Fermilab’s Scott Dodelson on Cosmology’s Crisis - #565

Scott Dodelson spent ten years on the Dark Energy Survey testing the standard model of cosmology. It passed and missed by 2.5 sigma. The Director of Fermilab’s Cosmic Physics Division on why the theory he helped build may be wrong, why nobody can find dark matter, and what it takes to change a scientific consensus. Subscribe if you want science with evidence, not speculation. Dodelson is Director of the Cosmic Physics Division at Fermilab, Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago, and author of Modern Cosmology, the textbook a generation of cosmologists learned the field from. Lambda-CDM predicts how the early universe’s tiny fluctuations grew into the structure we see today. The Dark Energy Survey was designed to check that prediction. The answer came back two and a half sigma off. That is both the most precise measurement ever made of how the universe grew, and a crack he cannot stop looking at. His question is not whether the model is close. It is whether close is enough to trust. We get into the Sigma-8 tension and what it actually takes for a scientific community to change its mind, the Dodelson-Widrow mechanism and his 1994 proposal that sterile neutrinos produced in the early universe could constitute dark matter, and the Neptune vs. Vulcan history of getting dark matter right and wrong. Asked which of those two situations we are in now, Dodelson’s answer is: I have no idea. What you’ll hear: Why the April 24, 1992 CMB discovery may have been the only science story ever to lead the New York Times front column The Dodelson-Widrow mechanism: how ordinary neutrinos in the early universe may have oscillated into the dark matter we see today Why Brian told Neil deGrasse Tyson to his face that we have already detected dark matter What it means when a theory can accommodate any result and whether inflation has that problem Why the particle physics community still does not trust cosmology’s neutrino mass measurements What cosmology looks like in 2036 if Lambda-CDM breaks Killing the model is my dream. 0:00 None of it has been found in a lab. How many free passes do we get? 0:44 Dodelson helped build Lambda-CDM. His dream is to kill it. 2:10 10 years. One prediction. Two and a half sigma off. 5:42 "You're in charge" — what mentorship in science actually looks like 6:56 April 24, 1992: cosmology stopped being speculation 9:48 Geoff Burbidge went to his grave a steady-state believer 11:04 What a neutrino is and why it barely interacts with anything 12:36 Brian told Neil deGrasse Tyson we already detected dark matter 18:08 How ordinary neutrinos may have become dark matter 23:24 Lambda-CDM predicts Manhattan's density 13.7 billion years later 26:42 Two and a half sigma: technically a 1% chance the theory is right 28:04 Neptune was dark matter. Vulcan wasn't. Which one are we in now? 31:20 Dark matter, inflation, dark energy: none found in a lab 36:46 If both cracks are the same crack, Lambda-CDM is finished Get the transcript, fascinating bonus content, and my Monday M. A. G. I. C. Message: https://briankeating.com/yt Have a .edu email and live in the USA? You automatically win a meteorite: https://BrianKeating.com/edu Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 Support Into the Impossible on Patreon, get my weekly M. A. G. I. C. Message, unfiltered bonus content, and live monthly Office Hours with me: https://www.patreon.com/drbriankeating Join this channel for perks, monthly Office Hours, and your name in the Member Roster at the end of every episode: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmXH_moPhfkqCk6S3b9RWuw/join Featured Guest: Scott Dodelson Substack: https://scottdodelson.substack.com/about Scott Dodelson on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-dodelson-b6ba429/ Scott Dodelson on Twitter/X: https://x.com/ScottDodelson Modern Cosmology (book): https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/monograph/9780128159484/modern-cosmology Dark Energy Survey final results: https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/news-and-results/darchives/ Dodelson and Widrow 1994, Sterile neutrinos as dark matter: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9303287 Previous ITI episode with Kyle Dawson on DESI: https://youtu.be/LPx4oiwGp2k?si=u_ZJWfJG5AhvBAEv My books: Losing the Nobel Prize (memoir): http://amzn.to/2sa5UpA Think Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://a.co/d/03ezQFu Focus Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://a.co/d/hi50U9U Galileo’s Dialogue (first-ever audiobook): https://a.co/d/iZPi9Un Twitter/X: https://x.com/BrianKeating Substack: https://briankeating.substack.com Blog: https://briankeating.com/blog Audio-only: https://briankeating.com/podcast #intotheimpossible #briankeating #cosmology #darkmatter #darkenergy #physics #LambdaCDM #podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:02Speaker 00

  The action's on the court. And as the official beer sponsor of the NBA, Michelob Ultra is getting fans closer to the game with a chance to win courtside seats, merch, and more. Visit michelobultra.com/courtside to enter. Michelob Ultra Courtside, 26 to 27. No purchase necessary. Open to U.S. residents 21+. Begins on October 1st, 2026 and ends on June 30th, 2027. Multiple entry periods. See official rules at michelobultra.com/courtside for free entry, entry deadlines, prizes, and details.

• 0:30Speaker 01

  Are your ad campaigns lighting up the dashboard? But not the pipeline? That's bullspend. And marketers are calling it out in dashboard confessions.

• 0:39Speaker 00

  My boss asked for results, so I opened my dashboard for the only positive sounding metric I had. Impressions.

• 0:47Speaker 01

  Cut the bullspend. See revenue, not just reach. LinkedIn delivers the highest return on ad spend of major ad networks. Advertise on LinkedIn. Spend $250 on your first campaign and get a $250 credit. Go to LinkedIn.com/campaign. Terms and conditions apply.

