This episode is brought to you with the support of NordVPN. When you really need to do something about your online privacy, go with the best...NordVPN. Get our extra 4 months free offer by visiting Nordvpn.com/spacenuts
Temperature of Black Holes, Cosmic Mapping, and the Nature of Space
In this thought-provoking episode of Space Nuts, hosts Andrew Dunkley and Professor Fred Watson tackle some of the most intriguing questions from their audience. Join them as they delve into the chilling temperatures of black holes, the expansive mapping of the universe by cutting-edge telescopes, and the enigmatic nature of space itself.
Episode Highlights:
- The Temperature of Black Holes: Andrew and Fred discuss Casey's question regarding the temperature of black holes. They explore the stark contrast between the scorching accretion disks and the surprisingly frigid temperatures within the event horizons, shedding light on the complexities of black hole physics.
- Mapping the Universe: Eli's inquiry about the James Webb and Vera Rubin telescopes leads to a fascinating discussion on how much of the universe has been mapped and what we can expect in the coming decade. The hosts highlight the capabilities of these telescopes and the potential discoveries that await.
- The Emptiness of Space: Robert poses a thought-provoking question about the nature of space and the Higgs boson. Andrew and Fred unravel the concept of the Higgs field, discussing its implications for our understanding of the universe and whether space is truly empty or filled with these elusive particles.
- The Impact of Dark Matter and Energy: Rennie challenges the hosts to consider how discovering the true nature of dark matter and dark energy might affect life on Earth. Andrew and Fred reflect on the long-term benefits of such knowledge, drawing parallels to historical scientific advancements.
For more Space Nuts, including our continuously updating newsfeed and to listen to all our episodes, visit our website. Follow us on social media at SpaceNutsPod on Facebook, Instagram, and more. We love engaging with our community, so be sure to drop us a message or comment on your favorite platform.
If you’d like to help support Space Nuts and join our growing family of insiders for commercial-free episodes and more, visit spacenutspodcast.com/about.
Stay curious, keep looking up, and join us next time for more stellar insights and cosmic wonders. Until then, clear skies and happy stargazing.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/space-nuts-astronomy-insights-cosmic-discoveries--2631155/support.
00:00:00 --> 00:00:02 Andrew Dunkley: Hi there. Thanks for joining us again. This
00:00:02 --> 00:00:05 is a Q and A, uh, edition of Space
00:00:05 --> 00:00:07 Nuts, where we, uh, take audience questions
00:00:07 --> 00:00:10 and we pretend that we know what we're
00:00:10 --> 00:00:12 talking about in attempting to answer them.
00:00:13 --> 00:00:15 Or we get it right sometimes, too. Uh,
00:00:15 --> 00:00:18 today we're going to be answering a
00:00:18 --> 00:00:20 question about, uh, the temperature of black
00:00:20 --> 00:00:23 holes. I'm not sure we've been
00:00:23 --> 00:00:26 there before. It may have come up, but, um, I
00:00:26 --> 00:00:28 can't remember when. Uh, and a question,
00:00:28 --> 00:00:31 uh, asking with the James Webb Space Text
00:00:31 --> 00:00:34 Telescope and the Vera Rubin Telescope, how
00:00:34 --> 00:00:36 much of the universe has been mapped?
00:00:36 --> 00:00:38 I can tell you this much.
00:00:39 --> 00:00:42 Uh, and the emptiness of space is being
00:00:42 --> 00:00:45 questioned. And what difference will it
00:00:45 --> 00:00:47 make to humanity, uh, if we
00:00:47 --> 00:00:49 find dark matter and dark energy?
00:00:51 --> 00:00:53 That's, um, a really interesting question.
00:00:53 --> 00:00:55 And Fred knows the answer. We'll ask him
00:00:55 --> 00:00:57 shortly on this edition of SpaceNuts.
00:00:57 --> 00:01:00 Voice Over Guy: 15 seconds. Guidance is internal.
00:01:00 --> 00:01:03 10, 9. Ignition.
00:01:03 --> 00:01:06 Sequence time. Um, space nuts. 5, 4, 3,
00:01:06 --> 00:01:09 2. 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4,
00:01:09 --> 00:01:11 3, 2, 1. Space nuts.
00:01:11 --> 00:01:13 Astronauts report. It feels good.
00:01:14 --> 00:01:15 Professor Fred Watson: And he's back.
00:01:15 --> 00:01:17 Andrew Dunkley: And he has all the answers to all the
00:01:17 --> 00:01:19 questions of life, the universe, and
00:01:19 --> 00:01:21 everything. Professor Fred Watson, astronomer
00:01:21 --> 00:01:22 at large. Hello, Fred.
00:01:23 --> 00:01:25 Professor Fred Watson: No pressure there, Andrew.
00:01:25 --> 00:01:27 Andrew Dunkley: None at all. None at all.
00:01:27 --> 00:01:28 Professor Fred Watson: That's right.
00:01:28 --> 00:01:30 Andrew Dunkley: Uh, let's get straight into it, shall we?
00:01:30 --> 00:01:33 Um, uh, one of our regular contributors
00:01:33 --> 00:01:36 is Casey, who has a very interesting
00:01:36 --> 00:01:38 question about a subject we never discuss,
00:01:38 --> 00:01:39 black holes.
00:01:40 --> 00:01:43 Professor Fred Watson: Hi, guys, this is Casey from Colorado, and I
00:01:43 --> 00:01:44 was thinking about the temperature of black
00:01:44 --> 00:01:47 holes. I know that the accretion disk would
00:01:47 --> 00:01:50 be very hot, but I was wondering, once you
00:01:50 --> 00:01:52 get past the event horizon, if it would
00:01:52 --> 00:01:55 be hot or, uh, cold. Why do we think this.
00:01:56 --> 00:01:58 Thanks for the podcast, and I hope you're
00:01:58 --> 00:01:59 both well. Thanks.
00:02:00 --> 00:02:01 Andrew Dunkley: Thank you, Casey. She's got me thinking about
00:02:01 --> 00:02:04 the temperature in Colorado because, like,
00:02:04 --> 00:02:06 we're facing some horrific temperatures
00:02:06 --> 00:02:08 around here at the moment, but I'd imagine
00:02:08 --> 00:02:10 it'd be quite the opposite in Colorado this
00:02:10 --> 00:02:11 time of the year.
00:02:13 --> 00:02:15 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, I think that's. That's absolutely
00:02:15 --> 00:02:17 right, yes. Chilly part of the world in
00:02:17 --> 00:02:18 winter.
