In this captivating Q&A episode of Space Nuts, hosts Andrew Dunkley and Professor Fred Watson tackle an array of intriguing questions from listeners. From the effects of full moons on human behaviour to the complexities of curved space and the possibility of living in a simulation, this episode is packed with thought-provoking discussions that will stretch your cosmic imagination.
Episode Highlights:
- Full Moon Effects: The hosts address a listener's concerns regarding the alleged impact of full moons on human behaviour. Peter from Adelaide Hills raises important points about the lack of scientific evidence supporting the full moon effect, prompting a lively discussion on anecdotal experiences and sleep patterns.
- Curvature of Space: Rob from the Central Coast poses a fascinating question about how voids in space might counterbalance the curvature caused by matter. Andrew and Fred Watson explore the implications of this idea and its potential connection to dark matter, while clarifying the current understanding of the universe's shape.
- Detecting Light-Speed Vessels: Ian's question leads to a discussion on whether we could detect spacecraft travelling at light speed. The hosts clarify the physics behind light speed and the challenges of observing objects moving at such extreme velocities.
- Are We Living in a Simulation? Martin presents a philosophical inquiry about the nature of our reality. The hosts delve into the simulation hypothesis and discuss the complexities of proving or disproving such a theory, while reflecting on the nature of consciousness and existence.
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, X, YouTube Music, Tumblr, Instagram, and TikTok. We love engaging with our community, so be sure to drop us a message or comment on your favourite 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.
Got a question for our Q&A episode? https://spacenutspodcast.com/ama
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/space-nuts-astronomy-insights-cosmic-discoveries--2631155/support.
00:00:00 --> 00:00:00 Professor Fred Watson: Hi there.
00:00:00 --> 00:00:02 Andrew Dunkley: Thanks for joining us on Space Nuts, a Q and
00:00:02 --> 00:00:05 A edition. This is where the audience sends
00:00:05 --> 00:00:07 questions in. Sometimes they send us
00:00:07 --> 00:00:09 homework, sometimes they send us in a
00:00:09 --> 00:00:11 request. We've got a bit of all that today
00:00:12 --> 00:00:15 and we're going to, uh, hear about the full
00:00:15 --> 00:00:17 moon effects, or not. Uh,
00:00:18 --> 00:00:20 curved space, light speed, uh,
00:00:21 --> 00:00:24 in terms of detecting somebody who's in
00:00:24 --> 00:00:26 a spacecraft doing light speed. Can we do
00:00:26 --> 00:00:26 that? Could we?
00:00:27 --> 00:00:30 Andrew Dunkley: And are we living in a simulation of the
00:00:30 --> 00:00:32 universe? Those questions will be answered
00:00:33 --> 00:00:35 possibly today on this edition of
00:00:36 --> 00:00:37 space nuts.
00:00:37 --> 00:00:39 Voice Over Guy: 15 seconds. Guidance is internal.
00:00:39 --> 00:00:42 10, 9. Ignition
00:00:42 --> 00:00:45 sequence start. Space nuts. 5, 4, 3,
00:00:45 --> 00:00:48 2. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4,
00:00:48 --> 00:00:51 3, 2, 1. Space nuts. Astronauts
00:00:51 --> 00:00:52 report. It feels good.
00:00:53 --> 00:00:56 Andrew Dunkley: And, uh, joining us to sort all of that
00:00:56 --> 00:00:58 out, maybe, maybe not, it's Professor
00:00:58 --> 00:01:00 Fred Watson Watson, Astronomer at large. Hi,
00:01:00 --> 00:01:00 Fred.
00:01:00 --> 00:01:02 Professor Fred Watson: Hello, Andrew. Here I am back again.
00:01:03 --> 00:01:06 Andrew Dunkley: Good to see you. Good to see you. Yes,
00:01:06 --> 00:01:07 yes, indeed.
00:01:07 --> 00:01:10 Uh, I suppose we should start with, uh,
00:01:10 --> 00:01:13 not so much a question, but a request for
00:01:13 --> 00:01:15 clarification on something that was, uh,
00:01:16 --> 00:01:18 spoken about in an earlier episode.