• 1:00Speaker 02

  What we've done in order to make the story of the universe work is introduce dark matter, introduce inflation, introduce dark energy, and none of this has been found in the lab. How many free passes do we get? Exploring the tension, killing the model, is my dream.

• 1:15Brian Keating?

  That's Scott Donaldson. He runs the cosmic physics division at Fermilab. He teaches at the University of Chicago. And if you've ever taken a graduate cosmology class, you probably took it from Scott. He also spent 10 years running the sharpest test anyone has ever made of the standard model of cosmology, the model he helped build. The answer came back, 2.5 sigma off. Close enough to call it a triumph, not close enough to stop staring at it in disbelief. I'm Brian Keating. This is Into the Impossible. What is new in the field of dark energy?

• 1:44Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:44Brian Keating?

  Before we go any further.

• 1:45Speaker 02

  Well, since you've been in the field, we've had this fiducial model of cosmology. I guess you, well, you helped establish it, really. So it's called Lambda CDM. I've heard you talk about it. And now there, you've had Kyle and other people on saying that it's under stress. So the fundamental question that I'm interested in is not, or one of the questions I'm interested in is, how will we change our mind if we will? That is, we have this pretty simple model. And then there are these data points which are saying, oh, this doesn't work, this doesn't work. Oh, maybe it doesn't work. And so we have to digest that. And everyone digests it in their own way. And then how are we going to collectively land on another model? And so I know people have written books about this, Tom and Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

• 2:30Speaker 02

  But we're living through that time now. So I'm kind of...

• 2:33Brian Keating?

  And maybe in many ways with AI, we'll cut to that.

• 2:35Speaker 02

  Yeah, right. So it's not, and of course, it's not just in cosmology. So cosmology is the lens through which I can understand stuff. But as you say, in society in general, we're losing faith in institutions. So we don't know which institutions we're going to land on and which to believe, which to trust. So I think it's kind of an important question. And so I've been trying to explore it in this little corner of our world cosmology, which is, in some ways, the simplest thing we do. It's very hard to be a parent, to be a spouse, to be a friend. But cosmology is really easy because there's no people and it's so, it's an easier thing. So that's why I've been trying to explore it in that context. For about 10 years, I was heavily involved in this project called DES, the Dark Energy Survey. And that was, started taking data in 2012.

• 3:18Speaker 02

  And as you know, it takes an enormous amount of time to process and analyze this data. So we only put out our final results a few months ago. So that's what's been occupying me for the last 10 years or so.

• 3:29Brian Keating?

  Talk about the connection between, you know, the type of science that I do, which is the first light in the universe, the cosmic microwave background. I've talked a lot about that. I've talked less about the kind of science that DES does, though, with the exception of, you know, conversations with people like Kyle and others. But talk about what was DES? What, you know, again, it's somewhat strange. Not only are you not using, you know, particle detectors and whatnot, but you're using optical telescopes, right? So, so what does DES do? What is it comprised of? You mentioned how long it took, but what really went into that? How much, what's the portfolio diversification, you know, between theory, which is what you do, experimental hardware, observations, big data, machine learning? What are the different ingredients in DES? And first of all, what does it stand for?

• 4:09Speaker 02

  DES stands for the Dark Energy Survey. The detectors on the telescope, which was in Chile, are made of silicon. And so they leverage a lot of the silicon technology that Fermilab was always, already an expert in. So that's one piece of it. The camera itself was built by Fermilab. So that's, that's a tremendous contribution. Then there's the whole data processing thing. And again, in that realm, high energy physics has a huge advantage because they're used to processing tremendous amounts of data. So there's those two pieces. And then there's the analysis, which takes us enormous amount of time. And that piece is ongoing. It's really thinking back to when it was first started. We thought of it in one way and all our analysis tools have evolved partially due to AI. So that's been kind of interesting to be a part of.

• 4:54Speaker 02

  But getting back to the science part of it, there's a strong connection between what you do and what I do in the sense that one of the things you do is you measure in the cosmic microwave background, the fluctuations. So I don't know if people can see this, but there are small hot and cold spots in this microwave background. Basically, what that means is the temperature, say, on this spot over here was a little bit, about one part in 10,000 higher than the temperature over here. All that means is there were more photons there. And because there were more photons there, because the photons were also talking to the electrons and protons, there were more electrons and protons there. So if you go back to the early universe, what you have provided us with is a snapshot of the early universe. And we know what it looks like. It was incredibly homogeneous.

• 5:37Speaker 02

  So the universe was basically the same everywhere and with very, very small fluctuations of one part in 10 or 100,000. So that's what you've provided us. What this theory that we've landed on Lambda CDM predicts is how those small fluctuations will accrete more and more matter over the course of 13.7 billion years. And we can test that with DES and see whether those fluctuations have grown to the size they were supposed to, according to the theory. So that's, to me, the most fundamental test we're doing. If it hasn't, that means this, this theory is wrong. So to me, that's the stress test that's occupied me for 10 years.

• 6:13Brian Keating?

  Why do we tend to kind of just, as I describe it, you know, have this series of descriptions to our students, you know, from Nobel Prize to Nobel Prize without loss of enthusiasm? How, how do you view the way that we should teach cosmology?