00:02:19 --> 00:02:21 Andrew Dunkley: Absolutely. Um, now,
00:02:21 --> 00:02:24 temperature of black holes. This, this
00:02:24 --> 00:02:26 one's interesting because I suppose it varies
00:02:26 --> 00:02:28 on several factors. Um,
00:02:28 --> 00:02:30 where you are, what you're doing.
00:02:32 --> 00:02:35 I don't know what I would
00:02:35 --> 00:02:37 like. It's not like the temperature of the
00:02:37 --> 00:02:38 sun, is it?
00:02:39 --> 00:02:41 Professor Fred Watson: No, it's not. Um,
00:02:43 --> 00:02:45 I'm so glad Casey asked this
00:02:45 --> 00:02:47 question because it sent me down a rabbit
00:02:47 --> 00:02:49 hole that I haven't been down before. Oh,
00:02:49 --> 00:02:52 wow. And it leads you straight to quantum
00:02:52 --> 00:02:55 theory. Uh, uh, and
00:02:55 --> 00:02:58 um, it's, you know, it's a
00:02:58 --> 00:03:01 really, uh, in a sense it's quite
00:03:01 --> 00:03:03 unexpected, uh, what's
00:03:03 --> 00:03:05 happening. Uh, so
00:03:06 --> 00:03:09 the bottom line is, whilst
00:03:09 --> 00:03:12 as Cayce, exactly as Cayce says, the
00:03:12 --> 00:03:14 accretion disk of the black hole is extremely
00:03:14 --> 00:03:17 hot, uh, and you know, we're talking millions
00:03:17 --> 00:03:20 of degrees there because that's where you get
00:03:20 --> 00:03:23 X ray radiation from. It's the stuff
00:03:23 --> 00:03:24 charging around the accretion disk, uh,
00:03:24 --> 00:03:27 that's uh, swirl whirling around the black
00:03:27 --> 00:03:29 hole itself. But the black hole
00:03:30 --> 00:03:33 itself is the
00:03:33 --> 00:03:36 opposite. It's really, really cold.
00:03:37 --> 00:03:39 Um, and basically, uh,
00:03:40 --> 00:03:42 it's because the
00:03:42 --> 00:03:44 amount of radiation,
00:03:46 --> 00:03:49 uh, that they release is
00:03:50 --> 00:03:53 at a level, uh, which means its
00:03:53 --> 00:03:55 temperature is measured in
00:03:55 --> 00:03:58 gazillionths of a degree. It's
00:03:58 --> 00:04:01 virtually absolute zero. Um,
00:04:02 --> 00:04:03 they, they
00:04:04 --> 00:04:07 basically, they're, it says,
00:04:07 --> 00:04:10 quite a nice way of putting it, um,
00:04:10 --> 00:04:12 which, which I've summarized, uh,
00:04:13 --> 00:04:16 uh, I think this comes from Wikipedia.
00:04:16 --> 00:04:19 It may come from AI actually. Uh, but the
00:04:19 --> 00:04:21 bottom line is even though black holes pull
00:04:21 --> 00:04:24 in matter and energy, their temperature is
00:04:24 --> 00:04:27 incredibly low because their large mass
00:04:28 --> 00:04:30 makes their event horizons
00:04:30 --> 00:04:33 effectively cold thermal emitters
00:04:33 --> 00:04:36 absorbing energy faster than they radiate it
00:04:36 --> 00:04:39 at these scales. So that's the key to
00:04:39 --> 00:04:42 what's happening that like everything
00:04:42 --> 00:04:45 else, black holes sucks stuff. It sucks stuff
00:04:45 --> 00:04:48 in, uh, and that stuff
00:04:48 --> 00:04:50 is matter, which is equivalent to energy.
00:04:51 --> 00:04:53 Uh, and because it's stuff that's going in
00:04:53 --> 00:04:56 and not radiating outwards, uh,
00:04:56 --> 00:04:58 even though there is what we call Hawking
00:04:58 --> 00:05:01 radiation, which I'll get to in a second. But
00:05:01 --> 00:05:03 that, um, uh, you know,
00:05:04 --> 00:05:06 what it means is that the fact that there's
00:05:06 --> 00:05:09 an energy input into the black hole,
00:05:09 --> 00:05:12 it means that to the outside observer they
00:05:12 --> 00:05:15 look cold. They look very, very cold.
00:05:16 --> 00:05:19 There is a relationship, as you said, uh,
00:05:19 --> 00:05:22 it might vary with some things. And what it
00:05:22 --> 00:05:25 varies with, uh, is actually the mass of the
00:05:25 --> 00:05:27 black hole. Uh, it's
00:05:27 --> 00:05:29 roughly, uh, an inverse
00:05:29 --> 00:05:32 proportionality proportionality. The
00:05:32 --> 00:05:35 temperature is inversely proportional
00:05:35 --> 00:05:38 to the mass. Um, and what that
00:05:38 --> 00:05:40 means is for supermassive black holes, they
00:05:40 --> 00:05:43 are extremely cold. And
00:05:43 --> 00:05:45 that sort of figures because they're sucking
00:05:45 --> 00:05:48 in more energy. And so the surface to an
00:05:48 --> 00:05:50 outside observer would look colder. Uh,
00:05:50 --> 00:05:53 they're talking about 10 to the minus 14
00:05:53 --> 00:05:55 degrees kelvin. Um,
00:05:55 --> 00:05:57 something with the mass of the sun,
00:05:58 --> 00:06:01 um, is a
00:06:01 --> 00:06:03 balmy 10 to the minus 7 degrees
00:06:03 --> 00:06:06 Kelvin. It's still virtually zero,
00:06:06 --> 00:06:09 but it's more, uh, more than the
00:06:09 --> 00:06:11 supermassive black holes. So something the
00:06:11 --> 00:06:13 mass of the sun, so it's inversely
00:06:13 --> 00:06:16 proportional to the mass, uh, that inverse
00:06:16 --> 00:06:18 relationship. Uh, and
00:06:19 --> 00:06:22 so that's kind of what.
00:06:23 --> 00:06:25 It's the Hawking radiation that
00:06:25 --> 00:06:28 gives the black hole
00:06:29 --> 00:06:31 a temperature. Essentially it's because
00:06:32 --> 00:06:35 it's emitting radiation. Um, and
00:06:35 --> 00:06:37 we've talked about Hawking radiation before.
00:06:37 --> 00:06:39 Even though everything gets sucked into a
00:06:39 --> 00:06:41 black hole, there's this quantum situation
00:06:41 --> 00:06:44 where you can get, um, two
00:06:44 --> 00:06:46 virtual particles being created from nothing
00:06:46 --> 00:06:49 in empty space. One gets trapped by the black
00:06:49 --> 00:06:51 hole, the other doesn't. And so we see that
00:06:51 --> 00:06:52 as Hawking radiation, uh,
00:06:53 --> 00:06:56 suggested by Stephen hawking in the 1970s.