00:01:18 --> 00:01:20 Uh, and this comes from Peter and he's, uh,
00:01:20 --> 00:01:23 in the Adelaide Hills, uh, down in South
00:01:23 --> 00:01:25 Australia. Hi, Space Nuts. Love your show,
00:01:25 --> 00:01:27 but I'm afraid I have to call out some pseudo
00:01:27 --> 00:01:30 science that Heidi propagated in the most
00:01:30 --> 00:01:32 recent episode about the full moon. With,
00:01:32 --> 00:01:35 surprisingly, no pushback from Fred Watson.
00:01:35 --> 00:01:37 You're both in trouble, both of you. Uh,
00:01:38 --> 00:01:40 uh, some animals are affected by the cycles
00:01:40 --> 00:01:42 of the moon and there is huge anecdotal
00:01:42 --> 00:01:45 evidence by police, nurses, et cetera, about
00:01:45 --> 00:01:48 increased activity during a full moon. But
00:01:48 --> 00:01:51 science relies on data, not anecdotes. And
00:01:51 --> 00:01:53 several large studies and meta analyses
00:01:54 --> 00:01:56 have shown that the full moon effect is not
00:01:56 --> 00:01:59 real. The data of these organisations shows
00:01:59 --> 00:02:02 no increased activity during a full moon. I
00:02:02 --> 00:02:04 think this should be corrected on air so as
00:02:04 --> 00:02:07 not to mislead your. Well, he says viewers,
00:02:07 --> 00:02:09 listeners, both. We've got both. There are
00:02:09 --> 00:02:12 already enough mythical, um, beliefs out
00:02:12 --> 00:02:14 there. Thanks. Path Peter from Adelaide
00:02:14 --> 00:02:16 Hills. Before you respond to that,
00:02:16 --> 00:02:18 Fred Watson, I might say, and this is
00:02:18 --> 00:02:21 anecdotal, that, uh, when I started
00:02:21 --> 00:02:24 in radio, I did five years of midnight to
00:02:24 --> 00:02:27 dawns, uh, working from midnight till 5,
00:02:27 --> 00:02:30 midnight till 6, 1 till 5, all sorts of
00:02:30 --> 00:02:33 weird overnight hours. And I can tell
00:02:33 --> 00:02:36 you without, without a shadow of a doubt
00:02:36 --> 00:02:39 if there was a full moon. It
00:02:39 --> 00:02:41 got really weird. I got the
00:02:41 --> 00:02:44 strangest phone calls from the strangest
00:02:44 --> 00:02:46 people and it happened without fail.
00:02:47 --> 00:02:50 And, uh, I mean, it didn't just happen on
00:02:50 --> 00:02:52 full moons, but it happened a lot more
00:02:53 --> 00:02:55 whenever there was Going to be a full moon
00:02:55 --> 00:02:58 and I was on air, I'd go, oh, no, no,
00:02:58 --> 00:03:01 not tonight, please. But it's
00:03:01 --> 00:03:03 true. I don't know why, but it just,
00:03:04 --> 00:03:06 um. And it's not me perceiving that because
00:03:06 --> 00:03:09 never think about it any other night, but it
00:03:09 --> 00:03:12 just happened much more
00:03:12 --> 00:03:14 significantly, I suppose, with strange, uh,
00:03:14 --> 00:03:17 phone calls and, and weirdisms. But it's
00:03:17 --> 00:03:19 anecdotal. Yes, that bit.
