Saturday, January 6, 2018

How Did The Matter In Our Universe Arise From Nothing? - Forbes Science

JAN 5, 2018 @ 10:00 AM 18,883 The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
How Did The Matter In Our Universe Arise From Nothing?
Starts With A Bang The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Ethan Siegel Ethan Siegel , Contributor
NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)
On all scales in the Universe, from our local neighborhood to the interstellar medium to individual galaxies to clusters to filaments and the great cosmic web, everything we observe appears to be made out of normal matter and not antimatter. This is an unexplained mystery.
When you look out at the vastness of the Universe, at the planets, stars, galaxies, and all there is out there, one obvious question screams for an explanation: why is there something instead of nothing? The problem gets even worse when you consider the laws of physics governing our Universe, which appear to be completely symmetric between matter and antimatter. Yet as we look at what's out there, we find that all the stars and galaxies we see are made 100% of matter, with scarcely any antimatter at all. Clearly, we exist, as do the stars and galaxies we see, so something must have created more matter than antimatter, making the Universe we know possible. But how did it happen? It's one of the Universe's greatest mysteries, but one that we're closer than ever to solving.
NASA, modified by Wikimedia Commons user 老陳, modified further by E. Siegel
The matter and energy content in the Universe at the present time (left) and at earlier times (right). Note the presence of dark energy, dark matter, and the prevalence of normal matter over antimatter, which is so minute it does not contribute at any of the times shown.
Consider these two facts about the Universe, and how contradictory they are:
Every interaction between particles that we’ve ever observed, at all energies, has never created or destroyed a single particle of matter without also creating or destroying an equal number of antimatter particles.
When we look out at the Universe, at all the stars, galaxies, gas clouds, clusters, superclusters and largest-scale structures everywhere, everything appears to be made of matter and not antimatter.
It seems like an impossibility. On one hand, there is no known way, given the particles and their interactions in the Universe, to make more matter than antimatter. On the other hand, everything we see is definitely made of matter and not antimatter. Here's how we know.
Dmitri Pogosyan / University of Alberta
The production of matter/antimatter pairs (left) from pure energy is a completely reversible reaction (right), with matter/antimatter annihilating back to pure energy. This creation-and-annihilation process, which obeys E = mc^2, is the only known way to create and destroy matter or antimatter.
Whenever and wherever antimatter and matter meet in the Universe, there’s a fantastic outburst of energy due to particle-antiparticle annihilation. We actually observe this annihilation in some locations, but only around hyper-energetic sources that produce matter and antimatter in equal amounts, like around massive black holes. When the antimatter runs into matter in the Universe, it produces gamma rays of very specific frequencies, which we can then detect. The interstellar and intergalactic medium is full of material, and the complete lack of these gamma rays is a strong signal that there aren't large amounts of antimatter particles flying around anywhere, since that matter/antimatter signature would show up.
Gary Steigman, 2008, via http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1122
Whether in clusters, galaxies, our own stellar neighborhood or our Solar System, we have tremendous, powerful limits on the fraction of antimatter in the Universe. There can be no doubt: everything in the Universe is matter-dominated.
In our own galaxy’s interstellar medium, the mean lifetime would be on the order of about 300 years, which is tiny compared to the age of our galaxy! This constraint tells us that, at least within the Milky Way, the amount of antimatter that’s allowed to be mixed in with the matter we observe is at most 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000! On larger scales — of galaxies and galaxy clusters, for example — the constraints are less stringent but still very strong. With observations spanning from just a few million light-years away to over three billion light-years distant, we’ve observed a dearth of the X-rays and gamma rays we’d expect from matter-antimatter annihilation. What we’ve seen is that even on large, cosmological scales, 99.999%+ of what exists in our Universe is definitely matter (like us) and not antimatter.
ESO
This is the reflection nebula IC 2631, as imaged by the MPG/ESO 2.2-m telescope. Whether within our own galaxy or between galaxies, there is simply no evidence of the gamma-ray signatures that would need to exist if there were significant pockets, stars, or galaxies made out of antimatter.
