This is the SugarBeat Report, bringing you the latest information from NDSU throughout the sugar beet growing season. Today, we're discussing some of the common soil-borne diseases that affect sugar beets. Our guest is Dr. Ashok Chanda, Extension Sugar Beet Pathologist with the University of Minnesota and Northwest Research and Outreach Center in Crookston, Minnesota. Ashok, what are some soil-borne diseases that affect sugar beet production in our growing area? The beets are planted a couple of weeks earlier this year compared to last year, which also means that the soil is slightly warmer, which is very conducive for soil-borne diseases of sugar beet. In our growing area, we typically worry about rhizectonia root rot, eponymizes root rot, and fissuring mellos. But out of three, rhizectonia is pretty widespread in our growing area. Why is rhizectonia widespread and what can growers do to manage it? The thing about rhizectonia is it can infect not only sugar beets, but some of the crops that are grown in rotation, such as soybeans, corn, and edible beans. So the best strategy for managing rhizectonia diseases is to have a seed with a seed treatment that's effective for seedling phase of the disease we call it, damping up. And as the beets get to four to eight leaf stage, the growers can apply a variety of sites such as azoxis, robin, elone, or in different combinations. Most of the growers are doing a banned application or a broadcast application. And in the last few years, our studies have indicated that either application is very good at managing rhizectonia. What about managing eponymizes? Eponymizes is favored by warmer soil temperatures and also it needs lots and lots of moisture. You know, when you think of a rhizectonia, it just needs a lot of moderate moisture. And eponymizes can stay in the soil pretty dormant for up to 10 years because it can make these very tough walled spores that can survive in the soil under adverse conditions. And most of the sugar beet seed contains the seed treatment, which is tachycarin, which is very effective for seedling phase of the disease. But several growers are also using five to 10 tons of baseline per acre, you know, which has been very effective for managing the root rot phase that's caused by eponymizes. How can growers take care of fissurium issues? There are certainly some fields which are hard spot for fissurium. And in the last few years, we have seen some fissurium showing up early in the season, especially, you know, when it was very hot and dry. To think about fissurium, you see some yellowing on the leaves. Sometimes it's only half of the leaf or the full leaf. And you don't see any symptoms on the surface of the root. You know, you have to cut these roots horizontally and then you can see some darkening, which is nothing but the fissurium that's blocking the water transportation in the roots. The only thing that the growers can do for fissurium right now is make note of it. And then next time they grow the beets, they have to select a variety with genetic tolerance to fissurium. Are you offering sugar beet disease diagnosis this year? Yes, Bruce. Thanks to the Sugar Beet Research and Education Board with the help of funding from this board, we are able to offer this service to the growers again this year. You can talk to your agricultureist. If you have some problem beets in particular field, they can pull some samples and send it to our sugar beet pathology lab in Crookston. We are located right next to the University of Minnesota Crookston campus. So typically we get back to the growers within 44 to 72 hours with the underlying problem so the growers can stay ahead of the disease issues in particular fields. Thanks Ashok. Our guest has been Dr. Ashok Chanda, extension sugar beet pathologist with the University of Minnesota and Northwest Research and Outreach Center in Crookston, Minnesota. This is the Sugar Beet Report, bringing you the latest information from NDSU throughout the sugar beet growing season.


Yes, okay All right, so it's a pleasure to be here so I'll talk about cosmology, but mostly inflationary perturbation theory, okay, so all four lectures will be devoted to this topic and I'll assume that you know nothing about the subjects So sorry if it's gonna be too basic in the beginning Hopefully towards the end. I can tell you some more or less new things But the plan for this first lecture is to Give you some elements. Well actually solve a problem of quantum mechanics in a curved background and I mean that in a very Broadway as you'll see in a second just to highlight the phenomenon of particle production Which is a crucial in inflation? Okay, so I just want to do a toy Calculation to show that it's kind of ubiquitous this particle production and then I'll describe the arena In which inflation happens, which is roughly speaking the cedar space. So it's a it's a very symmetric toy model of Inflationary background, so I'll spend some time describing that and then I'll start the theory of inflationary fluctuations And I'll describe the calculation of the two-point function Which is actually the only thing that we have measured, but it's nice We have actually measured it and if you believe in inflation and it's already giving us some information about about inflation Unfortunately, it's not enough so the rest of the lectures will be About going beyond this and then seeing more fine features of inflation How to probe them and what are the experimental prospects? I'm not an experimentalist, but I can quote some numbers which is nice and bounds and so on so We'll get to that Okay, so let's Get started So one of you theory in curved space. It's a is a huge subject. There is a textbooks written on this Subjects, I just want to highlight Two things about this which are not the case in Standard particle physics in in flat backgrounds So the first thing is that the the notion of vacuum can be ambiguous. So there's a vacuum Ambiguity in general it's not clear how to define the vacuum in a curved space And the other thing is that there's spontaneous particle production. All right, so So the background itself can produce and absorb particles which is not the case in flat space so in flat space you need to throw in some particles and this you know, Feynman diagrams are essentially a picture of particles being produced and destroyed but by other particles here the background itself can produce particles and absorb particles which is Interesting feature so they're famous examples of Calculations in QFT in curved space. So let me just list them So the I would say that the first Nice example is that of Does it always scream? Okay It's okay So the probably the the first example is that of a background electric field Which was done. It's more or less as old as the quantum field theory. It was originally done by Oiler, I like to say oiler first but not the oiler you're thinking about oiler and Heisenberg. So that would be interesting So it was first done by oiler Heisenberg then vice cop Souter but it was it's actually this example is usually associated to the name of Schwinger So yeah, if you never read his paper where he does this calculation of Particle production and background electric field. It's a beautiful piece of work It's part of the reason why he got the Nobel Prize. So I recommend that you you read this paper He does a lot of stuff. It's a tour de force kind of calculation Of course another famous example is that of a black holes associate the name of Stephen Hawking to this example and But the one I'll describe and I would say the one that is closest to reality Is that we can if we believe in this paradigm We can actually probe this particle production is that of the seater space and that and here there is just too many people So a lot of authors have contributed to the theory of the seater space. So I'll mention them along the way so Let me illustrate this notion of vacuum ambiguity and particle production by simple example I'll just spend a few minutes doing this because I think it illustrates and the Example is a harmonic oscillator as usual, but with a Time-dependent mass Okay, so I'm doing Quantum mechanics, but using quantum field theory in zero plus one dimensions. So the Lagrangian of this theory is given by U dot squared depends only on t this quantum field and then So by u of t U of t here is playing the role of the background field Okay, it's kind of like the electric field in which this particle lives in and Or the gravitational field and so so u of t is given to you It's a classical background. You can imagine that it's another quantum field And the occupation number is very high So you treat this guy as a classical background and then this Quantum field is in the vacuum or very close to the vacuum states in this background. Okay, so let me just give you Example So here's just Plots of a sample u of t so I want u of t to go to a constant at early and late times and Then there's some Time-dependence here. So there is a early at early times and at late times The u of t switches on and off. Okay, so here it really looks like a harmonic oscillator That's the that's the point. So it's some sort of Safe area in which I know how to quantize the system Okay, and then there is something that happens here in the middle So I'll just call this omega squared this asymptotic value And then let's quantize this this system here So it's quadratic system. We can do canonical quantization. So let's see how this works. So I'll write q of t the operator q of t This form q classical a Plus u classical star a dagger So just like you would the quantize is this visible actually here. No a little bit lower So this is This is cl for classical so I'm gonna solve the classical equation of motion then pick a solution and put it in front of a Annihilation operator and it's complex conjugate because it's a real field in front of the creation operator. Okay So the whole thing about vacuum and then of course a dagger One so the whole thing about vacuum ambiguity is in how you pick the solution of the classical equation of motion So the the classical equation of motion is a q double dot classical t plus u of t equals to zero So when we solve the the harmonic oscillator, this is Of course a constant. Okay, it's just omega squared and then the solutions are just the plane waves e to the i omega t to the minus i omega t and There the way that we pick The classical solution that is gonna go here in front of the a Is by Imposing that the vacuum states minimize as the Hamiltonian So that's the the crucial thing that we do not have In our hands in general so the example of a harmonic oscillator there is time translation symmetry of the action and Then the Hamiltonian is conserved and then I want to pick for the vacuum states I want to pick the q classical for which the Hamiltonian has the lowest possible value So what what's going on in this example? So you could try to quantize so we have to pick a q classical and plug it in here and One thing I forgot to say is that We need to properly normalize this solution. So I need to impose I Q classical Dots I might be wrong by a sign But something like this should work. So why do I need to impose this? No, it's a What's the basic thing of quantum mechanics? Canonical commutation relations. Okay, so to to show that qp equals to I Then I should choose a q classical in such a way that this is satisfied So if you if you calculate the commutator between q and p and use this effect here You'll see that the commutator is given by something like this. So this properly normalizes the mode functions. So for For small t In this region here, I could quantize the system like a harmonic oscillator Like say t going to minus infinity. So then I could say q Q classical It would be the solution that at early times as t goes to minus infinity should behave like this into the minus There's a factor here is just to ensure that this condition is satisfied The the point is that it needs to be Just a single frequency. Okay, just