagneitic observervation of that existence relates to a mathematically irrational number.
If the universe origiinated at a geometric point and extended to infinity, the irrationality of pi would be of no significance, however the Planck Realm exists below 10 to the minus 33rd cm or so…
Therefore the universe, while it probably is eternal, cannot be completely static. We can see this projected four dimensionally in the existence of time and space, motion and change themselves, but also in phylogenic developent over cosmological time in organic evolution. A completely static universe is inconsistent with the universe we exist in, observe and measure.
In a quasi-static universe EVERYTHING changes, but the way parts of said universe are observed to change varies widely, depending on how we observe them (SR/GR). The point is: not only does the individual develop ontongenically, and the species develop phylogenically, there is a further developmental process which (predictable, coordinated change) takes place in each individual over an eternity of almost imperceptable development.
Space and time, motion and change…entropy are all so obvious to us! They are the universe we observe. It is difficult to conceive a universe where space and time are quantities which result from certain relationships between matter and energy…that the vastness of space and time, all the mass of the universe, all information and complexity could be contained in a black hole with hardly the radius of the solar system!
I believe the relationships described in SR/GR are adequate hints that the universe is much more than we observe. The facts that relativity and Quantum Mechanics are rigidly deterministic and dualistic are also clues which must be seriously considered in cosmology.
Frames of reference in the universe are almost invariant…not completely invariant…because of the nature of universal existence vs the way said existence is observed- to at least 33 places.
I am inclined to believe quantum determinism melds very well with the manifold described by and observed in SR/GR.
Last, but not least are the engineering constraints inherent in information and complexity….and the vital fact that in the sub-microscopic, the universe and everything in it is entangled.
Best Wishes….
I love The Colbert Report but honestly I wish he would let his guests talk more. Seems they can’t get a complete idea out before he jumps in the middle of it. Yet, love his show and his book I Am America (and So Can You).
What i am saying is that even if the universe did repeat itself exactly it still would make no sense to say ‘When I die I go back to being born again only all my memeories are lost.’ It makes no sense for the same reason that it makes no sense to wonder if you survive teleportation. The continuity of the singular self is maintained by illusion.