00:06:56 --> 00:06:58 Now very well established. But
00:06:58 --> 00:07:00 yeah, to summarize, the bottom line is
00:07:00 --> 00:07:03 Cayce's, uh, question is a good one. Uh,
00:07:03 --> 00:07:05 because it turns out that black holes are
00:07:05 --> 00:07:08 very, very cold indeed, despite the intense
00:07:08 --> 00:07:11 heat of the accretion disk. Work that one
00:07:11 --> 00:07:13 out. It's a really hard thing to put your
00:07:13 --> 00:07:14 imagination around.
00:07:14 --> 00:07:17 Andrew Dunkley: I suppose you compare it to the heat on the.
00:07:18 --> 00:07:19 It's got nothing to do with it at all. But,
00:07:19 --> 00:07:22 uh, by example, the heat on the, uh, sunward
00:07:22 --> 00:07:25 side of Mercury versus the cool on the
00:07:25 --> 00:07:27 shadow side. They're so extreme.
00:07:28 --> 00:07:30 Professor Fred Watson: Um. Yes. Yeah, that's right.
00:07:30 --> 00:07:32 Andrew Dunkley: The reason for the m. Same reason.
00:07:34 --> 00:07:36 Professor Fred Watson: Well, it's similar because the dark side of
00:07:36 --> 00:07:39 Mercury is cold, uh, because it's
00:07:39 --> 00:07:41 radiating energy into space.
00:07:42 --> 00:07:45 Um, uh, whereas, uh.
00:07:45 --> 00:07:48 And that. That energy loss reduces the
00:07:48 --> 00:07:49 temperature. Whereas with a black hole, it's
00:07:49 --> 00:07:51 the other way around. The thing is, the thing
00:07:51 --> 00:07:54 is sucking energy in at a greater rate than
00:07:54 --> 00:07:56 it's emitting energy. Uh,
00:07:57 --> 00:08:00 so Mercury would. Mercury's dark side would
00:08:00 --> 00:08:03 lose heat by infrared radiation. Um,
00:08:03 --> 00:08:05 that radiation, in the case of a black hole
00:08:05 --> 00:08:08 is, Is much smaller than the radiation that
00:08:08 --> 00:08:09 it's sucking in, which is why it looks
00:08:09 --> 00:08:12 extremely cold. So I'm trying to. I'm
00:08:12 --> 00:08:14 trying. Sense of the parallel that you drew.
00:08:14 --> 00:08:16 And I think it's. I think it holds water,
00:08:16 --> 00:08:18 Andrew. I think. I think it's a good, good
00:08:18 --> 00:08:19 answer. Actually.
00:08:19 --> 00:08:21 Andrew Dunkley: The water probably evaporate or freeze. But
00:08:21 --> 00:08:23 anyway, freezing.
00:08:25 --> 00:08:27 I just thought of a question. Um, so if a
00:08:27 --> 00:08:29 black hole sort of,
00:08:30 --> 00:08:33 you know, runs out of food, would that
00:08:33 --> 00:08:35 cause an alteration in its temperature?
00:08:38 --> 00:08:40 Professor Fred Watson: Um, I don't think so, because I think
00:08:40 --> 00:08:43 once the. I get what you're saying,
00:08:43 --> 00:08:45 and certainly in the argument that we've just
00:08:46 --> 00:08:49 been talking about, you'd think that if
00:08:49 --> 00:08:51 it's not sucking in energy anymore, uh,
00:08:52 --> 00:08:55 or sucking in matter anymore, uh, it
00:08:55 --> 00:08:57 would actually, uh, change its temperature.
00:08:58 --> 00:09:00 Um, the reason why I think that might not
00:09:00 --> 00:09:03 happen is because the only thing that,
00:09:03 --> 00:09:06 uh, the temperature seems to be related to is
00:09:06 --> 00:09:09 the Mass itself. So, um, there must be
00:09:09 --> 00:09:11 a mechanism, and I'm sorry, it's eluding me
00:09:11 --> 00:09:14 at the moment, uh, but there must be a
00:09:14 --> 00:09:16 mechanism that sort of locks. Once you've,
00:09:16 --> 00:09:18 once you've got a black hole of
00:09:18 --> 00:09:21 sufficient mass, um, then, uh,
00:09:21 --> 00:09:24 its temperature is sort of locked in.
00:09:24 --> 00:09:27 Uh, it must still be taking in
00:09:27 --> 00:09:30 energy in the form of radiation. So perhaps
00:09:30 --> 00:09:32 that's what's happening. You know,
00:09:32 --> 00:09:34 light certainly gets sucked into a black
00:09:34 --> 00:09:37 hole, even if it's not got an
00:09:37 --> 00:09:40 accretion disk of stuff to feed on.
00:09:40 --> 00:09:42 Uh, the light's certainly going in and
00:09:42 --> 00:09:44 perhaps that's uh, enough to keep the
00:09:44 --> 00:09:46 temperature as low as we've described.
00:09:47 --> 00:09:47 Andrew Dunkley: Indeed.
00:09:48 --> 00:09:49 Professor Fred Watson: All right, thanks.
00:09:49 --> 00:09:50 Andrew Dunkley: Uh, Casey, lovely to hear from you. Hope
00:09:50 --> 00:09:53 you're coping with the, uh, minus 10 to the
00:09:53 --> 00:09:55 15 degrees kelvin in Colorado.
00:09:56 --> 00:09:59 Uh, our next question comes from
00:09:59 --> 00:09:59 Eli.
00:09:59 --> 00:10:02 Hello spacefarers. I'm writing from the
00:10:02 --> 00:10:05 Coachella Valley Desert here in Southern
00:10:05 --> 00:10:08 California. Uh, I've often thought, thought
00:10:08 --> 00:10:10 some of the Google Earth like software would
00:10:10 --> 00:10:13 be amazing to take into other galaxies
00:10:13 --> 00:10:16 throughout the universe. Intriguingly, I
00:10:16 --> 00:10:18 imagine you could take them back in time
00:10:18 --> 00:10:20 according to estimates of cosmic inflation,
00:10:20 --> 00:10:23 etc, all the way to the Big Bang in theory.
00:10:24 --> 00:10:26 Um, to his question with James Webb and the
00:10:26 --> 00:10:29 Vera Rubin coming online. How much of the
00:10:30 --> 00:10:32 visible universe have we basically
00:10:32 --> 00:10:35 mapped and how much are we projected to map
00:10:36 --> 00:10:39 in say, the next decade? I think we've
00:10:39 --> 00:10:41 actually talked about how much that they're
00:10:41 --> 00:10:44 going to look at and how long it's going to
00:10:44 --> 00:10:46 take. And I think Eli's going to be quite
00:10:46 --> 00:10:47 surprised by the answer.