00:03:19 --> 00:03:21 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, that's right. And Peter's right,
00:03:21 --> 00:03:23 absolutely right, that, um, the statistics
00:03:23 --> 00:03:26 don't bear it out. Uh, the reason that
00:03:26 --> 00:03:29 didn't crop up in the particular show was, if
00:03:29 --> 00:03:30 I remember rightly, it was right at the end,
00:03:31 --> 00:03:34 uh, and Heidi was sort of finishing
00:03:34 --> 00:03:35 on a high note. It might even have been at
00:03:35 --> 00:03:38 the end of Heidi's last show. And I
00:03:38 --> 00:03:40 didn't really want to say, well, you're wrong
00:03:40 --> 00:03:42 there. Because, uh,
00:03:43 --> 00:03:45 not that I'd ever say that of course, but
00:03:45 --> 00:03:47 yes, I know, I know that the statistics don't
00:03:47 --> 00:03:49 bear it out. I suspect, um,
00:03:50 --> 00:03:53 what increases perhaps the
00:03:53 --> 00:03:55 visibility of things like that is just the
00:03:55 --> 00:03:58 fact that you can see more. Yeah, the fact
00:03:58 --> 00:04:00 that the sky is bright during full moon. And
00:04:00 --> 00:04:01 so we do get this impression that
00:04:03 --> 00:04:04 all hell breaks loose. I know you talk to
00:04:04 --> 00:04:06 nurses, they always say the same thing. Uh,
00:04:07 --> 00:04:10 and um, yeah, teachers say that kids are
00:04:10 --> 00:04:12 all strappy at full moon. That might be
00:04:12 --> 00:04:14 because they don't sleep as well. And maybe
00:04:14 --> 00:04:16 that's part of the problem that people, if
00:04:16 --> 00:04:19 they sleep with their curtains open or they
00:04:19 --> 00:04:21 don't have proper blockout curtains, they're
00:04:21 --> 00:04:22 going to get a poor night's sleep because
00:04:22 --> 00:04:24 it's so bright out there, the full moon.
00:04:24 --> 00:04:25 Andrew Dunkley: It could be as simple as that, Fred Watson.
00:04:25 --> 00:04:28 Could absolutely be as simple as that. Having
00:04:28 --> 00:04:31 experienced. And you have done this too, um,
00:04:31 --> 00:04:32 24 hour daylight.
00:04:33 --> 00:04:33 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
00:04:33 --> 00:04:36 Andrew Dunkley: I can understand how it would interfere with
00:04:36 --> 00:04:38 your normal sleep patterns. In fact, uh,
00:04:38 --> 00:04:40 while we were on the, on the ship recently up
00:04:40 --> 00:04:42 in the Arctic Circle in, in the northern
00:04:42 --> 00:04:45 summer, people did complain about poor
00:04:45 --> 00:04:48 sleep simply because they had window
00:04:48 --> 00:04:51 cabins. And it was bright
00:04:51 --> 00:04:54 all the time, 24 hours a day, not, not
00:04:54 --> 00:04:56 glowingly bright. I mean, it got
00:04:57 --> 00:04:59 down to sort of twilight levels at some
00:04:59 --> 00:05:01 stages, but it was never dark
00:05:02 --> 00:05:04 and that. Yeah, a few of us
00:05:05 --> 00:05:07 who weren't used to it
00:05:07 --> 00:05:10 certainly felt the, felt the effect. Uh, we
00:05:10 --> 00:05:12 had an interior cabin by, by choice because
00:05:12 --> 00:05:15 we knew we, we'd be up there for this. So,
00:05:15 --> 00:05:18 um, we, we didn't have any trouble sleeping
00:05:18 --> 00:05:20 because we blacked out. But, um, um,
00:05:21 --> 00:05:23 but yeah, if you had a window cabin or a
00:05:23 --> 00:05:26 Balcony cabin or something. Yeah, it was, it
00:05:26 --> 00:05:28 was a different story. Um, um. But yeah, I,
00:05:29 --> 00:05:31 and I. And I also wonder if it's
00:05:31 --> 00:05:34 just, um, you know, in my experience with
00:05:34 --> 00:05:37 overnight radio and the weird phone calls I
00:05:37 --> 00:05:38 used to get on full moons, if it was an
00:05:38 --> 00:05:41 effect of people just thinking, oh, it's a
00:05:41 --> 00:05:44 full moon, let's just be
00:05:44 --> 00:05:46 galoots and carry on like pork chops,
00:05:46 --> 00:05:49 you know, maybe let's
00:05:49 --> 00:05:50 pretend.
00:05:50 --> 00:05:52 Professor Fred Watson: Let's pretend that we're all going lunatics.
00:05:52 --> 00:05:52 Andrew Dunkley: Dark ravens.