• 6:26Speaker 02

  I'm not sure there's a direct answer, but this is my experience of it, which is in DES, to me, the most important thing has not been the papers we've written or the, that discovery we made that basically the fluctuations are what they should be in this theory. But the most important thing has been the people. So, and I think we, as mentors, get an enormous amount of satisfaction by working with these young people. So communicating not just facts to them, but also the very little that we know has been, I think it's eye opening to them. I'll give you an example. I was at a collaboration meeting a couple of years ago and this first year grad student from Spain was there. And she was talking about her work

• 7:11Speaker 02

  and on this very complex piece of analysis. And I went up to her afterwards and I asked her a question. I said, well, do you understand this and this? She goes, you don't understand? I've only been working on this for three months. I said, no, you don't understand. You're in charge. So it's like these people, the young people, they're the ones who basically, it's not like there's some threshold above which you become an Einstein. We're all kind of swimming around in the sea of ignorance, trying to figure out things. We have a little bit more experience than younger people, but they have advantages that we don't have, for example. So it's, it's, to me, that's been the best part about DES is working with these young people. It's been great.

• 7:49Brian Keating?

  You talk in your Substack, which we'll link below, and that you kind of had this really phase change, I think is the only revolution, April 1992. Talk about the day, you know, the music died. Talk about Kobe. I remember that I was in college at the time and I was in a summer program or starting a summer program. And I kind of even had a glimpse that this was something important, but I didn't know I would do it for the rest of my career. Talk about 1982, 1992. Why that was so transformative for you in your career? It really seems to have pivoted you in a completely different direction, which is wonderful to say about your flexibility intellectually. But why was it so important to you?

• 8:26Speaker 02

  Yeah. I think what happened before 1992 is there were a lot of people who had really fascinating ideas about cosmology. And one of those ideas with that, what I just described, that there were small fluctuations that, in this cosmic microwave background, and they grew to be the structure we see today. But there was absolutely no evidence. There was no prediction that had been made that had been verified. There was only post-dictions. They, people observed stuff and they said, oh yeah, I can explain it this way, that way. So any reasonable person looking at that would say, I don't trust these guys. And in fact, quite a few astronomers and other people didn't trust a few cosmologists working in the field for very good reason. So what happened on April 24th, 1992 is the first detection of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background.

• 9:11Speaker 02

  So the fact that there are slightly spots that are slightly hotter than than other spots. So that discovery was a prediction. Stephen Hawking called it the discovery of the century, if not ever. So, I mean, he was one of the driving forces behind the whole field of cosmology. So he under, recognized how important it was. And another thing that I highlighted there is that in the old days, they used to print, you're probably too young for this, the New York Times on paper. And so the first column of the New York Times on the right-hand side was the lead article. So that was the first, I think, the only time in the history of the New York Times that a science article was on the first column. And I think they got that right. Cause that was the discovery that underpins modern cosmology in a thousand years.

• 9:56Speaker 02

  That's the story people will be pointing to, I think. For me, actually at the time was kind of depressing because I was working on all these fanciful things that were fun to work on. And to understand as a theorist, what the physics that goes into that required me to learn a whole new set of tools, which I didn't, you know, I wasn't up my alley. I knew, I had colleagues who ended up just staying and not moving forward, but I kind of had a family of the sports. I feared I gotta learn this stuff. So I, I tried really hard to learn this stuff and end up writing this book to help me learn it. And so I was able to stay in the game to some extent, yeah.

• 10:30Brian Keating?

  And that pivot from, you know, kind of particle theory to part, you know, theoretical astroparticle cosmology, which you're one of the major instigators of, I think, you know, to be, to be fair to you, there were also, you know, separate, you know, physics and cosmology, physics and astronomy, astronomy and cosmology, they were all kind of separate things.

• 10:48Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 10:49Brian Keating?

  As I told you, the previous occupants of this office was Jeff and Margaret Burbidge. This plate is one of the Palomar plates that she took with the galaxy.

• 10:56Speaker 02

  Wow, that's cool.

• 10:57Brian Keating?

  I've got some red shift. So they, and they didn't believe in cosmology, basically until the day they died. You know, big, uh, big bang cosmology, Jeff used to go into paroxysms of rage when a speaker would have the misfortune of mentoring. And he was a steady state proponent until he died. Long after Kobe. What do you make of that? Are there modern day versions of people like Jeff, you know, that are just kind of eminent, brilliant scientists that just do not accept either inflation or maybe it's string theory or the standard model? Do you see any, any parallels between the big bang deniers of that, of that age, um, which, which you lived through partially and today's age?

• 11:32Speaker 02

  I think so. I think we tend to weight things according to our experiences. So the, I just wrote a thing about something that is obvious to you, but maybe not obvious to most people, which is the sky, the light from the stars or galaxies comes in different colors. You can view this, a given galaxy with one filter and see it as one color or through it with a different filter, it's seen a different way. And that's a metaphor to me of the way we perceive the world, right? We're all perceiving the world via our own filters. So as one example, there's kind of a raging controversy now about neutrinos, which are these very small, very light particles, that actually there's about a billion of them that just passed through my hand that were produced in the early universe.

• 12:16Speaker 02

  We don't know their masses. You and your colleagues had done experiments which lead to the conclusion that their masses are smaller than they should be according to experiments that have been done by particle physicists here. And when you raise that to the particle physicists, they just don't believe in cosmology, basically. So I think that's an example of, um, a whole class of smart people who don't necessarily buy into this, this field really, or all of the field, yeah.

• 12:44Brian Keating?

  And it's partially natural, historical, you think, you know, we've never detected a new particle, weighed the mass of a particle, except in this accelerator or something like that. So to use the cosmos as your accelerator, which is natural to people like me, but yeah, it's very, it's sociological in science that it's, that's different.