00:10:50 --> 00:10:52 Professor Fred Watson: Uh, well, yes, that's right. I mean the key
00:10:53 --> 00:10:55 words here are, uh, the Vera Rubin
00:10:55 --> 00:10:58 Observatory, uh, because that will
00:10:58 --> 00:11:01 map the entire sky down
00:11:01 --> 00:11:04 to quite a significant depth. Not as
00:11:04 --> 00:11:06 deep as the web will. Um,
00:11:08 --> 00:11:10 although it is an eight meter telescope, the
00:11:10 --> 00:11:12 web is only six and a half meters, so it's
00:11:12 --> 00:11:15 probably not far short of it. Uh, the web, of
00:11:15 --> 00:11:17 course, looking in infrared and the Vera
00:11:17 --> 00:11:20 Rubin Telescope looking invisible light. But
00:11:20 --> 00:11:22 it's going to photograph the whole sky,
00:11:23 --> 00:11:25 Southern sky, uh, in,
00:11:26 --> 00:11:28 uh, every three, three nights or so.
00:11:29 --> 00:11:32 So that will build up over the years a
00:11:32 --> 00:11:34 map of the things that don't change. I mean,
00:11:34 --> 00:11:35 what it's looking for is things that do
00:11:35 --> 00:11:37 change. But, um, as you
00:11:38 --> 00:11:41 integrate for all that time, and by that I
00:11:41 --> 00:11:43 mean you, you know, expose the detector to
00:11:43 --> 00:11:46 the sky so that you build up the image, uh,
00:11:46 --> 00:11:48 and you can add all those images together,
00:11:48 --> 00:11:51 we'll have, we'll have a, almost a
00:11:51 --> 00:11:54 complete map of the universe in the
00:11:54 --> 00:11:56 Southern hemisphere. Because, uh, all the
00:11:56 --> 00:11:58 visible galaxies will show up.
00:11:58 --> 00:11:59 Andrew Dunkley: Uh.
00:12:01 --> 00:12:03 Professor Fred Watson: We won't see the first galaxies. I don't
00:12:03 --> 00:12:06 think it's going to be powerful enough to see
00:12:06 --> 00:12:09 those. Uh, and we're not sure even that
00:12:09 --> 00:12:12 the Webb has seen the first galaxies. Uh,
00:12:12 --> 00:12:13 it's certainly seen some galaxies that we
00:12:13 --> 00:12:15 think are uh, very early in the history of
00:12:15 --> 00:12:18 the universe. And I think the Vera C.
00:12:18 --> 00:12:20 Rubin Observatory will do the same thing.
00:12:20 --> 00:12:23 Uh, but, um, you know, so we're not in
00:12:23 --> 00:12:26 any sense getting a complete sense
00:12:26 --> 00:12:29 of the consensus, sorry, a
00:12:29 --> 00:12:32 complete census of the universe. Uh,
00:12:32 --> 00:12:34 but it's not going to be far off.
00:12:35 --> 00:12:37 Uh, and that's quite astonishing when you
00:12:37 --> 00:12:40 think of where we were, you know, well, just
00:12:40 --> 00:12:42 a few years ago. Certainly when I was a young
00:12:42 --> 00:12:45 working astronomer in the 1970s, I would have
00:12:46 --> 00:12:48 had somebody, it would have blown my mind to
00:12:48 --> 00:12:51 think that we could map all the galaxies
00:12:51 --> 00:12:54 uh, in one hemisphere of the
00:12:54 --> 00:12:56 universe. Yeah.
00:12:56 --> 00:12:58 Andrew Dunkley: Uh, what about the Northern Hemisphere? Is
00:12:58 --> 00:13:00 there any work?
00:13:00 --> 00:13:03 Professor Fred Watson: There's no equivalent. Uh,
00:13:03 --> 00:13:06 the, the, there is. Uh, I mean the Nancy
00:13:06 --> 00:13:09 Roman Space Telescope will look,
00:13:09 --> 00:13:11 it's also a wide angle telescope like the
00:13:11 --> 00:13:14 Vera Rubin Observatory instrument is.
00:13:15 --> 00:13:18 But um, it's not as big.
00:13:18 --> 00:13:21 Um, it is a 2.3 meter telescope.
00:13:21 --> 00:13:24 It's basically a Hubble telescope but with a
00:13:24 --> 00:13:27 wide field of view. Uh, so we'll
00:13:27 --> 00:13:29 certainly see uh, pretty deep into the
00:13:29 --> 00:13:31 Northern Hemisphere. Whether it will go as
00:13:31 --> 00:13:33 deep as the Rubin Observatory, it's a
00:13:33 --> 00:13:34 different matter. I don't think it will
00:13:34 --> 00:13:36 because it's a much smaller telescope, but it
00:13:36 --> 00:13:39 is in space and that gives it, excuse me,
00:13:39 --> 00:13:41 that gives it advantages. There's no
00:13:41 --> 00:13:43 atmosphere to, to get in the way. So
00:13:43 --> 00:13:46 that's perhaps the best bet. Um,
00:13:47 --> 00:13:49 the, excuse me, the other
00:13:51 --> 00:13:52 big uh, instruments. I mean there's a number
00:13:52 --> 00:13:54 of things going on. Um,
00:13:55 --> 00:13:58 in terms of the two Keck telescopes which are
00:13:58 --> 00:14:00 in the Northern hemisphere In Hawaii, they're
00:14:00 --> 00:14:02 8 meter class telescopes, but they're not
00:14:02 --> 00:14:04 wide angle. These are telescopes that are
00:14:04 --> 00:14:06 built to uh, home in, in detail on um,
00:14:07 --> 00:14:10 individual objects rather than to do wide
00:14:10 --> 00:14:13 angle surveys. You need a specially designed
00:14:13 --> 00:14:15 telescope for that. And Rubin is exactly
00:14:15 --> 00:14:18 that. Um, there
00:14:18 --> 00:14:21 isn't really an equivalent. Uh,
00:14:21 --> 00:14:23 there is a wide angle telescope in La
00:14:23 --> 00:14:26 Palma which is um, basically the same
00:14:26 --> 00:14:28 as our UK Schmidt telescope here in
00:14:28 --> 00:14:30 Australia. It's called the Ocean Schmidt
00:14:30 --> 00:14:32 telescope. It's much older than our Schmidt.