e to the minus i omega t in general You'll be a linear combination of e to the minus i omega t and e to the plus i omega t but if you want to quantize it like you would a harmonic oscillator then Let's say you're here at early times and then I say okay here I know how to quantize the system So I should pick the solution that behaves like this at early times. The problem is that if I do this then in general when I go to Plus infinity in which I also know how to quantize the system then This will happen. I'll get the linear combination of the two solutions So I don't end up in a state that looks like the ground states of a harmonic oscillator So and this is the phenomenon of particle production So I have two choices in this in this particular exercise. I could try to Impose that it behaves that the states that I'm choosing is like the standard vacuum state of a harmonic oscillator here at Early times or I could try to do the same thing here at late times Okay, because this is early and late times these are usually called in and out of acura And the point is that they are different. They are totally different states So this is the this is the choice of classical solution that is associated to the in states, so let me Write this down here in and then the out solution will be the one that as she goes to plus infinity behaves like a single frequency, okay, so q out is defined Sorry such that Q classical is this too low or fine classical outs It goes to plus infinity Is e to the minus i omega t Over root 2 omega, okay So these are two different so so the for the harmonic oscillator once again, we don't have an ambiguity There's a unique vacuum states. We have a Hamiltonian that is conserved. So energy is conserved. I minimize it. I pick a Solution of the classical equations of motion. I'm done here If I do it at early times in which I know how to quantize the system I'll end up in a state that at late times from the naive vacuum point of view will look like a Populated states and as I'll show you in a second. It's actually infinitely populated So now once I make this choice, then I can define the vacuums Define in or out vacuums By imposing that the a guy So I'll have Depending on which a mode function I choose and annihilates the in or out vacuum. Okay, so there's no Actual vacuum you have a you have a choice So depending on which choice you give you you you make you have a different Annihilation operator associated with it. So it's just two different ways of organizing the Hubert space and there's no preferred one One thing to notice is that these guys here. So they're very famous. They're called Bogolyubov coefficients and In a sense the information about the u of t whether it we goes and goes up or down it's Contained in these coefficients At least big part of the information One thing is that if you if you look at the the behavior of a q classical at late times And you know that it must satisfy this equation It implies that these guys are not totally unconstrained. They satisfy An equation like this. So this is kind of Unitarity constraints. So the the point is that in Will not be Simply related to out okay, and when we do quantum field theory in flat space and we Learn how to calculate scattering amplitudes and so on It's always true that in is not strictly equal to out But it's almost equal to out in the sense in the so in Standard, let me call Feynman perturbation theory in and out Are just related by some phase maybe it's a bad So this phase is related to the sum of Bubble diagrams in the vacuum. So when we do Feynman perturbation theory we throw away the bubble diagrams, but it's because the correlation functions. They have a need in out factor in the denominator and So it's essentially cancelling the contribution from the from the bubble diagrams So when we do Feynman perturbation theory, there is always these Hypothesis in the back of your head so when there is spontaneous particle production you have to Use a slightly different formalism to calculate something physical is sorry. What's the question if? So, yeah, yeah, so it follows. So if I want to impose That this is true, and I use this expression for q and p is q dots and A and a dagger equals to one then to in order to satisfy this equation This must be true. It's true that for an arbitrary Wave equation It wouldn't be possible to impose this the only reason why we can impose this because the bronze can is con is conserved for this type of equation, right? So if the equation had say a q dots term or so on then the bronze can itself would not be conserved So it's the only reason why I can impose this type of canonical The canonical commutation relations just imply that the bronze can is a constant. So, let me just give you two equations that relates the In and out of Acura to this Bogolubov coefficients, and then I'll move on So I hope that this example illustrated that the notion of vacuum is ambiguous when you have a background switched on so let me just show you in Given alpha and beta that I calculated for a u of t how the in and out states are related to each other So in this example out states given by So there's some normalization factor here that I'll get back to in a second times and this is the interesting thing So minus beta star root to alpha dagger in squared in so the so the out states from the point of view of the of the Fox space generated by the in vacuum is infinitely populated So I would like to say that this is a vacuum, but from the point of view of this guy There is it can have arbitrarily many particles So and the same thing happens in the other way so the in vacuum looks infinitely populated From the point of view of the out vacuum By the way, why is there a square here and not just a dagger in? So it's always pairs There's no odd number of particles can you tell me why you think that There's only there's a q2 minus q Symmetry of this thing here of these actions so you can't produce odd number of particles. They always come in pairs So if you were to do a forced harmonic oscillator with a q term here then that expression would be changed and You would have you can actually have an odd number of particles also wouldn't be squared Finally, let me give you a slight physical interpretation of these often beta coefficients. I can't write here So the overlap between in and out So this is the amplitude for starting life in the in states and ending life in the out states So this amplitude in Feynman perturbation theory because of that phase factor is just one so you see the idea is that you switch on and off the interactions and then you start from some Interaction vacuum in the past and then you just get to rotate it to the same vacuum in the future But here it's not the case So there's a vacuum decay rates and this vacuum decay rates is given by 1 over alpha absolute value of alpha and Also the average number of particles. I hope It's given by this so the the number of operator of out particles in the in states is given by beta square so on average you will see particles if you have a Detector calibrated with respect to the out vacuum in vacuum. So this is the physical interpretation of these two coefficients here But we want to be using these coefficients later in the lectures I just wanted to run this example to showcase that when you have a curved background Notion of vacuum is a bit ambiguous and that you will have you will see particles being spontaneously produced So that was the that's the lesson that I want you to take from the from this first part so I Think that these lectures are all about probably the most spectacular Example of particle creation, which is particle creation the early universe So you have spontaneous particle creation in this inflationary phase these These fluctuations they get stretched out to like enormous length scales and they actually seeds the Formation of structure in the universe so the anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background and Large-scale structure of the universe They're all formed by gravitational clustering But you needed to have initial conditions in which the universe is not entirely homogeneous You need to see this in homogeneity somehow and the mechanism that inflation Advocates for is that it's a quantum fluctuations So you have a classical background that is entirely homogeneous But quantum mechanics is always there and the jitters of the background are responsible for seeding the fluctuations and I think that this is Enormous achievement because the theory of inflation was not designed to solve this problem But it solves it. Okay, so maybe it's a it's a hints that it's on the right track So, okay before I get into inflationary fluctuations Now I want to get to the second part of the lecture which is describing the decider and inflationary background solutions So after I described the background almost everything else in the next Lectures will be about fluctuations on top of this background So the what's different in this case is that they're spontaneous spontaneous particle production so the the background forms particles and these particles don't just disappear at late times They appear at late times.  They're related by rotation Okay, here you break the adiabatic theorem Through the background so if you start with the vacuum then you actually Start populating the naive vacuum with particles And then you see that when you switch off the background you think you're back in the vacuum But you're actually in a states that can be as populated as you would like. That's the difference So we're gonna start in a state that looks like the vacuum but then the background we can borrow energy from the background and these Energy that is borrowed is producing these fluctuations that we see at the end of inflation. So that's the difference Okay Any more questions? So now I want to describe the sitter space for you Because it's a string theory school. I expect that you're very familiar with anti the sitter space But we actually live in the sitter space. So it's important that we understand the not anti Guy right to you a bit the sitter space So there are many ways of introducing it So let me just give you some slogans because it's useful to remind yourself how to Think of it. So it's one slogan is that the sitter space is the Lorentzian Version of the sphere actually as I'll show you in a little bit It's also kind of a Lorentzian version of the hyperboloids. So it's not There are many ways of getting the sitter space But I think that this is probably the the most popular way of explaining it It's also the most symmetric Solution of the Einstein equation Einstein's equations positive cosmological constants, okay, so Before I introduce coordinate systems, I want to describe it using and in badging, okay, so the Probably the simplest way of describing it is a as a As a 4d manifold embedded in five-dimensional minkowski space. So this is called of the S I'll always work with 4d. Okay in Kowski and then it would be just like the sphere Up to a sign. So there is a sign difference So it's a co-dimension one surface. So I specify one equation So this surface embedded in five-dimensional minkowski space is called the sitter space Okay, and it looks like a hyperboloid a one-sheeted hyperboloid like this This RDS is also Usually written like 1 over h squared. So h is the Hubble constants So this is The way that cosmologists think about this the sitter radius It's also the radius here at the neck. So the minimal sphere that Can sit inside of this hyperboloid has radius RDS the Coordinate systems that we use for cosmology are The ones in which we slice the sitter with flat spatial slices And the reason for that is because we expect inflation to Turn the our observable universe into like a tiny patch of the original inflationary surface So it should wash out all curvatures. So people have Discussed inflation with a different slicing, but we expected these effects are not really Importance. So we'll describe the sitter in a flat slicing And This