• 13:03Speaker 02

  Have you seen examples of that?

• 13:04Brian Keating?

  Yeah. I mean, I've asked people about that, like my particle physics, you know, friends, Don Lincoln I've talked to is in your neighborhood, right? Will you believe that, you know, when a particle physicist sees a cosmologist, say, here's the mass of the neutrino? Now, we're working on a paper with Shasha Arani that you met over lunch, uh, that really seems to suggest that we're going to need all three different types of things, neutrino is double beta decay, we're going to need laboratory experiments, and we're going to need, uh, you know, long baseline, we're going to need cosmology. And that whole spectrum actually will make the case much stronger than only the cosmologists see it and no, give up all hope. Let's talk about the Davison-Widrow mechanism. That's, you know, sort of where I first got exposed to you. Very intimidating, it was my second year of grad school, 1994. Where did this come from?

• 13:46Speaker 02

  This is at Brown.

• 13:47Brian Keating?

  This, I was at Brown and I was trying to understand, well, dark matter, I'm still trying to understand. We're going to talk a lot about dark matter. And these are called sterile neutrinos. So first, what the hell is going on here? What are neutrinos? Just let's do a recap. Neutrinos, flavor oscillation, what does it mean? Where are they oscillating? Are they jiggling around in here? What's a sterile neutrino? What's a Majorana particle? What's a Dirac particle? Let's go through it. I want to get my money's worth, flew you all the way out here from Chicago.

• 14:10Speaker 02

  Ten questions.

• 14:11Brian Keating?

  And that's my, that's my forte.

• 14:13Speaker 02

  A neutrino. People are familiar with electrons because that's what they're made of. And so particle physicists tend to think of neutrinos as being partnered with electrons. So the fundamental theory of nature says that every...

• 14:25Speaker 00

  The action's on the court. And as the official beer sponsor of the NBA, Michelob Ultra is getting fans closer to the game with a chance to win courtside seats, merch, and more. Visit michelobultra.com/courtside to enter. Michelob Ultra Courtside, 26 to 27. No purchase necessary. Open to U.S. residents, 21 plus. Begins on October 1st, 2026 and ends on June 30th, 2027. Multiple entry periods. See official rules at michelobultra.com/courtside for free entry, entry deadlines, prizes, and details.

• 14:55Speaker 02

  Thing like an electron has to have a neutrino associated with it. So for example, you mentioned muons earlier. Muons are kind of cousins of electrons. They also have their own neutrino with them. There's another thing like that, they're called, all these things are called leptons. There's a tau lepton, it has its own neutrino. So neutrinos are associated with electrons in this case, or electrons or muons or tau ones. Whereas the electrons are charged, they have a negative charge. Neutrinos do not have electric charge. That's why they're so hard to detect. Whereas neutrinos have a mass that we know, neutrinos have masses with our, at least a million orders of magnitude, a million, it's like a factor of a million smaller, probably a billion smaller, yeah, than the electron. So that's what they are. They're very, very hard to detect.

• 15:38Speaker 02

  However, just like the electron, they do participate in what's called the weak force. And that's important because there are various decay processes that are important to life and everything that produce neutrinos. So for sure neutrinos exist. We've seen them, but they only interact very weakly, so they're very hard to detect. So that answers your first question. What is a sterile?

• 15:58Brian Keating?

  Those are called flavor, yeah, those are called flavor states. The partnering, pairing between the subatomic elementary particles, mu, tau, and electron, those are the flavor states, but they are not the mass states, right?

• 16:08Speaker 02

  Exactly. So what I mentioned is that these neutrinos, the electron neutrino is paired with the electron. So that is, um, so that's one type of neutrino. But if you imagine the possibility of a given quantum state that is a superposition, probably you've had a lot of quantum computing people on, so people are familiar with superposition. A superposition of an electron neutrino and a tau neutrino. So that's possible. And it turns out that a superposition of those neutrinos are actually eigenstates of mass. That is, they, they're eigenstates of mass. That means they, the mass eigenstates are the things that propagate through space. So...

• 16:45Brian Keating?

  And respond to spacetime curvature.

• 16:46Speaker 02

  Right, exactly. If there was no mass, then there would be, there would only be this one basis, the flavor basis. But because there's mass, things get mixed up. It's kind of a quantum mechanical effect. And because they get mixed up, it's possible, and this was first detected from neutrinos from the sun, that neutrino could be produced in the sun in one type, one flavor, and be detected as another flavor. So that's the oscillations you mentioned. So I hit two of your questions.

• 17:09Brian Keating?

  Yeah, sterile neutrinos.

• 17:10Speaker 02

  Okay, so each of those things...

• 17:14Speaker 02

  Are a type of neutral particle. It turns out that it's quite possible that there is another neutral particle associated with them that does not experience the weak force. So neutrinos are not charged, so they interact very weakly, but they do interact. A sterile neutrino is even less weakly interacting than that. It's completely divorced from the weak force. It's not produced in decays, et cetera. Why do we think they exist? There's kind of a complicated technical reason for it. That is, if you think about electrons, they're made up of left-handed spinning states and right-handed spinning states. The neutrino that we know are all left-handed spinning. So we kind of expect there to be right-handed spinning states. Also, those are sterile neutrinos. That's sterile neutrino.

• 17:57Brian Keating?