00:14:32 --> 00:14:34 In fact our Schmidt was modeled on it. And
00:14:34 --> 00:14:35 that's a wide angle telescope that's
00:14:35 --> 00:14:38 surveying the sky, but that's looking for
00:14:38 --> 00:14:39 things like near Earth asteroids and things
00:14:39 --> 00:14:42 of that sort, rather than penetrating deep
00:14:42 --> 00:14:44 into the universe because it's only got a 1.2
00:14:44 --> 00:14:47 meter aperture diameter, much, uh,
00:14:47 --> 00:14:49 smaller than the 8 meters that the Rubin
00:14:49 --> 00:14:50 telescope will have.
00:14:51 --> 00:14:53 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. Still,
00:14:53 --> 00:14:56 um, what we'll know in 10 years time
00:14:56 --> 00:14:58 will be extraordinary, uh,
00:14:59 --> 00:15:01 through these two telescopes alone. James
00:15:01 --> 00:15:04 Webb and Vera Rubin. Um, yeah,
00:15:04 --> 00:15:07 who knows what they're going to un. Unveil.
00:15:07 --> 00:15:10 Uh, and what, what about, you
00:15:10 --> 00:15:12 know, Vera Rubin's first photograph was a
00:15:12 --> 00:15:15 revelation. Uh, and what James
00:15:15 --> 00:15:18 Webb is, um, is shelling
00:15:18 --> 00:15:20 out is, is extraordinary. It,
00:15:21 --> 00:15:24 it's, it's like, um, I don't know, Taylor
00:15:24 --> 00:15:26 Swift. It's a hit record. Every time that,
00:15:26 --> 00:15:29 every time they release a picture that's,
00:15:29 --> 00:15:32 uh, it's incredible. So, Eli, the next
00:15:32 --> 00:15:34 decade will be extraordinary. Um, so
00:15:34 --> 00:15:37 just, you know, keep an eye on it would be
00:15:37 --> 00:15:40 my advice. And thanks for the question. This
00:15:40 --> 00:15:42 is Space Nuts with Andrew Dunkley
00:15:43 --> 00:15:44 and Professor Fred Watson.
00:15:47 --> 00:15:49 Three, two, one.
00:15:50 --> 00:15:53 Space Nuts. I think we have
00:15:53 --> 00:15:55 an audio question now. This one comes from
00:15:55 --> 00:15:57 one of our regulars as well.
00:15:57 --> 00:16:00 Professor Fred Watson: Hello, uh, Fred, Andrew, Jonti and Heidi,
00:16:00 --> 00:16:01 this is Robert from the Netherlands.
00:16:03 --> 00:16:06 I have a question for you guys about the
00:16:06 --> 00:16:09 emptiness of space. Now,
00:16:09 --> 00:16:12 every is always saying that space
00:16:12 --> 00:16:14 is totally empty, right? One proton per
00:16:14 --> 00:16:17 square meter, something like that.
00:16:18 --> 00:16:20 However, not that long ago,
00:16:20 --> 00:16:23 scientists did discover the Higgs boson
00:16:23 --> 00:16:26 particle, the God particle, if you will.
00:16:28 --> 00:16:31 So apparently everything is on this
00:16:31 --> 00:16:34 grid of Higgs bosons, but
00:16:35 --> 00:16:37 I'm not exactly an expert here. I'm just
00:16:37 --> 00:16:39 curious if you guys could shed some lights on
00:16:39 --> 00:16:42 this concept for me. So is it
00:16:42 --> 00:16:45 just an enormous field of these very
00:16:45 --> 00:16:47 regular Higbotons everywhere, and that's what
00:16:47 --> 00:16:50 space is, or are they more numerous or
00:16:50 --> 00:16:53 less dense in certain parts? Is
00:16:53 --> 00:16:56 the void between galaxies actually a void,
00:16:57 --> 00:16:59 or is it an empty field of God
00:16:59 --> 00:17:02 particles? I really hope you can
00:17:02 --> 00:17:05 shed some light. Thank you guys so much for
00:17:05 --> 00:17:05 answering.
00:17:06 --> 00:17:09 Andrew Dunkley: Thank you, Robert. Good to hear from you. Uh,
00:17:09 --> 00:17:11 the emptiness of space.
00:17:12 --> 00:17:15 So he said one proton per square meter.
00:17:15 --> 00:17:17 Is that a, um, reasonable?
00:17:18 --> 00:17:21 Professor Fred Watson: Uh, yeah, it's per cubic meter, something
00:17:21 --> 00:17:24 like that. Um, yeah. Um,
00:17:25 --> 00:17:27 uh, it's of that order, I think, in
00:17:28 --> 00:17:30 intergalactic space. Um,
00:17:31 --> 00:17:34 uh, but, uh, Robert's
00:17:34 --> 00:17:36 right in the sense that
00:17:37 --> 00:17:39 the Higgs field,
00:17:40 --> 00:17:43 which is the other way of looking at
00:17:43 --> 00:17:45 the Higgs boson, uh,
00:17:46 --> 00:17:48 permeates, basically permeates
00:17:48 --> 00:17:50 empty space. Um,
00:17:52 --> 00:17:54 so, uh, this is
00:17:54 --> 00:17:57 all about the duality of particles,
00:17:58 --> 00:18:01 uh, with waves and with
00:18:01 --> 00:18:04 what we call fields. Um, and we, I
00:18:04 --> 00:18:06 mean, we imagine fields when we think of
00:18:06 --> 00:18:09 gravitation because we think of a
00:18:09 --> 00:18:11 Gravitational field as a. As a,
00:18:12 --> 00:18:15 um. Um, sort of a.
00:18:15 --> 00:18:17 Well, if I can put it that way, in a. In a
00:18:17 --> 00:18:20 trampoline. Uh, the trampoline is the field.
00:18:20 --> 00:18:22 You put something in it and it distorts it.
00:18:23 --> 00:18:25 Uh, so with the Higgs,
00:18:26 --> 00:18:29 uh, boson, the Higgs field, uh, is
00:18:29 --> 00:18:32 this sort of invisible. It's been
00:18:32 --> 00:18:34 described as a. Something like molasses or
00:18:34 --> 00:18:37 syrup, uh, that
00:18:37 --> 00:18:40 what, actually give particles their mass
00:18:40 --> 00:18:42 because, um, they move slowly through it
00:18:42 --> 00:18:45 because they get sticky. Uh, that's one way
00:18:45 --> 00:18:48 of looking at it. Um, but, uh, the Higgs
00:18:48 --> 00:18:51 boson is essentially, ah, um,
00:18:51 --> 00:18:54 in a sense, a, uh, ripple in
00:18:54 --> 00:18:57 the Higgs field. The Higgs field fills
00:18:57 --> 00:19:00 space, and the Higgs bosons, uh,
00:19:00 --> 00:19:03 are ripples in it. That's one way to look
00:19:03 --> 00:19:06 at it. Um, it's.