should look familiar I think to people you'll look like an FRW space with a particular choice of a scale factor This is the line element So there's a way of picking coordinates relating this x naught x1 x2 x3 and x4 to the four coordinates That I'm writing here DX squared so there's a cord this is called coordinate time and these are Called co-moving coordinates. So but these are spatial Coordinates, so it's a there are three three dimensional flat slices These slices will look like this in this picture. They actually don't cover the full hyperboloid But we only care about the expanding part Of the hyperboloid because inflation is not exactly the sitter. It's just a good approximation So we it doesn't look like it, but these are actually flat slices So at T going to minus infinity there is a coordinate singularity in pure the sitter It's really a coordinate singularity It's this slice here and then as T goes to plus infinity then I move up so it covers half of the hyperboloid Another way of writing this coordinates is by introducing conformal time and it's a small exercise to see what the Redefinition of time coordinates is Given this h here you you get an h downstairs. Okay So this coordinate system with conformal time should look familiar To ADS CFT people Does it remind you of anything this is almost Euclidean ADS So there's a connection to Euclidean ADS. You have to do double weak rotation. So double the rotation so you rotate eta to I Z and H, let me get the factor ADS divided by I So when I analytically continue the Hubble parameter and the coordinates Ita then I will get the Euclidean ADS First it again. Ah, yes. Sorry. I'm not sure that the factor is right At the s squared is the Z squared from here Plus squared so h inverses are Red minus one. Yes So this is a Euclidean ADS in Poincaré coordinates Actually cover the full manifold. So this is actually useful trick because You teach me how to pick the vacuum in an ambiguous way for the sitter Okay DS has as I said, it's the most symmetric solution of the Einstein's equations So it has 10 isometries just like flat space. Okay, so DS 10 isometries and The reason why I wrote this form is because it's obvious from this form is just rotations Okay, so there You can pick out of five you can pick two every any two of these guys and do a rotation and Because one of them has flipped sign you'll be so for one. So the group is so for one That is actually the Euclidean conformal group. So This is a useful piece of information if you want to think of something like DS CFG which I'll describe a bit in the next lecture So that's a quantized now the free scalar field in the in DS because in the end This calculation of the inflationary fluctuations will reduce to quantizing a free scalar field in quasi DS So this is important exercise So it's just free field theory, but now in this background here. So the action is minus half I'm using minus plus plus plus signature. So that's why there's a minus here All right. So if we quantize this there will be again some Problem with defining the vacuum, but well, this is a Pandora box how you define the vacuum in the sitter space there is a kind of a Agree the pawn definition that I will use And I will not say anything more about the vacuum ambiguity in the sitter And if you want you can ask me offline what I think about it so The standard vacuum definition is the one that we're going to use. So let me describe to you how we do that so there is a Little trick that people do they define Some variable this is just a trick to make the quantization a little bit more obvious So you define V equals 1 over h at times 5 okay This is called the Mukhan of Sasaki variable and Then in terms of this variable V the classical equation of motion will look like well Maybe let me just write the action. So the action in terms of V is going to be a half integral at the d3 x prime squared minus the IV Squared so so far so good Prime is just a derivative respect to conformal time and then so first Interesting well one thing that I forgot to say is that while T here runs from Minus to plus infinity. It's a real variable here. Ita will run from When you do the transformation you'll see that in order to map a real time to eat You'll just run over half of the real line you'll run from minus infinity to zero So ita going to zero is very late times and ita going to minus infinity is very early times Another thing I forgot to mention is that the Penrose diagram for the cedar is just a square So we can just do a conformal mapping that the squash is the infinite Infinite hyperbolic into a square and then the flat slicing covers half of the cedar like this And then ita going to minus infinity Is this slice here and ita going to zero is this slice here So now if you stare at this action using this Mukhan of Sasaki Filder definition, then you notice that as ita goes to minus infinity Then this will look just like a harmonic oscillator.  I have a spatial Isometries just by staring at these line elements here. I Have a spatial isometry so I can talk about Fourier modes for the x components So it's not like a standard Feynman diagrams in which I have four momenta. I'll have three momenta associated with these three spatial coordinates here And then the time variable I'll leave it as is so I work in a mixed representation Fourier modes for position and then explicit time dependence So then if I rewrite this in terms of Fourier modes You just look like a bunch of harmonic oscillators and then the prescription is just pick the vacuum that at early times behaves like a harmonic oscillator the words that people put around this This choice is the following so you imagine that so here the coordinates if I track a Specific distance in commuting coordinates. It's being expanded as time goes to the future But it's being Shrunk as time goes to the past So if I go very early enough in time as I take ita to minus infinity Then this distance this fixed distance in commuting space is physically just a very very short distance So I should be the field should behave as if it's a fielding flat space It doesn't feel that it's in a curved background So I should quantize it as I would quantize a field in a flat background so this is the choice we're gonna make and You'll see that because of the form of this master that in the future I'll see particles So that's Yeah, but in the in the Cether when once we go to cosmology Then this a of t will really have a big bang type of singularity here But actually in the Cether we also use this choice But there are more ways more formal ways of justifying it you can for example go to the sphere and Then there the green's functions are unique Then you can analytically continue and you see that if you were to do canonical quantization You would get the same green's functions as we've using this choice The other thing is that for massive fields this choice preserves the Cether isometries Which might be a good Heat that you're in the right track. This is a I would say that It's still Disputed a little bit this this choice of but that those are the standard arguments, and I think they're reasonable arguments Okay Something else from this action is that now because the Cether has a scale The Hubble scale it makes sense to talk about light and heavy particles in flat space You have only two options the particles massive or massless there. There's no intrinsic Mass scale, but in the Cether you do you have the Hubble scale So as we'll see the representation theory in the Cether space is very different from the one in flat space There's a notion of light particles There's a notion of heavy particles, and there is actually very fine-tuned values of the mass in which magic happens Okay, so in these for the example of Scalar fields the cases m squared equals to 2h squared and zero are special So they have extra symmetry the m squared equals zero just has to shift symmetry which is special The m squared equals 2h squared is is actually called conformally coupled scalar It doesn't even feel that it's in the Cether space It behaves as a field in flat space as a massless field in flat space So these values are special and then actually when you go to higher spins the story repeats itself and then As I'll show you later Some very peculiar things can happen. So let me just show you this in Let me show you this in m over h So the idea is that it's a kind of like in these coordinates. It's not obvious, but This mass term will be a bit like damping. So you have the cases of zero and Square root of two are special But then you have You have different mass ranges. So here particles are heavy. I would say this is like over damped region So the fluctuations decay At late times because of the stretching of space time, but here as I go here to lighter values of the mass the The amplitudes are actually not over them. They're not super Redshifted So Actually, we'll be interested in this region here very light close to zero mass And here the amplitudes Will survive late times So what happens is that if you study the the Solutions of the wave equation You'll see that when the mass is much bigger than Hubble If you even if you start with vacuum like solutions at early times at late times, they're getting damped So the amplitudes are actually going to zero At late times, but as I go to lighter and lighter masses the amplitudes actually survive at late times so that's the reason why Why inflation works because there are some light fields floating around during inflation and then Their particles are produced and they are redshifted It's important that they're redshifted because they will seeds the formation of structure in the universe But it's also important that the amplitude survive. They don't get they don't decay at late times Let me make this a little bit Clearer So the so yeah You can the free field theory level it's possible, but you have the usual problems with tachyons The amplitude actually blows up at late times and yeah, it looks tachyonic right for m squared less than it looks tachyonic, but The reason why you're you're not in trouble is because this mass term is also becoming infinitely heavy so that's there's there's some Competition between these genes type of instability and the stretching of space-time so something survives that is not Just tachyonic instability So let me write down the solution so the so again, I have to quantize this field and the solution of Etta so again, I have a Spatial translations so I can talk about free emote so I'll quantize each free emote like a harmonic oscillator as I would in class in Qft Minkowski space, but now I have to pick the solution that at early times will behave like a standard harmonic oscillator So the solution vk classical that agrees a harmonic oscillator early times Is it's actually a hunkial function, so it's not very illuminating So I don't know if I even write it for you. Okay. I'll write it vk Is it visible here? Vk of Etta. I'm gonna put all the details, but it's just once the eye to you Plus one I'm spy over four Times hunkial function, so there are two types of hunkial function. This is type one hunkial function It's just some solution of the Bessel equation K is the is the wave number and it is conformal time and this new index here is related to the mass To the mass of the field like this new squared Is nine quarters minus m squared over h squared Okay, actually we'll only be interested in the massless case The end of the day, but I want you to see this so you see the difference between massive and light fields in DS So at late times When I go to ita going to zero as ita goes to zero Then vk of ita And I'm assuming that m over h is much bigger than one So I'm looking at the over damped region for the moment then You will behave like this minus ita to the I am over h c1 plus c2 Etta to the minus I am over h So it will so there will be a decaying part So you see it's actually going to zero the amplitude is this red shifting that I was talking about and Then there will be two pieces