  And the sterile neutrino was hypothesized to be via the Donaldson-Widrow mechanism, a potential, but by no means confirmed, dark matter candidate. Let me say one thing. I tell people we've detected dark matter. We have unequivocally detected. I told Neil deGrasse Tyson this to his face, and he was astonished. And I said, they're neutrino. They satisfy every possible property, except for the fact that they don't make up all of the mass that is seemingly required to explain the dark matter gap between the amount of luminous matter and the amount of total matter that we see, right? So that's like saying, you know, and they're like, well, it doesn't solve dark matter. That's like saying, well, hydrogen doesn't explain all baryonic matter. It's irrelevant. There might be a whole, as George and as past guests on the podcast, and Mike Turner

• 18:40Brian Keating?

  and others have said, there might be a whole periodic dark matter table, the dark periodic table, right? So am I wrong? Should I shut up about this dark matter detection already occurring?

• 18:49Speaker 02

  Well, let me challenge you with one thing. Have we detected cosmic neutrinos?

• 18:54Brian Keating?

  We've detected, I believe we've detected.

• 18:56Speaker 02

  Oh, we have. Yeah, we have. You have detected.

• 18:58Brian Keating?

  Not direct detection.

• 18:58Speaker 02

  Not direct. You indirectly detect them. So, yes, so you have indirectly detected neutrino dark matter. There's a difference between direct detection, where you actually build a detector that tries to see these cosmic neutrinos, a billion of which just passed through my hand. That, do you know Joe Fermatio from MIT? So he has told me that every experimentalist in their career goes through a period of two years where they try to detect cosmic neutrinos, and then they realize it's impossible.

• 19:23Brian Keating?

  And unfortunately, their startup runs out.

• 19:25Speaker 02

  Yeah, exactly. Anyway, but you have detected, you and your CMB colleagues have detected them indirectly. If they weren't there, then the pattern of anisotropies that we see would look much different. So kudos, 100% agree, yeah.

• 19:38Brian Keating?

  So what is the Donaldson-Widrow mechanism?

• 19:40Speaker 02

  In the late 80s, early 90s, there was a guy named John Simpson. And there was, he provided evidence for detecting in the lab, a neutrino with a mass of 17 kilo electron volts. Have you ever heard about this?

• 19:55Brian Keating?

  No.

• 19:56Speaker 02

  People were like astonished. It turned out to be an experimental artifact due to magnetic fields. But for about three to five years, everyone was talking about it. As you probably know, such a heavy neutrino would, makes a lot of problems for cosmology. So I started thinking about what would happen with they be produced and stuff. And so then Larry and I came up with this idea that, putting aside the 17 kV neutrino, which turned out to go away, maybe it's possible that the ordinary neutrinos in the very early universe oscillate into these sterile neutrinos. And maybe they have a mass, so produce enough of them so that they constitute the dark matter today. I still think it's a good idea because we know neutrinos exist, right? As opposed to every other dark matter candidate around where we don't know exists.

• 20:40Speaker 02

  So to some extent, my prior on that is higher than other things. But of course, I'm pretty biased, so, yeah.

• 20:47Brian Keating?

  Talk about the mechanism. There's something called a mixing angle, which is quite beautiful when you think about it, that the states, these quantum mechanical eigenstates, which are superpositions, that they have this ability to effectively rotate, just like an ordinary rotation of a ball or any object in two dimensional. It's the simplest thing you could imagine. I guess one dimension would be simpler, but, but be, you know, they can basically be thought about as rotating in this abstract space. How do you think about that? How do you visualize this? Is it purely a mathematical thing in a theorist's brain?

• 21:18Speaker 02

  Yeah, that's a great question. And you're absolutely right that you don't need flavors or anything like that. It's actually just a two dimensional space, the regular neutrino and the sterile neutrino. Actually, this comes back to the way different people perceive and think about different things and how everyone's opinion, everyone's brain sees things differently. So my mind works best very linearly and mathematically. I'm not good spatially. So I just think about a two by two matrix, which is a pretty simple mathematical thing. So I just think of these things as, if you take two by two matrix with off diagonal elements and diagonalize it, that's what I think of as an oscillation. But people like, I'm sure you think of it more, in a more spatially, more like a physically intuitive way.

• 22:03Speaker 02

  I don't think I have that physical intuition.

• 22:05Brian Keating?

  So what's physically happening in the way I think about it? I do think about it mathematically also, but in quantum mechanics, phase is an important quantity. Even though we can't directly measure phase, you could measure phase differences, right? And so, you know, stop me if I get this wrong. But energy differences lead to phase differences, which then can be imprinted. And you can get physical oscillation. I mean, we get in oscillations of, and that was the solution to the solar neutrino problem, right? It was effectively this oscillation, both abstractly in the phase space of quantum mechanical rotation space. But physically, these things are oscillating as they travel, you know? If the distance between the earth and the sun were different, we would have gotten a different answer, right? We could have been in this weird position where it exactly always came out to be an electron or something, we just didn't happen to live there, right? So how do we explain this?

• 22:48Brian Keating?

  That neutrinos interact with matter, but sterile neutrinos wouldn't interact with matter, say, in the same way?

• 22:55Speaker 02

  It turns out matter plays a quantitative role in it, but it's not, I don't think it's a qualitative thing. So I think the qualitative thing is exactly what you said, that in the solar neutrino issue, the electron neutrinos that the sun produced convert as they travel into muon neutrinos that Ray Davis, et cetera, did he win a Nobel Prize? So that is an oscillation in a two dimensional space. It's the exact same thing without the flavor thing. The two dimensions are that the regular neutrino and the sterile neutrino. The same exact process that we think might have happened in the early universe to produce. We had a lot of regular neutrinos around in the early universe. They oscillated and produced these sterile neutrinos that could be the dark matter today. So it's the exact same process.