So somehow, even though we aren't entirely sure how, we had to have created more matter than antimatter in the Universe's past. Which is made even more confusing by the fact that the symmetry between matter and antimatter, in terms of particle physics, is even more explicit than you might think. For example:
every time we create a quark, we also create an antiquark,
every time a quark is destroyed, an antiquark is also destroyed,
every time we create-or-destroy a lepton, we also create-or-destroy an antilepton from the same lepton family, and
every time a quark-or-lepton experiences an interaction, collision or decay, the total net number of quarks and leptons at the end of the reaction (quarks minus antiquarks, leptons minus antileptons) is the same at the end as it was at the beginning.
The only way we’ve ever made more (or less) matter in the Universe has been to also make more (or less) antimatter in an equal amount.
E. Siegel / Beyond The Galaxy
The particles and antiparticles of the Standard Model obey all sorts of conservation laws, but there are slight differences between the behavior of certain particle/antiparticle pairs that may be hints of the origin of baryogenesis.
But we know that it must be possible; the only question is how it happened. In the late 1960s, physicist Andrei Sakharov identified three conditions necessary for baryogenesis, or the creation of more baryons (protons and neutrons) than anti-baryons. They are as follows:
The Universe must be an out-of-equilibrium system.
It must exhibit C- and CP-violation.
There must be baryon-number-violating interactions.
The first one is easy, because an expanding, cooling Universe with unstable particles (and/or antiparticles) in it is, by definition, out of equilibrium. The second one is easy, too, since "C" symmetry (replacing particles with antiparticles) and "CP" symmetry (replacing particles with mirror-reflected antiparticles) are both violated in the weak interactions.
E. Siegel / Beyond The Galaxy
A normal meson spins counterclockwise about its North Pole and then decays with an electron being emitted along the direction of the North Pole. Applying C-symmetry replaces the particles with antiparticles, which means we should have an antimeson spinning counterclockwise about its North Pole decay by emitting a positron in the North direction. Similarly, P-symmetry flips what we see in a mirror. If particles and antiparticles do not behave exactly the same under C, P, or CP symmetries, that symmetry is said to be violated. Thus far, only the weak interaction violates any of the three.
That leaves the question of how to violate baryon number. In the Standard Model of particle physics, despite the observed conservation of baryon number, there isn't an explicit conservation law for either that or lepton number (where a lepton is a particle like an electron or a neutrino). Instead, it's only the difference between baryons and leptons, B - L, that's conserved. So under the right circumstances, you can not only make extra protons, you can make the electrons you need to go with them.
What those circumstances are is still a mystery, however. In the early stages of the Universe, we fully expect equal amounts of matter and antimatter to exist, with very high speeds and energies.
Brookhaven National Laboratory
At the high temperatures achieved in the very young Universe, not only can particles and photons be spontaneously created, given enough energy, but also antiparticles and unstable particles as well, resulting in a primordial particle-and-antiparticle soup.
As the Universe expands and cools, unstable particles, once created in great abundance, will decay. If the right conditions are met, they can lead to an excess of matter over antimatter, even where there was none initially. There three leading possibilities for how this excess of matter over antimatter could have emerged:
New physics at the electroweak scale could greatly enhances the amount of C- and CP-violation in the Universe, leading to an asymmetry between matter and antimatter. Sphaleron interactions, which violate B and L individually (but conserve B - L) can then generate the right amounts of baryons and leptons. This could occur either without supersymmetry or with supersymmetry, depending on the mechanism.
New neutrino physics at high energies, of which we have a tremendous hint, could create a fundamental lepton asymmetry early on: leptogenesis. The sphalerons, which conserve B - L, would then use that lepton asymmetry to generate a baryon asymmetry.
Or GUT-scale baryogenesis, where new physics (and new particles) are found to exist at the grand unification scale, where the electroweak force unifies with the strong force.
These scenarios all have some elements in common, so let's walk through the last one, just as an example, to see what could have happened.
E. Siegel / Beyond The Galaxy
In addition to the other particles in the Universe, if the idea of a Grand Unified Theory applies to our Universe, there will be additional super-heavy bosons, X and Y particles, along with their antiparticles, shown with their appropriate charges amidst the hot sea of other particles in the early Universe.