And this should remind you of the e to the i omega t and e to the minus i omega t Okay, and these coefficients are really related to particle production The problem here is that the cedar space the background never switches off So you need to cheat a little bit you have to switch off the background and be again in flat space to have a nice Interpretation of these things as Bogolyubov coefficients, and then you can count how many particles you have at late times So this can be done And and also notice that if I go back Once again, this is a little bit of cheating But if I go back to coordinate time, then this will really look like e to the I am t c1 plus c2 e to the minus I am t Because ita is like e to the minus ht or something like that then it really looks like a Harmonic oscillator at late times and then you can interpret these coefficients as Bogolyubov coefficients So there is particle production, but the amplitude is actually going to zero at late times Interesting thing happens for massless fields so for For massless fields and this is the case will be interested vk of Ita equals 1 over 2k 1 minus Recall that vk is Is actually a Fielder definition from the standard feel there is that 1 over h ita there mochan of Sasaki, so if I actually go back to the field in In the sitter space The original definition so phi Okay, of ita is just a factor difference here. You will look like I Think it should look like this. I didn't make a mistake. It should look like this and Now you see that as you go to to late times as ita goes to zero it actually Goes to a constant and this is remarkable So there is some late-time amplitude so there is this tachyonic instability That was pointed out, but there's also the expansion of space-time and somehow these these effects kind of Compete with each other and what you have left is some amplitude for the field at Momentum k and it goes depends on the momentum like this and It's more or less this formula and a little bit of peppering on top of it That gives the power spectrum for the inflationary fluctuations Okay Yeah, so the science should be opposite here Maybe I made the mistake here Or maybe the definition has a minus sign. This is correct So this is correct Yeah, the minus sign is important because if I expand this this minus i k eta has to cancel this plus i k eta so the first No, no Subleading contribution should go like ita squared. That's the consistency check Okay, I have a minus one minutes. Is that right? Yeah, okay, so I'm Actually almost done but because this is really Important maybe I'll do it after lunch. So after lunch I'll explain how inflation Modifies that is a little bit of modification of the dynamics of the sitter and then we'll redo this Calculation of the fluctuations, but in the inflationary background


Hello. My name is Caroline Payson. I'm the Director of Education at Cooper Hewitt. I'm delighted to welcome you to what is now the fourth event of National Design Week. We've in this very room have just had hundreds of high school students who have had minute mentoring with all sorts of designers. You might have noticed the lingering soda cans and smell of popcorn as you came in. We've also had a series of programs in our design education center in Harlem for children, and hundreds of kids made all sorts of things with Todd Oldham on Saturday. We had drop-in and toddler sessions on Monday and Tuesday. As I mentioned, the Teen Design Fair this afternoon, the Winners panel tonight, and of course all of this leads up to our National Design Awards gala on Thursday. So we're thrilled that you're participating in tonight's festivity. I'd like to thank, just to start by sort of thanking the Cooper Hewitt crew, who in the midst of a federal shutdown have been working really hard on all these programs. And in light of our shutdown, I'd also like to thank Ricky Saul Warman, who because our intended moderator is a federal employee, was not allowed to participate. So with very short notice, Ricky has come to help us out. So thank you. We'd also like to thank Target for making numerous elements of national design possible. We'd like to thank PNG and Soda Stream for making the National Design Awards possible with additional support from Design Within Reach. We also thank the Corning Museum of Glass for the beautiful award trophies that will be given out on Thursday night. And to Bihans for getting the awards online through the National Design Awards gallery, I invite all of you to go on CooperHewitt.org and see that site. And our thanks also go to Smithsonian Magazine for getting people across the nation to voice their opinion on good design through the People's Design Award, and that will be announced on Thursday night as well. We also invite all of you to help us share your ideas on great design with those who couldn't be here tonight with our social media slide, which has not yet popped up. We'll get you that address. But I'd like to start the evening off by introducing Richard Saul Warman, who has been, was last year's winner of the Design Mind Award. Lifetime achievement. And for over 50 years, he's changed the way we see information and exchange ideas. He's written, designed, and published more than 83 books, including the Access Series, which redefined the way we travel. Since 1984, when he founded TED, he has continually redefined the conference experience with TED-MED, EG Conferences, the WW Conference, all of which celebrate and improvise conversations. With that, I'll turn it over to him. Are these live? Is that live? Okay. Could we put the house lights up? Can somebody hear me? So we're going to talk to you, and we can't see you. Okay. Can people a little bit, up a little bit more? Up a little bit more. It's okay. I know you don't like that for filming, but I don't care about that. Okay. And turn these lights down a little bit. No, I'm serious. I can't, I can't see. And the whole purpose of this is to make contact with people, honestly. The whole purpose of life is to talk to each other. I mean, it's from talking to each other. It's, I mean, it was a wonderful, nice seeing Paul again. I hadn't seen Paul in a long time.  And I don't know the other three. I know that he works with the TED conference, so I know about the TED conference, but I've never met him before. And these two I've never met, but I asked for their cards, and they asked for him for his card, and they told me what they were doing. It was fascinating, and it's really, and that's what this is going to be about. We're going to talk among each other, and we will, if some people have something you want to ask somebody here, and it's a good question and not a speech. I don't know if there's some odd people in the audience who want to get up and give a speech, but we're not here to hear your speeches, but to ask good questions of us. That where you look at the word question, and you see that part of the word question which says quest. You really quest something. There really is something you want to learn. You want to ask that's bounded that they can under, you know, that makes something understandable. Not a broad thing of why are you a designer?  It's not that kind of question. These are obviously remarkable people or they wouldn't have been here. And to tell you how remarkable these people are, the one that I know, she got a prize for one thing and she does something else completely, not completely different, somewhat different, which is of genius, even more remarkable. And I love people's hobbies, elaborate hobbies. In fact, when I did TED, I always thought of as an elaborate hobby, not as a life, and that we collect the lots of things we do. And I see in your work, your interest in the journey.  We're supposed to hold these up because they don't hear them otherwise. Hello. I'm Tia Gordon. I'm the studio director for local projects. And we are here to represent interaction design. The piece that I showed earlier was our work for Gallery One for the Cleveland Museum of Art, which is basically a new way of trying to engage audiences with art. So instead of there being a database, instead of there being texts that people enter to call up information, we're trying to find a way for people to connect emotionally with what it is that they're looking for. So there's not clip that's going to play, but you could imagine if you were in front of a screen, and you made an expression of despair, and a Renaissance painting was pulled up in response, or you made an expression of anger, and a sculpture of a warrior was brought up in response. And so finding new ways for people to engage with the world around them, and eliminating the barrier of technology by using even better technology than we used before. How will we interpret that? Thanks. That you go into a museum that has an infinite amount of information. It's like we're all everybody's talking about big data. I mean, that's the common thing you see in the paper a lot about big data. What they're not talking about is big understanding. How to find yourself in that data, how to take a journey through that data, how to take a journey through the amazing collection at that Cleveland Museum in any museum and any place. And she has done that, or at least the beginning of it, of how to take slices through all the paintings in the museum, slices through one aspect of the painting, all the people in the painting, and their expressions and how you could organize that, how you could see patterns. And that's what creative people do. They find patterns, and they make patterns understandable. And I think it's quite remarkable. And I hope you take you have some program that tells you who these people are. You should Google them later if you haven't before. Because that really looked interesting. Paul, tell us about your hobby. And then tell us about your work. Well, I don't know if you can call it a hobby, because I make money at it. So I I made money from Ted, but it was my hobby. Okay, okay. I don't know how you do it. Richard's talking about these very large scale paintings of maps I've been making for about 20 years that are essentially useless information. I it's my own take on the information age. They're really abstract expressionist paintings in the sense that I use information to create a spirit of a place. And that's what the paintings look like. They're amazingly complex.  But they were actually an antidote to my design life, which is very much centered around identity and has lots of very long boring meetings and corporations. And then going up to the country and painting mindless information on walls was very a very good antidote to that life. I love maps. How many people here? This is not a test. Let's just curious. How many people love maps in this room? It's a surprising number of people who love maps. And these are amazing paintings meaning up of words that are the places or the numbers of the population. They're exquisite. And they're large. And I have a little acronym for map, which is MAP, mankind's ability to perceive. And I look at everything as a map. The organization of all information is a map. The things that you're doing are maps of all faces, maps of all the connections and pattern making between the pictures. What I don't think you know is my father invented a device called stereo templates, which corrected the distortion in the lenses in aerial photography. So that everything that was Google Maps is probably based on the fact that he made that invention because it corrected a distortion so you could do a blow up and read the image. And he taught me as a child that maps are essentially distorted because the camera can never function properly. So it's always open to interpretation.  