• 23:34Brian Keating?

  Now, a year ago, Kyle Dawson sat in that very chair with Dan Green, and we had this spirited conversation about DESI, right? And a lot of the conversation was kind of a little bit, you know, he's very statesmanlike and wonderful scientist and just exceptional person. But I detected a little bit of hedging, you know? He's saying, yes, there's a 4.2 sigma tension. And I often say, we got the Hubble tension, we have the sigma eight tension, now we've got the W tension. So what do you make of these different tensions? First of all, I've had eminent scientists, including a partner of one of your, you know, former partners, Mike Turner, Lawrence Krauss alleges, he sometimes says he came up with dark energy and on his weaker moments, or maybe he's being more accurate than I'm giving him credit for,

• 24:17Brian Keating?

  but with Mike Turner, that they sort of independently came up with some ideas that suggested dark energy was real, and he doesn't believe it. Lawrence Krauss said that he thinks they're wrong. It's a cosmological constant. Now Einstein was wrong once before. It's too bad, he could have had a good career, right? But tell me, Scott, where do you come down on this? What, is it a legitimate tension? Where does it rank in the tensions that I mentioned? Sigma eight, which is clubbing a matter, Hubble tension, which is disagreement at early times and late times, and now this new tension between dark energy and a cosmological constant?

• 24:48Speaker 02

  Just to focus on once one thing, this S eight tension you mentioned. That's what I've been spending the last 10 years on, this idea that, think about Manhattan in 1790. There were 50 people every square mile in Manhattan, very overdense compared to the rest of the country. Today, there are 50,000. So why is it that the inhomogeneities grew like that? That's a fascinating question, right? Could someone in 1790 have predicted that there would be exactly 50,000 people? No way. But we've done that. Lambda CDM predicts that when you measured in the microwave background, a Vos be precisely the inhomogeneities we see today. That precisely modulo the fact that it's off by about 2 sigma or something. So that's what you call the S eight tension.

• 25:28Speaker 02

  So I guess my question back to you is, is it tension or is it, wow, that is unbelievable. We're able to get that close. I'm kind of depressed that it's not a 5 sigma tension, because then it would be whatever, like, just like kind of Kyle's saying. But on the other hand, we're so close on this incredibly.

• 25:48Speaker 00

  The action's on the court and as the official beer sponsor of the NBA, Michelob Ultra is getting fans closer to the game with a chance to win courtside seats, merch and more. Visit michelobultra.com/courtside to enter. Michelob Ultra Courtside, 26 to 27. No purchase necessary. Open to US residents 21+ Begins on October 1st, 2026 and ends on June 30th, 2027. Multiple entry periods. See official rules at michelobultra.com/courtside for free entry, entry deadlines, prizes and details.

• 26:16Speaker 02

  Amazing story that we've created. We've created a story of how we got here.

• 26:21Brian Keating?

  I guess the pushback, I would say, you know, sometimes we, I feel like we got to grow an extra arm to pat ourselves on the back and you're doing a great job of that with the experimental, you know, kind of kudos to us. But, but by the same token, I have kids, you have kids, right? And you remember when your kids were young, you'd take them to the doctor at age two and they'd measure their height and they'd say, basically they're going to double in size, right? And how do they know that? Well, they've had about 100 billion humans have lived since, you know, time equals zero when Og and Magog, you know, came out of the cave and somewhere in 250,000 years ago, they estimate about 100 billion people. But it's a pretty good statistics on this, right? Now, we only have one universe and we always complain about how hard it is to be a cosmologist, you know, world's smallest island, there's only one universe. I always say, at least astronomers have, you

• 27:03Brian Keating?

  know, 100 trillion stars, you know, perhaps in the observable universe. So there's a lot of different, you know, statistics that they can do.

• 27:09Speaker 02

  You're making my point that because there's so many regions of that size, you and your colleagues are able to measure it at one time in the universe and you've measured it incredibly precisely to a few percent, right? That's what, that's what your point is, that there's so many different regions that you can measure it so precisely. And we, we're not quite, we haven't measured quite the area you have, but we've measured a lot and we can measure it at a time 13.7 billion years later and we get an answer that's 10,000 times bigger, but precisely on what the prediction gives. So it's the precision that to me is astonishing and is a great success.

• 27:46Brian Keating?

  So why do you still work on it? Like what's left on, I mean, I'm, I'm not an expert in CDM. Your time is very valuable, right? So why are you still so deeply invested in it?

• 27:55Speaker 02

  So you're looking for something that if you found them, these B modes and the cosmic right back one would prove beyond the shadow of a doubt inflation, something that happened in unimaginably small times would be incredible. The rest of us are focused on unkinging Lambda CDM, like basically just dethroning it. So there are people like Kyle do it in one way by trying to figure out whether the distance that they measured at distant places agrees with what you guys in Lambda CDM predicts. And I've been doing it this other way by seeing whether that precise prediction, which is so precise, is correct. And so the answer is it's still, it's called an essay tension. That is, we're not exactly right. So I oversaid

• 28:40Speaker 02

  it a little bit, but we're, so we're two and a half sigma off, which means there's technically only a 1% chance that theory's right, but we kind of know that that's probably, yeah, yeah.