If grand unification is true, then there ought to be new, super-heavy particles, called X and Y, which have both baryon-like and lepton-like properties. There also ought to be their antimatter counterparts: anti-X and anti-Y, with the opposite B - L numbers and the opposite charges, but the same mass and lifetime. These particle-antiparticle pairs can be created in great abundance at high enough energies, and then will decay at later times.
So your Universe can be filled with them, and then they'll decay. If you have C- and CP-violation, however, then it's possible that there are slight differences between how the particles and antiparticles (X/Y vs. anti-X/anti-Y) decay.
E. Siegel / Beyond The Galaxy
If we allow X and Y particles to decay into the quarks and lepton combinations shown, their antiparticle counterparts will decay into the respective antiparticle combinations. But if CP is violated, the decay pathways — or the percentage of particles decaying one way versus another — can be different for the X and Y particles compared to the anti-X and anti-Y particles, resulting in a net production of baryons over antibaryons and leptons over antileptons.
If your X-particle has two pathways: decaying into two up quarks or an anti-down quark and a positron, then the anti-X has to have two corresponding pathways: two anti-up quarks or a down quark and an electron. Notice that the X has B - L of two-thirds in both cases, while the anti-X has negative two-thirds. It's similar for the Y/anti-Y particles. But there is one important difference that's allowed with C- and CP-violation: the X could be more likely to decay into two up quarks than the anti-X is to decay into two anti-up quarks, while the anti-X could be more likely to decay into a down quark and an electron than the X is to decay into an anti-down quark and a positron.
If you have enough X/anti-X and Y/anti-Y pairs, and they decay in this allowed fashion, you can easily make an excess of baryons over antibaryons (and leptons over anti-leptons) where there was none previously.
E. Siegel / Beyond The Galaxy
If the particles decayed away according to the mechanism described above, we would be left with an excess of quarks over antiquarks (and leptons over antileptons) after all the unstable, superheavy particles decayed away. After the excess particle–antiparticle pairs annihilated away (matched up with dotted red lines), we would be
left with an excess of up-and-down quarks, which compose protons and neutrons in combinations of up–up–down and up–down–down, respectively, and electrons, which will match the protons in number.
In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. We have multiple possible pathways to success, but it's very likely that nature only needed one of them to give us our Universe.
The fact that we exist and are made of matter is indisputable; the question of why our Universe contains something (matter) instead of nothing (from an equal mix of matter and antimatter) is one that must have an answer. This century, advances in precision electroweak testing, collider technology, and experiments probing particle physics beyond the Standard Model may reveal exactly how it happened. And when it does, one of the greatest mysteries in all of existence will finally have a solution.
Astrophysicist and author Ethan Siegel is the founder and primary writer of Starts With A Bang! His books, Treknology and Beyond The Galaxy, are available wherever books are sold.

Russia berates the US for calling UN Security Council meeting over protests in Iran that have left at least 21 dead - Daily Mail

6/1/2018
Russia berates the US for calling UN Security Council meeting over protests in Iran that have left at least 21 dead
Russia's envoy Vassily Nebenzia criticizes 'flawed U.S. logic' over the meeting
He asked why the SC has not also met to discuss 2014 violence in Missouri
But the U.S. says that Iran needed to be put on notice over recent violence
At least 21 people have been killed in recent anti-government protests
By Alastair Tancred and Ap
PUBLISHED: 21:30 AEDT, 6 January 2018 |
Russia and Iran have both strongly criticized the U.S. for calling a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Friday to discuss recent protests in Iran which have killed at least 21 people.
Russia's envoy Vassily Nebenzia said involving the Council was wrong because what was happening in Iran was an 'internal affair' which undermined the reputation of the U.N.'s top body.
Mr Nebenzia argued that if American logic on the issue was to be followed, a Security Council meeting should also have been convened after the 2014 killing of an unarmed black teenager by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.
Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya, left, speaks to American Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley before Friday's Security Council meeting on Iran
Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya, left, speaks to American Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley before Friday's Security Council meeting on Iran
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was scathing of the US move to convene the meeting on twitter
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was scathing of the US move to convene the meeting on twitter
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said the emergency session put Iran on notice that 'the world will be watching' its actions
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said the emergency session put Iran on notice that 'the world will be watching' its actions
The anti-government protests began at the end of December, fueled by spiraling food prices and soaring unemployment
The anti-government protests began at the end of December, fueled by spiraling food prices and soaring unemployment
Thousands of Iranians took part in pro-government rallies in several cities earlier this week in a state-sponsored show of force aimed at countering the outpouring of dissent
Thousands of Iranians took part in pro-government rallies in several cities earlier this week in a state-sponsored show of force aimed at countering the outpouring of dissent
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote on Twitter after the meeting that the Security Council 'rebuffed the U.S.' naked attempt to hijack its mandate.'
He said the majority on the Council emphasized the need to fully implement the 2015 nuclear deal and to refrain from interfering in the affairs of other countries.
'Another FP (foreign policy) blunder for the Trump administration,' he wrote.
The Iranian envoy at the meeting, Gholamali Khoshroo, said that the U.S. had 'lost every shred of moral, political and legal authority and credibility in the eyes of the whole world'.
France was also critical of the move to convene the meeting, pointing out that any interference in Iran's affairs would be counter-productive.
Ambassador François Delattre said that while the recent protests were of concern, they hardly undermined international peace and security.
Mr Delattre said the international community should instead concentrate on fully implementing the nuclear agreement with Iran - which the Trump administration has refused to endorse.
But U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said the emergency session put Iran on notice that 'the world will be watching' its actions.
Her call for the emergency meeting surprised Security Council members and she had to overcome Russian opposition to get it - the U.S. required the backing of at last nine of the Council's 15 members for it to have gone ahead.
Ms Haley said that her country stood 'unapologetically with those in Iran who seek freedom for themselves, prosperity for their families and dignity for their nation'.
Iranian army chief offers to send in troops to deal with...
Iran protests: EU treads carefully as Trump lashes out
She said that 'no dishonest attempt to call the protesters puppets of foreign powers' would deter the US from speaking out.
Protests began in Mashhad, Iran's second largest city, on 28 December and spread to several other cities and towns. The demonstrations were triggered by a rise in food prices and soaring unemployment.
Some demonstrators even called for the government's overthrow.
Hundreds of people were arrested in addition to those killed.
Large pro-government rallies have been held in response, with officials blaming the anti-government unrest on foreign meddling.

Fire and Fury summary: All the most explosive moments in new book from inside Trump's White House

5/1/2018
Fire and Fury summary: All the most explosive moments in new book from inside Trump's White House
Andrew Griffin @_andrew_griffin
Michael Wolff's explosive book from inside the workings of the Trump White House has finally become public, sending shockwaves around the world.
The book – which has already been criticised by both Trump himself as well as critics – contains a range of huge claims about the president and those who surround him.
Extracts from Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House had already made headlines around the world. But people are finally getting their hands on their own copies of the book, rather than excerpted details from the expose.
That's because the book's publication schedule was pushed forward by publisher Little, Brown because of "unprecedented demand". The book is now available in bookshops, as well as on Amazon, where it appears to have already sold out.
Here's our full summary – assembled live during the read through – of the experience of reading the explosive book.
Everyone ready? Here goes!
a day ago
The book starts with an author's note. That might normally be the kind of thing you skip over, but it offers some insight into the bizarre process through which this book was born.
It was originally intended as an account of Trump's first 100 days, says Wolff. But then so much kept happening into the second hundred and more that further work was required, so the book got longer.
The events described come from eighteen months of conversations with Trump and those around him, some of whom talked dozens of times. The work started long before Trump even imagined himself in the White House, says Wolff, with a conversation at the candidate's house in Beverly Hills – all conducted while he ate a pint of Haagen-Dazs ice cream.