But they're still narratives. That leads us to the next two people here. One, a little bit of trivia that he doesn't know, I'm sure, is that Google Earth was when Sergey and Larry came to TED and they introduced Google many years ago. I introduced them to the people who invented keyhole. They bought keyhole and that's what Google Earth is. But you told me about a camera. And it's not a camera you invented but you've housed. And you know more about the camera than anybody else here in the room. And it would be interesting to know about the camera. I didn't understand what you said. But if you could make it understandable, and then what was your approach to as an architect shelters all of man's activities, how did you shelter the activities of this new adventure? So is that a reasonable question? It's very easy and simple. Yeah, so start by a history of photon and start from there. So my name is Gadi and a few years back I was asked by an inventor named Ren Ang to help him. Ren Ang? How do you spell it? N-G. Oh, just that? Well, how would that everybody know that? And Ren done a phenomenal postdoc in Stanford and actually created a new imaging theory. It's basically a theory that uses many, many lenses to capture an image and effectively creating rather than a pixel map of the universe, it's more akin to a variety of vectors. Let's say if you look around and pick the quite many lights we have here, each one of them creates rays and these rays of lights are actually bouncing off our clothes and that's the reason why my jacket is green. So imagine an imaging device that takes all these points and actually gets another dimension to them, which is the direction they're coming from. And if we can create and capture all these imaging data together, we can in theory recreate an image, a single image. For instance, we can play with parallax. I think everyone could play a little bit with parallax by switching their eyes through a peephole or refocus an image. So he started a company that was then called Refocus. And the big task was actually to basically squeeze that lab in Stanford into a consumer device. And we helped them create a very teeny camera. It's about say five inches long by inch and a half square. And the interesting thing for me in this whole project that the very first meeting, the very first cup of coffee we had together, the image that came to light was this gesture, this human gesture. And I just had it about an hour and a half ago, one of the high school kids saw it and said, hey, that's like a kaleidoscope. Yes, it is like a kaleidoscope. And this is a camera that actually uses a completely different gesture than typical cameras. These cameras that, for instance, you using now, it's a history of 150 years. And we wanted something completely new. And if you look at how we take images today, through an iPhone, we basically do that. We take a distance from the iPhone. And we wanted to take that gesture plus the kaleidoscope. And that's how the lightrope camera came through. I need to know more, but not right now. Because I still don't quite understand it. Most things we don't understand. In the beginning of this program, they thanked Target. And Target is a very charitable company. I have nothing to do with Target. But a few years ago, I looked at the list of which companies in America gave the most to charity. This is not last year's list. Which companies gave the most to charity? And there's this long list. And then which were the most charitable companies? That sounds like almost the same question. It's a completely different question. Which one is the most charitable based on their sales, their profits, which gives the biggest percentage to to charity? Which is the most charitable company? And at that time, a few years ago, it was Target. But they're way down the list, because they're not as big a company as some other companies, as giving the most to charity. That's just an example of how to really in there is a question. This is really a good question. And seeing the difference when you ask a question, when people come into these museums and ask a question of what they want to see and how they want it organized, it really affects things. Ted is about questions. Ted X is about questions. It's about people opening up themselves to talk to somebody. It's not about the speakers, by the way, I know you focus on the speakers, it's not about the speakers. It's really about the audience meeting each other. And what really came out, I ran Ted for 18 years. And Chris for less, right? Because it's the 30th anniversary next February 23rd, 30 years. And what it changed in people's lives was they met people that didn't do what they did. They did something else. And they stretched into that. They morphed into that and found out a different pattern and journey in their life. And he's responsible for continuing that Ted. He's been there since 2008, which means he's an old timer. Tell us about what you do. Sure. My name is Mike Femia. I'm the design director at Ted. And basically, I think about all of the different things that Ted is doing. We run a conference, we release free talks from this conference online. We run a program of local community organized events called TEDx. We do many other things beyond that. And I think about that whole visual identity and how to keep those things each feeling special in terms of the unique aspect of them, because they are quite different, but make sure that they feel like Ted, for lack of a better way of saying it. We want them all to feel like Ted. And that's a quick way of saying what I do. Does anybody have a question for each other here? Nothing, nothing. Actually, I had a I had a question for Paula earlier is how to manage a company like Microsoft to do the right thing eventually. And I think it's an amazing achievement. Is that a question or a statement? It's a statement half my time trying to convince people to do the right thing and you managed to take a company that has been known to be nearly anti design and doing something really radical in terms of their appearance. For those of you in the audience who don't know me, I'm a partner in a design firm called Pentagram. And we're a group of independent minded designers and we don't operate very much like other design firms and that we don't employ strategists and we make direct relationships with our, our clients and try to persuade them through making analogies or teaching them or entertaining them or actually getting them to that if there is a willing partner, you can do it. It's rare. But I mean, I think that that's what we all want to have happen is to is to look at things that that could be better or could be first or or could make a difference and try to get that to happen. And that's that's really, really hard work because it's a lot of meeting and a lot of persuasion, which is why I paint big, giant, complicated maps. Are there some questions out there that you'd like to ask any of us? Come on, come on, you all came here. You have some preconception about what we've said already. Yes, ma'am. But stand up and yell it out because there's no mic in your hand. Oh, okay. Can I answer that? Please. I created it. Yeah, absolutely. Then you can take it someplace. Okay. Well, my name is not Ted. And people used to think my name was Ted. And the whole basis of Ted was it occurred to me that the only interesting people were people who were involved in technology, entertainment and design. And that I saw a pattern in 1984, before most of you were born, of the convergence of those three disciplines. Now it's old news. I mean, of course, we know they're one discipline in many ways, and many that they depend on each other. But it was news then. And the first one I did, nobody knew what it was about, and I lost money. And then it was a very good conference and people came. And they came because, well, see if this affects you. The other day, I was thinking about innovation, and we're all doing innovation of one sort or another. And I thought, when you go into San Francisco, there's a billboard that says this is the innovative city. And car companies call themselves innovative. And they think they're innovative because they put a camera facing backwards so you can see who you're running over or something. And I was thinking, how do people innovate? And one of the ways that I think innovation occurs, let's say the Bauhaus and Ted is they subtracted things. Sometimes like the iPhone, they add things. Lots of different technologies added together. So addition and subtraction are ways of I think partly what I think there's a pattern in the camera you're talking about of subtraction, of trying to get down to the essential aspects of something rather than add things on. And Ted, I got rid of everything that I hated in conferences, which were white men in suits on panels, lecterns, long introductions, so forth and so on. I got rid of the stuff that bore me in conferences. And it was innovation by stripping it down to the essence of what it is. I'm not sure it's stripping down. For me, it's more about trying to find a point of clarity. It's more assembling and more coherent and simple or clear thing, if you wish. So it's not necessarily extracting as curating and putting together in some kind of a coherent way. What do you think? What does Ted mean to you? Sure, I mean, yeah, to me, I gave away teddy bears. We still have them in the office. They're dusty. Yeah, Ted is technology, entertainment and design. And I think those core, you know, and now if you go on the website and you look at the talks, there's there's all kinds of stuff on there. And so it's definitely expanded beyond those core areas. But I do feel like those are still sort of strong bases that you can actually group a lot of other talks around. And so people, I think, do sort of think of that as general areas to speak to or to try to relate their work to in some ways. So if there's someone that's speaking about biology, they might think of it in terms of how their work in biology tries to think about technology, maybe tries to mimic the way biology does something to create a finish on a product that has certain properties. So I do think that the fundamental idea of technology, entertainment, design, though Ted has grown in terms of topics, it does still resonate and still a core feeling in all the talks. More questions. Yes, sir. Speak it out loud, though, so we can hear it. National Design Awards. Do the National Design Awards feel like a barometer of a particular moment when you, you know, I think people think about who are the nominees and who gets chosen. Does there is there any unifying thread or is there any particular moment that it seems to reflect? The choice of the people sitting here and in the past, does it represent some barometer of taste or or politics or power or something in our society? I'll take that one. So we went for interaction design and I like to joke that with Jake Barton, who's the founder of the firm that he's the Merrill Streep of the National Design Awards that he's been nominated for several times and we've never actually won. And I'm wondering if the year that we won is the year that the idea of touch technology has become ubiquitous, that it's in all of our hands. And now we have to start thinking about that as a new way of designing a simplicity around it, where it used to be a novelty, interaction design five years ago. My parents still don't know what I do for a living. So but interaction design as a concept is now something that people are starting to really grasp. And it has to do with technology. And I think that's relevant. And that's the barometer for us that everyone now has a smartphone. iPads are being used in hospitals are being used in gas stations. It's not a mystery anymore. And I think now that we have that in front of us, we have to now accept it, and then build above it, as you were saying, sort of to elevate and a dish add or subtract from the basis. Like Jake Barton, I've been a bridesmaid about a million times here. So so you know, I think that there's there's no science to it. I think that there are full that do interesting and terrific things and that they come to the fore and the nominations and that when the stars are aligned, the you know, the balls line up and the cash comes out or whatever you want to put it's like a slot machine really, with the right, the right mix. But I don't think I don't I wouldn't read it to into it too much. Since I got the lifetime achievement award last year, and Jim Wines who got it this year is back there. I think I applied several times.  