00:19:06 --> 00:19:09 It's, um. The. The.
00:19:09 --> 00:19:12 The. I think what Robert's interested in is
00:19:12 --> 00:19:14 the density of these
00:19:14 --> 00:19:17 bosons, uh, whether
00:19:17 --> 00:19:19 they are uniformly, uh,
00:19:19 --> 00:19:22 distributed through space or whether
00:19:22 --> 00:19:24 we're talking about, um,
00:19:25 --> 00:19:28 you know, uh, bosons, uh,
00:19:28 --> 00:19:29 that are, uh,
00:19:32 --> 00:19:34 more dense in some places than others.
00:19:35 --> 00:19:38 Uh, and I guess the.
00:19:38 --> 00:19:40 The bottom line is that you would expect
00:19:40 --> 00:19:42 there to be more bosons where there is
00:19:43 --> 00:19:45 more, uh, more,
00:19:46 --> 00:19:48 uh, what you might call normal matter, the.
00:19:48 --> 00:19:51 The quarks and normal particles. Uh, but
00:19:51 --> 00:19:53 that might not be the case. Uh, I need to
00:19:53 --> 00:19:55 look at that a little bit more carefully,
00:19:55 --> 00:19:58 Andrew, as you can probably tell, uh, to find
00:19:58 --> 00:20:00 out what the distribution of Higgs bosons,
00:20:00 --> 00:20:03 uh, are. If you assume the field is uniform
00:20:03 --> 00:20:05 throughout space, which I think it might be.
00:20:06 --> 00:20:08 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, I suppose so. I mean, it's a
00:20:08 --> 00:20:09 complicated area. You're talking about
00:20:09 --> 00:20:11 particle physics, aren't you?
00:20:11 --> 00:20:11 Professor Fred Watson: Really?
00:20:11 --> 00:20:13 Andrew Dunkley: It's, um. Not.
00:20:13 --> 00:20:14 Professor Fred Watson: I believe so, yes.
00:20:15 --> 00:20:17 Andrew Dunkley: It's not basic maths, so,
00:20:17 --> 00:20:18 um.
00:20:18 --> 00:20:19 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, it's particle physics we're talking
00:20:19 --> 00:20:22 about. And, um, as I've said before, the
00:20:22 --> 00:20:24 disclaimer is I'm not a particle physicist.
00:20:24 --> 00:20:27 I've been to. Been to CERN a
00:20:27 --> 00:20:30 few times and had my mind blown by what they
00:20:30 --> 00:20:32 do there at the Large Hadron Collider. Uh, in
00:20:32 --> 00:20:34 fact, I've been underground in the Large
00:20:34 --> 00:20:36 Hadron Collider. Collider, but I'm still not
00:20:36 --> 00:20:38 a physicist. A particle physicist. I,
00:20:38 --> 00:20:41 uh, learn what the. They tell me
00:20:41 --> 00:20:43 and kind of hope for the best.
00:20:43 --> 00:20:45 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. Aren't they making a larger hadron
00:20:45 --> 00:20:46 collider?
00:20:48 --> 00:20:51 Professor Fred Watson: They are planning, ah, one,
00:20:51 --> 00:20:52 um, something called.
00:20:55 --> 00:20:57 I can't remember. It's something like the
00:20:57 --> 00:21:00 large, you know, the future Large Collider, I
00:21:00 --> 00:21:02 think something like that, uh, which wears
00:21:02 --> 00:21:05 the large Hadron Collider has a diameter or a
00:21:05 --> 00:21:08 circumference of 27 kilometers. This is
00:21:08 --> 00:21:11 100 kilometers. Um, if they
00:21:11 --> 00:21:13 ever get the money for it, they are planning
00:21:13 --> 00:21:15 an opening ceremony for it in
00:21:15 --> 00:21:16 2017.
00:21:18 --> 00:21:20 Andrew Dunkley: It's called the, uh, Future Circular
00:21:20 --> 00:21:21 Collider.
00:21:21 --> 00:21:22 Professor Fred Watson: Future Circular Collider. That's it.
00:21:22 --> 00:21:25 Andrew Dunkley: Um, 91 centimeter ring, successor to the
00:21:25 --> 00:21:28 Large Hadron Collider. And
00:21:28 --> 00:21:31 they expect it to be Approved
00:21:33 --> 00:21:36 in the 2728 financial year, by the look
00:21:36 --> 00:21:37 of it. Construction starting in the 2000 and
00:21:37 --> 00:21:38 30s.
00:21:38 --> 00:21:40 Professor Fred Watson: So it's a little way off completion
00:21:40 --> 00:21:42 in 2070.
00:21:42 --> 00:21:43 Andrew Dunkley: 2070.
00:21:44 --> 00:21:47 Professor Fred Watson: Yep. That's way. Well,
00:21:47 --> 00:21:50 the last. Let's not hold out bread is what I
00:21:50 --> 00:21:52 saw. Yeah. So I don't think,
00:21:52 --> 00:21:55 um, you know, even with the best will in the
00:21:55 --> 00:21:57 world, space nuts will probably have
00:21:57 --> 00:22:00 dwindled to an audience measured in single
00:22:00 --> 00:22:01 digits by then, so.
00:22:01 --> 00:22:04 Andrew Dunkley: Possibly, possibly m. So. Yes,
00:22:04 --> 00:22:06 well, we could pick up new listeners along
00:22:06 --> 00:22:07 the way, but we won't know about it.
00:22:08 --> 00:22:10 But, um, I suppose the other side to this
00:22:10 --> 00:22:12 question, though, is that we do see
00:22:12 --> 00:22:14 concentrations of
00:22:15 --> 00:22:18 particles in some parts of the universe. Uh,
00:22:18 --> 00:22:20 like dark matter seems to concentrate around
00:22:21 --> 00:22:23 galaxies kind of thing.
00:22:23 --> 00:22:24 Professor Fred Watson: Is that. Yeah.
00:22:24 --> 00:22:26 Andrew Dunkley: That a different kettle of fish?
00:22:27 --> 00:22:29 Professor Fred Watson: I think so. Because we're talking about
00:22:29 --> 00:22:32 something that is, um, a property of the
00:22:32 --> 00:22:35 universe itself, almost, um,
00:22:37 --> 00:22:39 so that the Higgs field is everywhere.
00:22:41 --> 00:22:44 Andrew Dunkley: Okay, gotcha. I understand. No, I get it. I
00:22:44 --> 00:22:44 get it. Yeah.
00:22:44 --> 00:22:45 Professor Fred Watson: All right. Yeah.