In all, the book takes in more than 200 interviews. But more than that, Wolff claims to have taken up a "semipermanent seat on a couch in the West Wing", becoming a fly-on-the-wall among the chaos of the White House. That chaos meant there was nobody with enough power to tell him to go away, he claims – and so he stayed. The book is what ensued (or so he claims).
a day ago
Into the prologue – and it's not Trump we're hearing about, but his two friends and more or less close advisers Steve Bannon and Roger Ailes. They met for dinner – a dinner to which Bannon was late, and reportedly said he doesn't drink, just like Trump – a couple of weeks before the new president was inaugurated, writes Wolff, and both were in a strange state of shock about the fact they'd won. Already, it's the strange details that stand out more than the politics: Bannon was wearing two shirts, military fatigues and turned up late; and the now disgraced but then Fox News-leading Roger Ailes held forth with strange views of why Trump had won.
a day ago
It's clear that everyone around Trump was more or less convinced that even he didn't know why he would won, or what he would be doing as president. Ailes was forced to ask Bannon whether Trump "gets it". Bannon said that he did – but Wolff describes a pause before doing so that perhaps lasted a little too long.
a day ago
We're coming to our first – of many, no doubt – looks at what happened with the Russians. Roger Ailes asks Steve Bannon what Trump "has gotten himself into" with the country. Bannon says that he had gone to Russia with the hope of meeting Putin. Putin wasn't interested, though, Wolff reports Bannon as saying – so he has been forced to keep trying to become friends.
a day ago
Into election day. And we start with a reminder that nobody actually thought Trump would win: his close adviser Kellyanne Conway, for instance, is reported to have spent all day ringing around the many TV producers she'd befriended selling herself and casting off blame for the inevitable defeat she was about to suffer. She blamed the Republican party, first, then moved on.
Secondly, she had attempted to show how she had done a surprisingly good job – by managing to at least bring someone seen as the worst candidate in history within a chance of winning.
The agreement wasn't just that Trump wouldn't win but that he shouldn't win, writes Wolff. It was helpful that enough people didn't think it would happen to actually have to deal with the fallout if it did.
Even Trump wasn't clear about the fact that he actually wanted to be president, according to the book. He was already looking forward to his plans for a Trump TV network and other ventures. And he was getting ready to claim that the election had been stolen from him, and that's why he would lose.
Trump believed that everyone around him was an idiot and that his own campaign was "crappy". He also thought that the Clinton campaign had all the "best" people, Wolff claims.
He was so unsure of his own campaign that he even refused to donate money to it, Wolff reports. He billed himself as a billionaire throughout the campaign, but the best he could do was lend $10 million on the promise that he'd get it back when they raised more money, and the finance chairman Steve Mnuchin had to collect the loan to ensure Trump didn't forget.
Indeed, the only person who believed Trump would win was Steve Bannon. But since people thought he was "crazy Steve", that did the opposite of reassuring them, says Wolff.
24 hours ago
Wolff moves on to discussing Trump's marriage to Melania, something that was "perplexing to almost everybody around him". They could go for days without talking, even if they were both in Trump tower. She might not even know which house he was in, and didn't seem to care. And she wasn't very interested in his business, either.
But he still talked about her a lot, and it's not wrong to call their relationship a marriage in name only, claims Wolff. He would discuss and admire her looks, even when other people were there, and he bragged sincerely about the fact that she was a "trophy wife". And he wanted her approval, including for his bid for president.
She gave it, even though she was one of the few people who thought he might actually win. That was a terrifying thought for her she didn't want to lose her "carefully sheltered life", which kept her not only from the glare of the press but from the rest of the extended Trump family, and allowed her to focus on raising her son Barron.
The Billy Bush tape – in which Trump boasted about "grabbing [women] by the pussy" – was an embarrassment for Melania Trump, too. The silver lining was that at least her husband wouldn't become president, jokes Wolff, and idea that even Trump himself encouraged to her when she was upset about his run.
24 hours ago
The picture the book paints of Trump Tower on election night is a fairly desperate and depressing one – but only when it became clear that Trump was going to win. The whole campaign was set up so that it would win by losing: they would avoid the potentially dangerous glare of the press that would come with a victory, and all of the big people in the movement had already set up their new jobs for afterwards. Trump, for instance, would be able to become the figurehead of a movement that would see him as the martyr of the crooked Clinton campaign.