And that's the procedure. So I only warm up upon rejection. And I think after a certain point, my my abrasiveness made them numb, and they gave me the word. I wouldn't like to think about it as a bunch of rejects that just got it this year. I, you know, there was some discussion in By the way, it's really an honor when you get it. It feels really good. Really, I'm not making light of it at all. I mean, it was terrific. Really loved it. I was leading to that that it's actually was an amazing moment at the White House with the First Lady talking about it. And the discussion I think I had with few of the winners was that there was some thread of I wouldn't call it social interaction with design as much as the level or that there's some, I think, some democratization, if you wish, in the way design interact with the greater society that comes across a lot of the work of the winners this year. And my studio is called New Deal Design for a reason. And, you know, we could go each one of us will probably have some small part in getting design somewhat out of we call it maybe somewhat of an ivory tower and getting more connected to, you know, social and kind of the broader audience in society. I loved what you were saying about the fact that technology is a given now. And so it's no longer interesting, and that we need to utilize it in a much more interesting way. And so we want it to recede. We don't want to think about it. And I mean, I see that in the light show, which I've used many times in the, you know, the interface recedes the there is a simplicity to it. And so it does seem like there's such mind boggling technology happening within the camera. But in terms of the user interaction, it's so simple. And so I do I mean, saying that simplicity is a thing is sort of simple. But I do feel like there is a moment where everybody has the iPhone or a fancy, amazing, essentially super computer in their hand. And it's like, okay, well, now what? And so that's why it's a challenge for people who create hardware or software products or designers to, to move beyond the fact that, yeah, it's shiny, and it has a big screen, like who cares? Let's think about what's important here. So any other questions back there? Somebody's going to run up to you with a mic. So wait a second. Welcome. I just wondered, since I interviewed for a lot of things and I got this question all the time of, do you live in breath design? And I always kind of saw it. That was really boring of an idea to stick to all the time. How often you guys try and get out of, as someone up there said, the ivory tower, and just kind of go and see what everything else is. Well, I think we live life, you know, that that it's not, it's not like you live and breathe design. It's that that design is essentially planning, and that you can, you can be planning a city, you could be planning three lines of typography on a book jacket, you could be planning to Rob Tiffany's, you could be planning all kinds of things. I think it's really the act of integrating ideas into society in some way, you know, that that's what that is. And I think that that that is a 24 hour occupation, because it has to do with who you are. It has to do with how you sort of operate and move and think about things. It doesn't mean that you're actively doing something all the time, but that your mind's functioning that way. I think what's really radical was in 1984, the idea of tying together technology, entertainment and design, because they seemed very diverse. It seemed like stuff you wouldn't put in a put in a bag together. And and when Ricky did that, it was the beginning of understanding that all things, whether they're entertainment or they're things that are, are scientific or technological are planned, and that they they they relate to each other in a very specific way. It really may design become important. The big design problem is designing your life. And I think all the people here have, as I think we're design enters us is by designing your life. If you can, when people ask me, what do you want out of life? And I want to have interesting days. I'm 78 years old, gonna be 79 pretty soon. And I just still want to have interesting days. And I try to design them, not so they're like the day before, but just to have interesting days. Lucan, some of you know who Lucan is, he's my mentor, long dead, but still my mentor. And I think of him every day. In fact, I'm writing an introduction to a book on one of his buildings right now. And when I was just before shortly before he died, we flew out to the West Coast together. And I, I was worried because I am an architect. And I was doing lots of other things. I was doing had already done seven or eight books. And they were on different subjects. And I was interested in so many different things, particularly maps. I was really interested in cartography. And I was worried that Lou would think that I had lost the cause I had left architecture. And I asked him, was it okay to do all these different things? And I think his answer answers your question. It's an odd answer. But he will pause for a minute. And he will not a minute, but 30 seconds, which is a long time to pause, actually. And he said, Ricky, he said, even when I get a haircut, I'm an architect. And he was saying that he's always that he's always an architect.  And in his case, architect. When I participated in the teen design fair in Washington, DC recently, several of the kids asked me about design thinking. You know, and this was a term that they had heard of and they wanted to basically know what it meant or what it meant to me. And I think I had the same reaction to what you're saying, which is, for people that think in this way, it's just called thinking. It's just doing the things thinking planning. It's so interesting that it's it can be a very simple process of just laying out things in a clear way, and having no biases in in terms of how you want to approach them. Going into different things, each one of these people here have an interesting life. I mean, and I'm fascinated with what they do. And many of us have not come from parents that have as interesting a life. One side of my family were kosher butchers, very poor. And the other side made cigars. And I think my life is more interesting and has been more interesting. And and I'm fascinated with these four people. I mean, there's a you can you talk to people in design and they can think of the thing that's next that's outside of what they're doing of the connective tissue between something. You know, I'm convinced when I finally find out what you've just housed about this camera, I will think of something else. And I still understand a goddamn thing of what you said. But I think it's there or you wouldn't be so seriously passionate about it. Holler on the kosher butcher background, we can talk about that. In terms of a lineage, maybe there's something about butchers and design that we can put together. But something just in order, exactly, deconstruction, in honor of where we are in the fact that we're in a design school and design program. And I'm a graduate of Parsons. So hollered Parsons as well. But something that I think is interesting about design, mind design thinking. And what I'm hearing here is that through design, you learn how to sequence. And I think that's something that's really critical. And that's what I find when I'm in conversations with people that are not in this field that they don't think in that method, they have an idea. But the idea of how to execute that idea sort of vague to them. And I think that's something that you can cultivate as a designer. And as someone who's studying design, and it's really important to be able to do to succeed in life and in this industry. How many people in this room are designers or in allied fields or have an identity with? Oh, well, that's amazing. So we're talking to the converted here. This is like a meeting. Yes, sir, back there. Well, we're going to get the mic, the mic, the mic, we're trying to be good about this. It also delays things. There we go. Hi. I have a question for all of you. Obviously, congratulations on winning. It's an amazing award. Do you think it's going to change the way that you approach your work? This next year, this coming year? And does it give you the authority to perhaps push projects or push clients into a direction that you wouldn't ordinarily be able to do?  I guess is the question might be too early to know, but what do you think? What's your fantasy? Well, I think my question or rather my answer is a little maybe different from the others, because a big part of what Ted does is it it reacts to what users want. So if they're users of Ted.com, many of our largest programs have been created as a result of our users asking for them. And so I think it's a little bit different for us in terms of, you know, a big part of what we do is listening to the community. So I don't think that it necessarily applies for us, but it certainly makes us feel like we're heading in the right direction and we're going to strive to keep moving there. I want to jump in here. A lot of what I'm doing, and I guess a lot of what designers in general doing is trying to piece together one solution that has a lot of facets of problems that each one of these problems have an expert and we are kind of the non experts. Maybe there is some ounce of authority that will be added to something that we say against these experts. In many cases, we have conflicts with, you know, just each one of these vertical expertise. And maybe that body of work, if you wish that we represent and was honored by Smithsonian will actually add to our ability to push forward ideas that are maybe a little bit more radical, maybe a little bit more progressive and so on. It's it's a big deal that the United States government honors design. I mean, that really this word matters for that reason. And it is a tremendous honor. And it's it's great to to win it. On the other hand, work and practice or work and practice and that one pursues what they do separate from the accolade. If the accolade is a seal of approval that helps the practice, that's fantastic. But it still means the next day is the next day and the problems and one confronts in trying to make things happen are still going to be there. And and it's it's terrific that the United States government now says designs important to our society because there was a time when they didn't. And that's fantastic. It is a tremendous honor. And we're so pleased to have received this award. And I agree that it is to take what Paula said, it's about it. We still have work to do after this conference is over. And after this panel is over tonight, even probably. But I'm pleased that hopefully this will present design to a wider audience in the United States, and allow people who had previously not allowed that as an avenue for their exploration to become something that's known to them. And the different avenues that you can take even within that how design manifests across disciplines. I'm going to tell you a little bit of history because it goes on what you've said in 1973. Now that gets a long time ago. There was a single thing happened and it never was repeated was called the first federal design assembly. I did it. I was chairman of it with with Ivan Chimayev with Ivan, a great designer Ivan Chimayev and a great maker of collages too. He has a hobby, right? And his or hers are better. Ivan, I'm sorry, I didn't mean that. So we've haltedly in this country tried to through the National Endowment for the Arts that had a design awards program that was very beneficial, it's really quite beneficial for a while. It gave C grants of 15,000, $10,000 to people, which