00:05:52 --> 00:05:54 Professor Fred Watson: That's where the word comes from.
00:05:54 --> 00:05:55 Andrew Dunkley: That's true, yes.
00:05:55 --> 00:05:55 Professor Fred Watson: Yes.
00:05:56 --> 00:05:59 Andrew Dunkley: Uh, although that, that suggests that this is
00:05:59 --> 00:06:00 not a new phenomenon either.
00:06:00 --> 00:06:02 Professor Fred Watson: Exactly. That's right.
00:06:03 --> 00:06:06 Andrew Dunkley: So, um, yes, you'd
00:06:06 --> 00:06:08 need a lot of evidence to back up claims that
00:06:08 --> 00:06:11 the moon does cause certain
00:06:11 --> 00:06:13 ill effects in the, in the human psyche.
00:06:13 --> 00:06:16 But, um, studies prove otherwise.
00:06:16 --> 00:06:18 But yeah, he's right about the animals. I
00:06:18 --> 00:06:21 mean, they live. Just about everything
00:06:21 --> 00:06:23 on Earth's affected by the, um, by the moon
00:06:23 --> 00:06:24 in some way or another.
00:06:25 --> 00:06:28 Professor Fred Watson: Humans are too. Um, not denying that there's
00:06:28 --> 00:06:31 monthly cycles in human physiology.
00:06:31 --> 00:06:32 So.
00:06:32 --> 00:06:34 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, absolutely. So, yes, um,
00:06:34 --> 00:06:35 debunked, Peter.
00:06:36 --> 00:06:38 Professor Fred Watson: So well spotted though, Peter. Um,
00:06:38 --> 00:06:40 it's good to have an opportunity to talk
00:06:40 --> 00:06:42 about it again, for sure.
00:06:43 --> 00:06:44 Andrew Dunkley: Thanks, Peter. Hope you're well.
00:06:44 --> 00:06:47 Um. When we were in Adelaide Hills, uh, which
00:06:47 --> 00:06:50 would have been in June, a couple of weeks
00:06:50 --> 00:06:51 after we got on board the ship, the weather
00:06:51 --> 00:06:53 was dreadful. And,
00:06:54 --> 00:06:57 uh, we went up to Matt Lofty to see the
00:06:57 --> 00:07:00 beautiful view. We saw a fence and then you
00:07:00 --> 00:07:01 couldn't see anything beyond it because it
00:07:01 --> 00:07:03 was so cloudy and windy and wet.
00:07:04 --> 00:07:06 Actually, I should point out when we got back
00:07:06 --> 00:07:08 on the ship, we couldn't leave that night
00:07:08 --> 00:07:11 because the seas were so bad. So they kept us
00:07:11 --> 00:07:14 in Adelaide overnight and we left the next
00:07:14 --> 00:07:17 morning and the seas were pretty rough.
00:07:17 --> 00:07:20 Uh, just trying to get up around the west
00:07:20 --> 00:07:22 Australian coast from Adelaide. And as we
00:07:22 --> 00:07:24 were about to make the turn north,
00:07:25 --> 00:07:27 we got hit by a massive squall.
00:07:28 --> 00:07:31 And Judy and I were at lunch and it hit the
00:07:31 --> 00:07:33 ship. Like something hit the ship
00:07:33 --> 00:07:36 and knocked us over on a seven degree
00:07:36 --> 00:07:37 tilt.
00:07:37 --> 00:07:38 Professor Fred Watson: Wow.
00:07:38 --> 00:07:40 Andrew Dunkley: And we couldn't straighten up. Took a few
00:07:40 --> 00:07:41 hours to straighten the ship up. They
00:07:41 --> 00:07:44 couldn't get the ballast right. And, yeah,
00:07:44 --> 00:07:47 things went flying everywhere. We were were
00:07:47 --> 00:07:49 having lunch and glasses and cutlery and
00:07:49 --> 00:07:52 plates and food and wine and, uh. Oh, the
00:07:52 --> 00:07:55 beer, the beer went everywhere. Um, and it
00:07:55 --> 00:07:56 happened over the entire ship. I don't know
00:07:56 --> 00:07:59 how much stuff they lost that got smashed,
00:07:59 --> 00:08:01 but, um, yeah, it was a heck of a bang.