00:22:46 --> 00:22:48 Andrew Dunkley: So, Robert, the answer is maybe, um,
00:22:49 --> 00:22:51 possibly could be we, uh, need to do a bit
00:22:51 --> 00:22:54 more homework. By the sound of it, we might
00:22:54 --> 00:22:55 be able to get back to you on that.
00:22:57 --> 00:22:59 Just Fred's writing a note so he doesn't
00:22:59 --> 00:23:01 forget. Except you'll forget where the note
00:23:01 --> 00:23:01 is.
00:23:01 --> 00:23:04 Professor Fred Watson: Shh. All right. It's
00:23:04 --> 00:23:05 in this book.
00:23:06 --> 00:23:07 Andrew Dunkley: Thanks, Robert.
00:23:10 --> 00:23:12 Okay, we checked all four systems,
00:23:12 --> 00:23:15 space nets. And our final question
00:23:15 --> 00:23:18 comes from Rennie. Um,
00:23:19 --> 00:23:20 this is a really interesting question because
00:23:20 --> 00:23:23 he says, I'm going to play devil's advocate
00:23:23 --> 00:23:26 with this question. How will finding
00:23:26 --> 00:23:29 out what dark matter and dark energy really
00:23:29 --> 00:23:31 are, uh, help the Earth and all,
00:23:32 --> 00:23:34 uh, of its life now and in the future?
00:23:35 --> 00:23:37 Rennie from California. We've had a few US
00:23:38 --> 00:23:40 Questions this week. That's nice. Two from
00:23:40 --> 00:23:43 Kelly. Uh, so, yeah, what difference will it
00:23:43 --> 00:23:45 make if we find this stuff to Earth and
00:23:45 --> 00:23:48 life as it is now and in the future?
00:23:51 --> 00:23:54 Professor Fred Watson: Um, so, um, yeah, if we magically
00:23:54 --> 00:23:57 did find the answer to these things, and
00:23:57 --> 00:24:00 we will eventually, uh, over a
00:24:00 --> 00:24:03 period of time, I hope it's not. I Hope it's
00:24:03 --> 00:24:05 before 2070, because I want to know, um,
00:24:07 --> 00:24:09 what it will do will be complete our
00:24:09 --> 00:24:12 understanding of the universe in a way
00:24:12 --> 00:24:15 that is not the case at the moment.
00:24:16 --> 00:24:18 So, um, it
00:24:18 --> 00:24:21 basically refines our, uh, understanding,
00:24:22 --> 00:24:25 uh, if I can put it this way, in a way
00:24:25 --> 00:24:27 that's similar to the way
00:24:28 --> 00:24:31 general relativity refined
00:24:31 --> 00:24:33 it back in 1915.
00:24:35 --> 00:24:38 Um, so the fact that we
00:24:38 --> 00:24:40 suddenly understood gravity, the way
00:24:40 --> 00:24:43 gravity works in a new light,
00:24:43 --> 00:24:46 which is what general relativity did,
00:24:46 --> 00:24:49 um, meant that, uh,
00:24:50 --> 00:24:52 yes, the physicists could go away
00:24:52 --> 00:24:55 happy because they solved a problem.
00:24:55 --> 00:24:57 Uh, there were a number of problems that
00:24:57 --> 00:25:00 Newtonian gravity couldn't, Couldn't help
00:25:00 --> 00:25:03 with, which was solved by, uh,
00:25:03 --> 00:25:05 Einsteinian gravity. So,
00:25:06 --> 00:25:08 um, but that didn't seem to offer
00:25:08 --> 00:25:10 any future benefits for
00:25:11 --> 00:25:14 humankind. But here we are rather
00:25:14 --> 00:25:16 more than 100 years later, 110 years later,
00:25:17 --> 00:25:19 and we have, um,
00:25:20 --> 00:25:22 tools which rely
00:25:22 --> 00:25:25 absolutely on general relativity. And the one
00:25:25 --> 00:25:28 I'm thinking of most commonly is, uh,
00:25:28 --> 00:25:30 gps, uh, because our
00:25:30 --> 00:25:33 position finding software, um,
00:25:34 --> 00:25:36 simply would not work without general
00:25:36 --> 00:25:38 relativity. You'd have errors in the region
00:25:38 --> 00:25:41 of 10 kilometers, which is not kind of what
00:25:41 --> 00:25:44 you want with GPS, but that took
00:25:44 --> 00:25:47 100 years. And so Rennie, uh,
00:25:47 --> 00:25:50 that's the sort of timescale, I think, on
00:25:50 --> 00:25:52 which you have to be optimistic about the way
00:25:52 --> 00:25:55 it might help humankind or life on Earth
00:25:55 --> 00:25:57 generally. Because if we become
00:25:57 --> 00:26:00 responsible, um, a responsible species
00:26:00 --> 00:26:02 on our planet, we're going to help the whole
00:26:02 --> 00:26:05 planet if we, if we live sustainably and
00:26:06 --> 00:26:08 live, um, alongside, uh, all our
00:26:08 --> 00:26:10 companion organisms on this
00:26:10 --> 00:26:13 planet. So, uh, yeah, so I think,
00:26:13 --> 00:26:16 um, what you can't say is that it won't help
00:26:16 --> 00:26:19 them. That's the thing. You can't say that it
00:26:19 --> 00:26:22 will either. Uh, but there's a good
00:26:22 --> 00:26:24 chance that in the same way that, um,
00:26:24 --> 00:26:27 something as abstruse as general
00:26:27 --> 00:26:30 relativity actually comes into everybody's
00:26:30 --> 00:26:32 everyday life odd years later.
00:26:33 --> 00:26:35 I think that's the model. And it's one reason
00:26:35 --> 00:26:38 why deep research
00:26:38 --> 00:26:40 like this is funded. It's why fundamental
00:26:40 --> 00:26:43 research that is just knowledge for its own m
00:26:43 --> 00:26:45 sake at the moment, why it's funded. Because
00:26:45 --> 00:26:47 you never know what the spinoffs might be.
00:26:48 --> 00:26:50 Andrew Dunkley: Absolutely. Uh, and you can look back in
00:26:50 --> 00:26:52 history at some of the great discoveries and
00:26:52 --> 00:26:55 how they've changed things
00:26:55 --> 00:26:58 on Earth and have changed human life.
00:26:58 --> 00:27:00 Um, I'm just trying to think of one.
00:27:01 --> 00:27:04 Professor Fred Watson: Well, electricity for a start. Well, they.
00:27:04 --> 00:27:06 Yeah, you know, it was just, um, physicists
00:27:06 --> 00:27:09 playing around in the early 19th century. Oh,
00:27:09 --> 00:27:11 this is really interesting. Um, nobody ever
00:27:11 --> 00:27:14 thought we'd use it like we do today.