was quite a bit more money than I mean, you could actually do a little project with that. And they gave you entered your ideas and they had juries and they seated the country with lots of little ideas, lots of them. And then they decided and Nixon was president then they decided to have a first federal design assembly and they asked Ivan and myself to to chair it. And we did a book called Design Matters. You just that came up one of the two of you. And Ralph Kaplan was involved in writing that book. And then it died. And now it has a rebirth and it's a more solid rebirth with the Cooper Hewitt Museum. And this has been going on for a while. And I think, as Paula said, it's very important that the federal government, a luncheon with the first lady, the whole misogast, the whole craziness of it of doing all this stuff is very important. And it getting teenagers both here and in Washington to get out of school for a day and have some soda and talk to some designers, it probably will change a few lives. And that's the beginning. And all things you do are about beginnings. So it is important. Speaking of beginnings, I'm a student here at Parsons now. I'm just curious to learn about your beginnings and how you got to the positions you're now. So I graduated Parsons 13 years ago. And I, at the time, it's embarrassing to say so I was the first year that they ever had a media program. And it wasn't even matriculated because they didn't know what it was. This was before iPhones. This was before cell phones. So I was designing for the idea of communicating a concept. And so I studied graphic design, I studied illustration, I studied communication design. And it was a combination of those ideas that enabled me to focus my desire to move towards that of educational media. So I had a one way street to Sesame Street, which is where I thought I was going to go. Of course, all your paths lead to other roads. And so I found myself actually at the American Museum of Natural History, where I was there for seven years in their exhibition department. And that was an amazing opportunity of a lifetime because it allowed me to understand new ways of communicating science to a general public through design. And so I think that was a huge neural connection for me of when I was using design to explain science, something that was clearly not the strength, otherwise I would be a scientist. But I was instead a designer who was using the keys and the tools in front of me to explain much more complicated topics. And that was the opening window for me. I see that in your work today. That's interesting. Paula. I graduated Tyler School of Art as a design major in the 70s and went to work in the music business. And I used to art direct record covers. I made lots of them. I made about 150 a year. I was the senior art director at CBS Records for about 10 years. And it was an amazing experience. They were 12 by 12 then, not little things on your iPod yet. If you download a lot of jazz albums or Charles Mingus, the images I made in 1973, 1974 still come up. It's amazing. They tell you the graphic design is ephemeral. And work I did 40 years ago is still around. So that was sort of great. I learned about a relationship with the public because I was designing for popular culture. And I think that where you start has a lot to do with where you go. For example, at Pentagram, we do lots of work for cultural organizations. And my work is largely connected to the entertainment industry still. You know, whether it's theater or it's theatrical in spirit, it's it's something that I feel natural about because I was doing it back in the day. I was a record cover designer. And so much of my identity work has been really based on trying to make the public enjoy and understand things that are sometimes complicated, things that sometimes seem strange, and making things accept accessible to people. And that's what I've done always really. She was the queen of record color covers. And there was no king. She really she controlled that space. They were fantastic. So I actually grew up in an architectural studio, basically my parents, both of them are architects. And I since I was a kid, basically ran around and played with them, all sorts of phones and phones and so on and decided absolutely not to be an architect. So I was just asked by the kids earlier, when I knew about industrial design. So through my high school years, I was pretty much a geek. And only after high school, I grew up in Israel. So I went to the army as well.  And that clicked immediately. So I wanted to do that. So I went to school in Jerusalem. And after that, I worked in a company that did imaging. Really love dealing with graphics image and so on. And from there, I got to frog design in the early 90s. And I worked with Hartmut Esslinger, something like eight years, seven, eight years. And then I decided to start my own studio because I didn't want to be part of a large design company. And I was still very much enamored with objects. It was the end of the 90s. And everything was supposed to be software and I did industrial design was supposed to be dead, which I never thought it died. And that's how I started New Deal design and really focused on creating objects in somewhat kind of an old traditional craftsmanship type of methodology. I studied film production, film theory. And then so when I graduated, I went to work for a film studio, except I worked in photography. And so I was thinking about how to convey the emotion of a film in a single, you know, still frame. And then when I moved on from that, I worked for in freelance in terms of book, book photo editing and book editing. So again, it was about storytelling. And then when I landed at Ted, you know, one of our main resources is a pretty amazing photography library going back of speakers through the years. And it really just occurred to me that we have a Ted talk, which is a video. And we have a still frame of that person giving that talk. And so it just seemed to me that that was such there was such potential in that single frame to try to transmit some small bit of what a speaker is trying to say. And so I started thinking of photography, not just as photography, which tends to be just its own thing, but in terms of a design element, in terms of a narrative, and how it can help what we're doing on Ted. And so I started bringing photography more into our overall visual language. And then started thinking about, you know, the whole the whole thing in terms of every way we were trying to communicate visually. So that's my background. I'm an architect. And there's connections between everything, because you work for CBS. And you know, my partner was Frank Stanton, who was the CEO of CBS when I did a whole series of guidebooks. And I just was interested in I failed a lot. I was fired from most of my jobs in my life. And I was fired when I was Dean of a school. I sort of failed sideways my whole life. And when I realized I was totally unemployable. And and I was I didn't have any money. I mean, really was destitute at 45. I had always done like gatherings. And I wasn't shy. And I started doing lots of other things. So I had a number of my books. There's a whole series of books on medical things. I think there's an element in design where you sell I think the good designers, they don't sell their expertise. Most of our society is based on and I gave a the graduate the graduation at Harvard this year at the Graduate School of Design. That's not the big speech to the whole university Oprah gave that. But I just gave it to the to the Graduate School of Design. And my speech then was saying that because there was parents and kids in the room that we've all been taught as I think we were taught somehow that you start as a private and you end up as a general. You start in the mailroom and you end up as head of the studio that there's a vertical silo in in many of our lives. I mean which we were taught that should be. And I think for more interesting people the silo has fallen over. And certainly for me it fell over. And and I think there's an element behind some of what is said not everybody here is that you sell your ignorance rather than your expertise. That you sell what you don't know about something and you want to learn about it. And what you produce for that museum I think is your journey from not knowing to knowing. And I think what you do is your journey from not knowing to knowing.  You start what you're doing from zero. That's the excitement. And that's the opposite of much of society of trying to sell your instead of your expertise so your ignorance and your desire to learn. And I think that's what all these people have in common. And that's what makes it interesting. I think I see that in what they in their work. You can argue with me. I totally agree. That's the thing is I'm going back to some comments about design thinking earlier. I think that's something about design thinking that's a misnomer because of what you just said. I'm not sure we are thinking coherently all the time we stumble we have a lot of serendipity in what we do and but we do have intuition. And I think the intuition is the key missing part. So I think it's discussion should be more about the role of intuition rather than the role of thinking. Actually I had done a Ted talk that is about this which is the difference between what's serious and what's solemn and what you know is solemn because you already know how to do it.  That can be very serious because you have accidents and accidents are interesting. That's failing up. It's such a good talk. You should watch it if you haven't seen it. I wish I was asked to give a Ted talk but I've never been asked to give a Ted talk. So there's no Ted talks from me. Hi. What is something that you're particularly proud of in your career. It can be an idea or a concept that wasn't realized. I'm a product something that you really care about. You're proud that you did. Thank you. Wow. Yeah. That's a great question. I have a hard time picking favorites in anything. Movies, music, things like that. But I would say that one thing that I'm proud of is the fact that if you go like this people might say hey that's a Ted talk. And it's kind of a funny thing but there's certainly sort of a form. I think there was even a blog once that put giant hamburgers in people's hands. But I guess that's a funny way of saying I'm proud of bringing visuals to a medium that's primarily about a person standing, speaking either in a room or on video. I'm proud to think about the visual way to communicate what's usually a very complex idea in a simple bite. I'm proud of actually being able to touch people's life through these objects that I make. And I had this really touching moment when I left the White House lunch and one of the officers that is, you know, they work around there. It's kind of their social thing. And she walked to me and said that her mom lost 64 pounds due to Fitbit, which is another thing that we worked on. And she was really worried about her mom's health and how she couldn't lose weight in any other way. And this thing worked for her. And she was really emotional and really got me choked up too. And that's for me very, very important. So it's not a single thing that I've done. But it's these moments of connecting with people and what we've done and seeing that it actually makes some difference in their life. And that's for me the most important. When I was in high school, I had my art teacher, Mr. Tucker, had something called picture of the week. And if you got to have picture of the week, it meant that your picture hung outside the art room for everybody to see. And it's like the happiest moment of my life is when I first had a picture of the week. And all I want to have are pictures of the week every week. That's all I can say. I won't focus on product. I'll focus on process. I'm proudest of the fact that, I mean, all the work that you see on Local Projects' website, all of our work that's in museums