• 28:52Brian Keating?

  Millions of one things happen in a day here.

• 28:54Speaker 02

  So I mean, exploring the tension, killing the model is my dream.

• 28:59Brian Keating?

  Is that because there are certain dependencies on CDM that goes like, what, CDM to the seventh power? There's some interesting, either in the power spectrum or I seem to recall there, aren't there some very crisp tests that are available because of the deep sensitivity on CDM? Like in other words, if you nail CDM, you can get other things to extremely, eight times higher precision.

• 29:22Speaker 02

  I mean, that's probably true for galaxy formation, the halo mass function and stuff, but that's, that's not what I'm most, I'm most interested in measuring this very simple statistic. It actually comes back to something you mentioned earlier. We're doing it with the simplest of statistics, that what's called the two-point function of the power spectrum, which is some of the same thing that you use. And I wonder if we're going to be supplanted with AI and all techniques that use more of the information. So essentially what we're doing with, we're compressing the data into 100 numbers, right? And from those 100 numbers, we're extracting out this one number and comparing to the one number that you guys measure. So that may not be the best way to test the theory. There might be better ways to do it. So people are thinking about that.

• 29:59Brian Keating?

  Higher order functions.

• 30:01Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 30:02Brian Keating?

  Last time you give a colloquium here, which is, you know, decades ago or now, but, but it was extremely well received. You, you made this beautiful kind of point about the discovery of dark matter, you know, in our solar system, which was, goes by the name of Neptune. And Neptune's discovered by Laverrier famously using, I went back and I looked at his paper from 1843 or whatever, and they basically, you know, it's, it's just this lionizing hero worship of the, he discovered a planet with a pencil, you know, it's basically just this lone genius that set this thing. And then he made the case that like, okay, so that was discovery that there was this weird sort of effect that was happening to the planet George, Uranus, which was, I think still should have been

• 30:45Brian Keating?

  called George, but, but anyway, he took us back to that time, you know, when, when it could have been some problem Newton, Isaac Newton's gravity, or it could have been dark matter that was just unseen and turned out to be dark matter. Then he made the analogy, let's fast forward to 1911, 1913, 14, Einstein's coming up with GR and Laverrier and the acolytes of Laverrier were still, and actually Laverrier was proposing that Mercury was being perturbed by an unseen companion, just like Neptune.

• 31:11Speaker 02

  Called Vulcan.

• 31:13Brian Keating?

  Right? And then he said, well, that time he was wrong, right? So the hammer theory is the, everything looks like a, like a nail and all you have is a hammer. Where do you think we are with dark matter? What is your take? I've had Morticheim Milgram on the podcast. What do you make of the, you know, kind of alternative, you know, history rhyming again and again, looking for dark matter, looking for changes to gravity? Where do you think we're going to end up? What do you, what, I mean, you worked on this for a long time. Where do you, what is dark matter?

• 31:40Speaker 02

  Yeah, I have no idea. I actually had this debate with Stacy that this is an organization that promotes civil debates. So we had this debate and I don't, so just to give context, Stacy McGaw is one of the leading astronomers who doubts the existence of dark matter. And he and Morticheim Milgram and other people, most notably from a theoretical perspective in Israel, a Mexican Israeli physicist, Jacob Beckenstein, put forth alternative models of gravity that would not require dark matter. The problem with those is they don't explain what you guys have seen. And to some extent, it's another example of what we've been talking about. It all depends on your filter. What they look at is, oh, I can see that galaxy over there. Let me look at that and I can fit this better with my theory of modified

• 32:24Speaker 02

  gravity. What we tend to think, what I think is simpler is the stuff that you measure because there's no people there. They, it's just electrons, protons and photons. It's really simple to understand. But from their perspective, that's like a zillion miles away. How can we possibly understand that? So it's two different lenses on the same universe. And from their perspective, we're never going to convince them that the, you know, this distant stuff has any information about what is guiding stars in a galaxy near us. So I don't think there's much of a bridging that gap. However, Stacy, who's a very reasonable person, does not believe Mond is correct. And if you look at the generalizations of Monds, such as the ones that Beckenstein set up, they're actually so close to theories

• 33:05Speaker 02

  of dark matter. They introduce new fields that the, it's the same thing basically. They're just introducing new stuff. And so I actually think another possibility is that we're just looking at everything wrong. That there's someone's going to come around and say, we have to just rethink everything. Cause we, what we've done in order to make the story of the universe work is introduce dark matter, introduce inflation, introduce dark energy, and none of this has been found in the lab. So, you know, how many free passes do we get? I don't know.

• 33:36Brian Keating?

  No, it's extraordinary that you're again candid and you're honest and you're willing to, you know, kind of admit where these lacune, these gaps, these flaws. But I, you know, I often say the most exciting thing, and you hinted at this earlier is a flaw, right? Cause I tell my students, a flaw leads to a law and we just don't know it yet. Like the big bang was, you know, kind of a solution to a lot of the problems in the steady state model. The inflationary universe is sort of a patchwork of fixes and, you know, kind of a home improvements to the, to the big bang model, fiducial model and Lambda CDM. And there's, there's alternatives to it. But one thing I thought about, you know, 61 years ago this month or last month, the CMB was discovered and the announcement was discovered. And many people, including Jeff Burbidge, who used to occupy this office and his longtime

• 34:19Brian Keating?

  colleague Fred Hoyle and the recently deceased and also I'm very proud to say past guest, John Anaralakar, you know, they went to their graves believing in the steady state, you know, quasi-steady state. They added some stuff to it. They were eminent scientists. I mean, these are people that were Nobel worthy, adjacent to Willie Fowler, did win the Nobel Prize for the, you know, BBFH and incredibly eminent scientist. Hoyle, of course, coined the term big bang as a pejorative. And my question to you is when the CMB was announced, Hoyle said, well, they found it to be, you know, 2.7 Kelvin, but if it had turned out to be 27 Kelvin or, you know, 270 Kelvin, they would have explained that too. And it reminded me of this quote that I have in my book from you, from eminent cosmologist,

• 35:03Brian Keating?