00:27:14 --> 00:27:17 Andrew Dunkley: I suppose one of The. This is probably a
00:27:18 --> 00:27:21 fundamental example. Um, as we learn
00:27:21 --> 00:27:23 things, we learn things, so
00:27:24 --> 00:27:26 it expands our minds, expands our
00:27:26 --> 00:27:29 inquisitiveness, it expands our intelligence,
00:27:30 --> 00:27:32 enables humanity to understand
00:27:33 --> 00:27:36 more about itself and its place in the
00:27:36 --> 00:27:39 universe. You go back to 1543,
00:27:39 --> 00:27:42 when Copernicus found that the Earth was
00:27:42 --> 00:27:44 not the center of the universe.
00:27:45 --> 00:27:47 I think he got shouted down pretty heavily
00:27:47 --> 00:27:50 for that, but that's the truth. We know that
00:27:50 --> 00:27:53 now. Uh, I can't remember who it was, but,
00:27:53 --> 00:27:56 um, another thing that goes back quite a way,
00:27:56 --> 00:27:59 when, uh, the discovery was made that our
00:27:59 --> 00:28:01 sun is actually a star. I mean, for a long
00:28:01 --> 00:28:04 time we didn't know that. You know,
00:28:04 --> 00:28:06 it's. It's about knowledge as much as
00:28:06 --> 00:28:07 anything, I think.
00:28:07 --> 00:28:08 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. Yep.
00:28:09 --> 00:28:10 Andrew Dunkley: I love that one, though.
00:28:10 --> 00:28:11 Professor Fred Watson: That's right. Yeah.
00:28:11 --> 00:28:11 Andrew Dunkley: It's about.
00:28:11 --> 00:28:12 Professor Fred Watson: The sun's Great.
00:28:12 --> 00:28:15 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. I think you can look it up. It's online
00:28:15 --> 00:28:17 somewhere. I did it as a quiz question once
00:28:17 --> 00:28:19 on the radio, and, um, got a great response
00:28:19 --> 00:28:22 to that, because people just, in the modern
00:28:22 --> 00:28:24 era never thought that there would have been
00:28:24 --> 00:28:26 a time where people look at this, this hot
00:28:26 --> 00:28:28 ball in the sky and go,
00:28:29 --> 00:28:32 what is that? Um, and, you know, looking at
00:28:32 --> 00:28:34 all the other stars, not making the
00:28:34 --> 00:28:36 correlation. They just didn't know. It's, um.
00:28:37 --> 00:28:39 It was incredible. So I suppose, Rennie,
00:28:39 --> 00:28:42 it's, it's, it's about knowledge. It's about
00:28:42 --> 00:28:44 expanding our understanding of life, the
00:28:44 --> 00:28:47 universe and everything and not stopping at
00:28:47 --> 00:28:50 42. Um, that's the way
00:28:50 --> 00:28:50 I look at it.
00:28:52 --> 00:28:54 Professor Fred Watson: I think you're. And I think you're absolutely
00:28:54 --> 00:28:56 right. I think, um, you know, both. That's
00:28:56 --> 00:28:58 two sides of the same thing. We're, we're.
00:28:59 --> 00:29:01 But it's why we, why we do this sort of
00:29:01 --> 00:29:03 thing. It's why is. We're a curious species
00:29:03 --> 00:29:04 and.
00:29:04 --> 00:29:04 Andrew Dunkley: Absolutely.
00:29:04 --> 00:29:05 Professor Fred Watson: Knowledge is power.
00:29:05 --> 00:29:08 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's another thing. Yeah,
00:29:08 --> 00:29:10 absolutely true, Rennie. Great question. Good
00:29:10 --> 00:29:12 one for discussion and debate and keep, uh,
00:29:13 --> 00:29:15 them coming. If you'd like to send questions
00:29:15 --> 00:29:18 into us, um, you can do so through our
00:29:18 --> 00:29:20 website, spacenutspodcast.com
00:29:20 --> 00:29:23 spacenuts IO. They're the two URLs.
00:29:23 --> 00:29:25 And, uh, while you're there, have a look
00:29:25 --> 00:29:28 around. Uh, the AMA button at the top, Ask
00:29:28 --> 00:29:30 me Anything is where you send your questions.
00:29:30 --> 00:29:33 Ask me anything, text or audio. Don't forget
00:29:33 --> 00:29:35 to tell us who you are and where you're from.
00:29:35 --> 00:29:37 And, uh, you might want to click on the
00:29:37 --> 00:29:40 Support our podcast button, uh, and
00:29:41 --> 00:29:43 help us out if you so desire. Never,
00:29:43 --> 00:29:46 ever going to make it mandatory. But, uh,
00:29:46 --> 00:29:48 there are advantages to becoming
00:29:49 --> 00:29:51 a supporter, uh, of the podcast, so
00:29:52 --> 00:29:54 check that out as well and visit the shop
00:29:54 --> 00:29:56 while you're there. That also helps us buy a
00:29:56 --> 00:29:59 sticker, buy a cap, buy a shirt, buy
00:29:59 --> 00:30:02 whatever. We should have Space Nut sunscreen.
00:30:02 --> 00:30:05 You know, it would make sense. Anyway,
00:30:05 --> 00:30:07 uh, you can do it all on our website. Fred,
00:30:07 --> 00:30:09 thank you so much. Always a pleasure.
00:30:11 --> 00:30:13 Professor Fred Watson: Good to talk, Andrew. And, um, I'm sure we'll
00:30:13 --> 00:30:14 do it again soon.
00:30:14 --> 00:30:17 Andrew Dunkley: Yes, I'm sure we will. It, uh, could be a few
00:30:17 --> 00:30:19 minutes, could be a week, who knows? Uh, and
00:30:19 --> 00:30:21 Huw in the studio, thanks to him for doing
00:30:21 --> 00:30:23 everything he does. We don't know what that
00:30:23 --> 00:30:25 is, but we appreciate it. And from me, Andrew
00:30:25 --> 00:30:28 Dunkley, thanks for your company. See you on
00:30:28 --> 00:30:29 the next episode of Space Nuts.
00:30:29 --> 00:30:30 Professor Fred Watson: Bye. Bye.
00:30:31 --> 00:30:33 Voice Over Guy: You've been listening to the Space Nuts
00:30:33 --> 00:30:36 podcast, available at
00:30:36 --> 00:30:38 Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
00:30:38 --> 00:30:41 iHeartRadio, or your favorite podcast
00:30:41 --> 00:30:43 player. You can also stream on
00:30:43 --> 00:30:45 demand at bitesz.com This has been another
00:30:45 --> 00:30:47 quality podcast production from
00:30:47 --> 00:30:48 Bitesz.com