is not my work. It's the work of an incredible studio of the most talented people I've ever met in my entire life. And they are so dedicated and collaborative. And I think that that's a skill that maybe is suppressed when you're being trained. It's all about your vision and pushing that through. But work that's truly great is a benefit of other people reviewing and then amending your thought process to make it that one step better. And I think what I'm proud of is that every day I get to work with people who are, and this is so cliche, but they are dedicated to a better solution and a better design. And no one is looking for an easy solution. We're looking for the better one. Is this okay? So my question is about the museum and interactivity. Do you see it very much as a bidirectional process? Are you acquiring information and learning from your visitors? To answer that question, I would maybe veer away from the Cleveland Museum of Art and look at a different museum that we've been working on, which will open next year, which is the National September 11th Memorial Museum. And that's a completely different approach in that 9-11 was the most mediated event, tragic event in our nation's recent history. And so the entire museum is based on the premise that we are able to learn from the event through the collection of stories that are told by people who live through it. So anyone that was in New York, anyone that was anywhere in the world that heard of this event and that spoke about this event and then that learned about it as it unfolded is how we tell the story. So there's not a larger narrative or curatorial or God voice happening in this institution. Instead, you learn from listening to oral histories that are compiled and directed to help you understand a formation of the day's events, the year's events, and then the decade events that have followed. So in that instance, we are using the visitor to reverse the flow of information back to other visitors. And I think that that's an exceptional new place to go. It's very different than the comments on blogs. It's very different than the other way that digital detritus can kind of become a bad thing. It's using voices to respond and to help you learn about your own story as opposed to having it be just filter. Our hour is up. I think it's an hour. One more question. Somebody's waving frantically. Lucky, lucky last question. Wow. This better be a good one. I'm gonna stand up and ask this one. Actually, I'll come a bit closer maybe. This is not going to be a good one. It could. It could. You'd never know, actually. I know. Ladies and gentlemen, I thought I'd just come up here and ask you personally.  How do you decide what problems to solve as designers? And in an ideal world, what problems would you be solving if money wasn't, in fact, an issue? Well, that's it. Okay. Does anybody want to try to answer that? You can differ. Do you want to answer that? No. Well, let me just say that we're all so different. Many of us work. Let's take Paula. She works when, for some reason, a company asks her to solve a problem. And so she has clients. A lot of people have clients. They may be proactively trying to get the clients they want you by publicizing themselves or publicizing other work they've done, but they basically have a client they work for. Now, when she does her painting, she doesn't have a client. You have a client when somebody asks you to design things and you work for a non-profit corporation, but you have a job. The opposite of that is being, not having, having to wake up every morning and decide what I want to do. I don't have any clients. I either invent something, think of something, or I don't. And so there's such a wide range of, in answering that question. And I don't think, this seems specious, but I don't think money is part of it. I don't think money is part of the issue. It is, to some degree. What I was going to say is I was wrong in saying that. Let me qualify. There are two aspects to that. I actually want to hit. First, the one thing I want to say, and it's actually related to the kids earlier being here, talented people deserve good money. So the whole phenomenon of talent with people doing things for free, I think is actually immoral. So this is number one. Number two, in my profession, which is more about dealing with industrial processes and all that, you really need money in order to make a change. So whether it's a medical device or whether it's a new computer or any other invention, at the end of the day it ends up being millions of dollars of a lot of people that make it better and eventually deliver it. By the way, the guys who make the iPhones are also supposed to be paid well. So we should tone down a little bit about the discussions about the immateriality of money. So that's... I actually disagree and I love making money. So I was form-making money. But I think that the question was really about, you know, how do you decide what you're going to pursue? And that pursuit is, I think, inherently personal. It's driven by your own prejudices and interests and opportunities as they come. For example, I spend the past four years of my life going down to City Hall once a week to be on the Design Commission because I got to learn how cities function and I could get involved in the infrastructure of New York to a degree and be able to learn and change my other work largely because of that experience of being involved in government. It wasn't a financial decision. It was something I was really genuinely interested in. That you do these things because you want to and because they help you grow and that when you do that, you do good things, you put good things back out into society, which is the whole point. I mean, that's what the fun is. And that money is kind of a byproduct.  But that's just getting your life in order so you can survive and buy really good shoes and those sorts of things that really matter. But I think that that the choices are something that come from within you and that's why everybody's inherently different because we all make different choices. I think it's really different. I've never I've made money, but I've never tried to make money. I really feel I'm Tom Sawyer and people pay me to paint the fence. I think sort of it's sort of a scam. I don't try to make money, but I've made money. It's not it's nothing. It's not something I don't think about. I thought about not having it at all, but it didn't make me change my life to make it. So but everybody here is telling their truth. I'll give we'll end with one luke on story. When I was flying the same flight when I was flying with him out to the West Coast. I was doing I had done the first book on him when I was 26. And then I was working on another book before he died, which I continued after he died, which was originally going to be just stories about him from people who knew him. It later turned into a different book, which that was a very small part of. And most of the book was all his writings and all his speeches. But as I was collecting stories about him, some of the people didn't have nice things to say or some of them didn't like him for one reason or another or building or had some criticism or whatever. It wasn't all. It wasn't puffy. And I said to Lou, because he was my life, I said, some of the things are going to be in there and I don't know. I'm having a hard time because I love you so much.  And he had one of his pauses again. And he said, well, everything that any person says is the truth. It's their truth might not be factual, but it's their truth. And I'll be really interested to hear what they have to say. And I think tonight, everybody's told their truth. And in that one last question of the gentleman who sort of got up and came to the stage and asked us that we're that one, we're going to have many divisive ways of answering that of how you choose what you're going to do the next day, how you what what money is in your life, what it isn't what power gives you buying shoes, you know, the silly thing of buying shoes or their nice shoes. Are they red inside that heel? Oh, my God. Thank you very much, everybody.


First of all, we wanted to thank you all for being here today, right? I think it was quite a success and we had quite a turnout, so thank you. And as we were thinking back about the journey we did with Cilliam Kahn, we just started a year ago, right? The first Cilliam Kahn was in Amsterdam last year, and at the time we didn't know how successful the event was going to be, and imagine our surprise when we submitted for only half a day and asked people for submissions, and we were reviewing the submissions and we had 28 submissions. It was very tough for us because we only had a few slots. And so we did Chicago in the fall and we had a submission, we had a full day, and we didn't know if the momentum was going to keep. And as you can see for this one, we had more than 60 submissions and we could only have time and slots for 11 talks. So of course, we'll try and make it work also in North America at the end of the year. Don't hesitate to submit talks and make it a great event again. Something we wanted to mention is the program committee today is around five, six persons, and if you're interested in contributing to the committee, please reach out to us. It's always great to have people with different backgrounds, from different companies to give us insight into what's interesting and what could be of interest to the community. Of course, this event wouldn't have been possible with our sponsors. So please, we want to thank them. So first of all, Solo, thank you, and Isovalent are second diamond sponsor. As a reminder, this Syllium certification is available, right? It's GA, so and you can get a discount on it. And there are a lot of other Syllium talks at KubeCon, so I think it's 11, right? And there's a full list here. So great. Just to kind of recap, so what did we learn today? We saw deep dive into how Syllium works. We saw some demos of how Syllium works and also doesn't work and what to do when that happens. We saw how Syllium is deployed on hundreds of clusters in thousands of locations around the world, and the way this brings benefits to end users in production today. We saw how Syllium is going to Windows and also how it's moving off the networking stack to replace Istio. So where are we going in the future? We talked about connecting Cloud Native in the beginning of the day, and now let's close with how we're going to defend the future. Security is a very hot topic right now in the Cloud Native and really the computing industry as a whole, and Syllium brings a lot to the table with this. In terms of things like network policy, encryption, and mutual authentication. And if you missed the talk earlier or haven't heard about it yet, also be sure to check out Tetragon, which is the EVPF runtime security observability enforcement tool. There's going to be some great talks about it later in the week too, and I think this is going to be almost ready for its own conference pretty soon too. If you were inspired by what you heard today, you have some ideas about how the project can be improved, or like Laurent said, want to get involved in the program committee. There's lots of ways to get involved in the community, and we'd love to have you be a part of it. The Syllium contributor ladder lays out a lot of great ways to get to start, or feel free to talk to me. I'm available on Slack, Twitter, email, GitHub, LinkedIn. I already said Twitter. You can send smoke signals too if you want, you know, whatever it takes, or talk to me afterwards. Another great way to connect to the community and to show your idea is there's a weekly developer meeting on Wednesdays. We'd love to see you there too. So with that, thanks everyone for coming today. It's been really wonderful seeing all the different ideas, topics, suggestions, and talks from the community. It's been great, and thank you for coming to Syllium and EVPF Day EU 2024.