  Scott Dodelson. During BICEP2, you said inflation could produce a B mode signal as small as you like. And I kind of used that in, in the rhyming sense with, with, with our friend Fred Hoyle, who said, you know, they would have found any value. So it was almost like anything that we found would be consistent. And you're not the only one who said this, by the way. And much, many people said things much, much more hyperbolic, like hello multiverse, Max Tegmark said, and Lawrence Krauss said this now means there's proof of that God does not exist. It was an incredible time for me personally, obviously. I talk about a lot of these in Losing the Nobel Prize, my first book. But what do you make of that? If a theory accommodates any result, is it a theory? I mean, what, what is it? What do we make of it?

• 35:40Speaker 02

  Yeah. I don't want to go too far towards ignorance and the fact that smart people don't believe in the microwave background doesn't mean they're correct.

• 35:49Brian Keating?

  Yes. Sure. I think here, as a sidebar, I think the human need for, for meaning is the most paramount need that humans have. Viktor Frankl's manifesto for meaning, right? I want to just kind of take this counterfactual, hypothetical, you know, 10 years from now, 2036, DESI's done, Simon's Observatory is done, CMB S4 never happened, but, but unfortunately, rest in peace, it should have happened. Lightbird, you know, there's many different projects, hopefully that will augment and complement and compete with us. And so I think the most healthy thing is to have a competitive scientific environment. And so I welcome our, you know, kind of competition from China. We have a Chinese team that's trying to do us. So, and there's many other great and brilliant scientists, but we're there. What is a, what

• 36:29Brian Keating?

  is like cosmology being done look like? What is a solved model of cosmology look like? And is it on the horizon in our grand grad student careers?

• 36:39Speaker 02

  Okay. I have no idea. But.

• 36:42Brian Keating?

  What would satisfy you?

• 36:43Speaker 02

  Let's agree that cosmology is a millennial old pursuit, maybe more. Maybe those people from 75,000 years ago, maybe they also. And we've been just incredibly fortunate to live in a time where the, you know, the amount of information we've gotten has been, you know, extraordinary about the universe. We have very good reason for believing that the universe is not on the back of a turtle, right? And you know, we're not any smarter than the people who made up that theory, right? Because we have data. So we've just been incredibly fortunate. But it's still a thousand year old science and it's probably going to be evolving. So the chance that we're going to identify dark matter in my career is, I would say it's pretty small. The chance, well, you tell me. I mean, the chance that we find B modes.

• 37:27Speaker 02

  So you're going to be extending the reach by a factor of five to 10. Is that right? So that, I mean, you have to have a prior on what inflationary models produce that. I mean, it would be amazing. As you probably know, I went all Google Gaga the first time. You guys reported something. So it would be, you know, it would be amazing. We have to be clear about what we, what we know and what we don't know. If you guys discovered B modes, that would not be the end of our studies of inflation. Then we'd put up a gravitational wave thing in space to detect gravitational waves at higher frequencies, right? For sure. With the, what they used to call the Big Bang Observatory, right? So we would definitely hone in on those B modes because they would teach us about physics

• 38:10Speaker 02

  12 orders of magnitude larger than, than can be probed at the Large Hadron Collider. So that would, that would open things up. In dark matter, if we detected something in the, in the 100 GeV range that pointed to supersymmetry, that would open up the, the pathway, I think, to more colliders being built to understand things. So I think the possibility of, especially this marriage of quarks in the cosmos, the possibility of discovery would be unlikely to shut things down. But as I said, I really, I really don't know.

• 38:41Brian Keating?

  I tell my students, a flaw leads to a law, and we just don't know which law yet. Scott's got a decade in the trenches working on one flaw, whether the lumps in the universe grow the way the theory says they should. There's a second way to stress test the same model. A year ago, Kyle Dawson sat in the same chair and told me what Desi found. 4.2 sigma. If Scott's crack and Kyle's crack are the same crack, Lambda CDM is finished. That conversation is on screen now. Click it, watch it, subscribe and share it, and then tell me which tension you'd bet the most on. I'm Brian Keating. This is Into the Impossible. Tune in next time.

• 39:19Speaker 04

  Hey, Bose here. When your next track starts, listen for the decisions that the artist makes. The vocal pushed right up front. The bass that waits half a beat. That sample from a 70s underground gem. Every choice, deliberate. With Bose, you'll hear it all. Your music deserves Bose.

• 39:45Speaker 05

  When you shop pickup at Kroger, you can expect the savings you love and fresh groceries selected just for you. Our associates are committed to getting every detail right, carefully handpicking your items, checking for quality and freshness, and packing your order with care. Because bringing you fresh, quality groceries is what we do best. And right now, enjoy $20 off your first online order of $75 or more. Restrictions apply. See site for details. Kroger. Fresh for everyone.