When it became clear he was going to win, however, everything changed. Donald Jr looked "as if he had seen a ghost"; Melania "was in tears – and not of joy"; and Trump went from "befuddled" to "disbelieving" to "quite horrified", all in the space of an hour. And then he underwent the most dramatic change of all: into a "a man who believed that he deserved to be and was wholly capable of being the president of the United States".
24 hours ago
Wolff moves on to Trump's character before he started thinking about running for president. And character is the right word: Wolff says that he speaks about himself in the third person, and was living life as a role in the same way Hulk Hogan does.
The book moves on to discuss rumours – apparently supported by people who knew him – that Trump had sex with his friends' wives. But is that true? All that and more is addressed in this excellent piece by Adam Lusher, which looks at just how much of this book we can trust in.
23 hours ago
(Just jumping out of the book here to say that if you want to heckle me, hurry me along, ask any questions or whatever else, then the best place to do it is probably on Twitter – where I'm @_andrew_griffin.)
23 hours ago
During the transition, Trump kept asking to have his family join the team. "In defiance of law and tone, and everybody's disbelieving looks, the president seemed intent on surrounding himself in the White House with his family." All of the Trumps would come, apart from Melania, he said, and would take on roles similar to those they had in the Trump Organization
Nobody was there to stop him. That is, until famous Trump supporter and media personality Ann Coulter took him aside and said: "Nobody is apparently telling you this. But you can't. You just can't hire your children," Wolff writes.
But he continued to insist that he was able to call on his family's help. Eventually, he relented on his desire to have Jared Kushner as his chief-of-staff, but as we know many of the extended family of Trumps continue to occupy important places in the White House.
23 hours ago
Donald Trump has claimed that the Billy Bush tape – a video that he appeared to initially recognise the legitimacy of – might actually be fake, according to both Wolff and numerous reports before the book came out too. He has suggested that the tape "really wasn't me", and when pressed whether he meant that it was unfair to judge him on a singular event, made clear that he meant that:
No, it wasn't me. I've been told by people who understand this stuff about how easy it is to alter these things and put in voices and completely different people.
Wolff doesn't name the friendly cable anchor that he claims Trump made those remarks too. But it is entirely in line with what he has been saying elsewhere – something that led Access Hollywood to address the claims on air, during a segment where hosts made clear that they believed the tape was real and that the president had actually already apologised for the behaviour on it.
23 hours ago
We're hearing a lot about the explosive claims made in the book, and I'm trying to focus on those mostly here. But it's worth noting that it's definitely worth reading even if you've picked up all the good stuff in excerpts and readings like this one (and whether or not you believe them): alongside all that, it's simply a very good telling of a story that we all know something about, but perhaps haven't stepped back and thought about.
Wolff, for instance, just related the story of the then President-elect's bizarre press conference at Trump Tower, during which he surrounded himself with piles of (potentially empty) binders that would clear up his business ventures and proceeded to rattle on about the dossier that claimed he had engaged in lewd behaviour while in Russia. There's nothing in there that hasn't come from other reports, and which you probably don't already know – but it seems like so long ago, and it's sometimes easy to forget just how recently some very bizarre stuff has been going on.
23 hours ago
A number of people point out that Melania wasn't into raising (Steve) Bannon, as I said earlier, but raising Barron (Trump). At least as far as we know. The book is explosive, yes, but hasn't suggested that Donald Trump is Steve Bannon's father, at least not yet. Apologies.
23 hours ago
Trump didn't like his own inauguration, writes Wolff. His friend Tom Barrack raised some money to pay for a big spectacular, but he did so with the aim of creating a show that didn't really suit the new president's tastes: he was aiming for "soft sensuality" and "poetic cadence", the book claims, which isn't really an aesthetic associated with Trump.
He wanted his friends to use their influence and encourage some big stars to attend the event, or at least attack them for snubbing it. But they wouldn't, and he got upset because it seemed like they wanted to embarrass him.
So instead we got the vision we now remember: a concert at which Trump was the biggest act, something that he claimed was fine because he could "outdraw any star". That evening was a bit of a squib, if you recall – something that Wolff claims was very upsetting to the president.
But that turned out to be actually quite helpful when the inauguration ceremony came around. Steve Bannon wrote him a very aggressive, very grumpy speech – and Trump's feeling of personally being shunned and unloved meant that he delivered it with conviction.
23 hours ago
Putting on my critical hat for a moment: there's a lot of Bannon in this book. It's clear that Wolff has been talking to him, or at least hearing a lot from him. Events are explained through that lens, often – and the story is often as much about how the Breitbart honcho responded to or guided events as the president himself. That's not necessarily a problem, but it's something that inevitably colours some of the other, more spectacular, reports
23 hours ago
Another useful reminder, not of new information but of a story that it's easy to forget. Remember when, in his first act after becoming president, Trump headed to the CIA to try and make friends with them but ended up throwing away his prepared remarks and talking about his intellect? Wolff quotes the remarks, referring to them as "some of the most peculiar remarks ever delivered by an American president":
I know a lot about West Point, I'm a person who very strongly believes in academics. Every time I say I had an uncle who was a great professor at MIT for 35 years, who did a fantastic job in so many ways academically – he was an academic genius – and then they say, Is Donald Trump an intellectual? Trust me, I'm like a smart person.
You know when I was young. Of course I feel young – I feel like I was 30... 35... 39... Somebody said, Are you young? I said, I think I'm young. I was stopping in the final months of the campaign, four stops, five stops, seven stops – speeches, speeches in front of twenty-five, thirty thousand people... fifteen, nineteen thousand. I feel young – I think we're all so young. When I was young we were always winning things in this country. We'd win with trade, we'd win with wars – at a certain age I remembering hearing from one of my instructors, the United States has never lost a war. And then, after that, it's like we haven't won anything. You know the old expression, to the victor belongs the spoils. You remember I always say, keep the oil.
"Who should keep the oil?", Wolff reports a bewildered CIA employee saying at the back of the room.
Wolff goes on to quote yet more of the strange remarks he made on that day. Our contemporary report can be read here, where you'll find yet more of his strange remarks. As ever, there's something in just reading this stuff written down; sometimes, it can feel well-delivered, but when it's written down in a long book, as it is here, it's utterly bewildering.
The full remarks from that day can be found on the White House website, here. The above might not even be the best bit.
22 hours ago
Who is Steve Bannon? Wolff keeps asking in various ways. And the answer – the same one that so many other people have found – is: nobody really knows. He claims to have links to Hollywood, but nobody can really trace those in any meaningful ways; while he was there, he seems to have acquired a big stake in Seinfeld and gone to some important meetings, but nobody involved in them can remember him. He was involved in Biosphere 2, a major failed project that now ranks among the worst ideas in the world, stepping in as it fell apart and continued to fall apart even more. Then he got involved in raising finance for an online game, and it's not clear what he did there, either.
The book is very pre-occupied with Bannon's thinking – indeed, so far, it's not actually talked about Trump's politics, and gives Bannon credit for whatever policies or ideas he discusses. But it runs into the same problem as anyone else: nobody is clear who he is, where he came from, or quite how he managed to be one of the only important people to see Trump's success coming, and make the most of it – at least for a while.
22 hours ago
Just as a preview of what's to come, I had a flick through the index for some of the stranger and more intriguing stuff mentioned there. Here's what we've got coming up (in, remember, a biography of the president of the United States):
Chopra, Deepak
Gamergate
Gawker
Mensch, Louise
Mighty Ducks, The (TV show)
Ms Universe contest
Nazi Germany
North Korea
Seinfeld
Spy Magazine
nightly phone calls
Wall Street 2
World Wrestling Entertainment
Notably, Kim Jong-un only appears once in the index. (Bannon, obviously, appears loads.)
22 hours ago
Even while we read his book, Michael Wolff is getting in the way with news. He has said that Trump has no credibility and that his staff say he is "like a child", reports the BBC.