00:08:02 --> 00:08:03 So, um.
00:08:03 --> 00:08:03 Professor Fred Watson: Yes.
00:08:04 --> 00:08:05 Andrew Dunkley: I'm going to have to go back to Adelaide and
00:08:05 --> 00:08:08 see it in nice weather. Point I was trying to
00:08:08 --> 00:08:10 make. Thanks, Peter.
00:08:10 --> 00:08:11 Uh, let's go to our next question. Hey,
00:08:11 --> 00:08:13 Andrew and Fred Watson love the show. Been
00:08:13 --> 00:08:16 listening for years. Uh, I've had this idea
00:08:16 --> 00:08:18 bouncing around for a while about how space
00:08:18 --> 00:08:21 is curved and what that might mean. I
00:08:21 --> 00:08:23 haven't found much that explains why it's a
00:08:23 --> 00:08:26 bad idea. So I figured I'd ask you,
00:08:27 --> 00:08:29 uh, if matter curves spacetime in a negative
00:08:29 --> 00:08:32 way and the universe is overall flat,
00:08:32 --> 00:08:35 wouldn't that mean the voids have to curve
00:08:35 --> 00:08:37 space time in a positive way to balance it
00:08:37 --> 00:08:40 out? And if that's true, could the curvature
00:08:40 --> 00:08:43 of void space act like a, uh, kind of
00:08:43 --> 00:08:45 pressure that helps hold galaxies together,
00:08:45 --> 00:08:48 maybe even removing the need for dark matter?
00:08:48 --> 00:08:51 Also, if time flows differently in the
00:08:51 --> 00:08:53 void because of the curvature, could that
00:08:53 --> 00:08:56 help explain things like the Hubble tension?
00:08:56 --> 00:08:59 Curious to hear why this doesn't work. Uh,
00:08:59 --> 00:09:02 Rob from the central coast. Uh, I'm assuming
00:09:02 --> 00:09:03 central coast, New South Wales, because
00:09:03 --> 00:09:05 there's a central coast in Queensland as
00:09:05 --> 00:09:08 well. Um, my only
00:09:09 --> 00:09:11 question about his question is he talks about
00:09:11 --> 00:09:14 the, uh, universe being flat. I would
00:09:14 --> 00:09:16 have suggested it's actually a sphere.
00:09:16 --> 00:09:19 Wouldn't. Wouldn't you say so?
00:09:19 --> 00:09:21 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, flat. Flatness is,
00:09:21 --> 00:09:24 um, it is a misleading
00:09:24 --> 00:09:26 term because, uh, it refers
00:09:26 --> 00:09:29 to, uh, the fact that
00:09:29 --> 00:09:32 Euclidean geometry works. In other words, you
00:09:32 --> 00:09:35 know, angles of a triangle add up to 180
00:09:35 --> 00:09:37 degrees and all of that stuff. Parallel lines
00:09:37 --> 00:09:40 never meet. Yeah, um, that's, uh,
00:09:40 --> 00:09:43 what the term flat means. Uh, and curvature
00:09:43 --> 00:09:46 is. Yes, the
00:09:46 --> 00:09:49 opposite of flatness, um, on
00:09:50 --> 00:09:52 large scales, but yes. Uh, exactly as it's
00:09:52 --> 00:09:54 Rob, isn't it? Exactly as Rob says.
00:09:55 --> 00:09:57 The universe is thought to be very
00:09:57 --> 00:10:00 nearly flat. And so,
00:10:00 --> 00:10:03 um, there is curvature that's put into it
00:10:03 --> 00:10:06 by matter, exactly as he says. But it kind
00:10:06 --> 00:10:09 of, it does sort of even out. And, um,
00:10:09 --> 00:10:11 his comment about if, if there's
00:10:11 --> 00:10:14 positive gravity in the voids,
00:10:15 --> 00:10:17 uh, could that explain the
00:10:17 --> 00:10:20 phenomenon of dark matter clumping around
00:10:20 --> 00:10:23 galaxies? Um, the trouble is there aren't
00:10:23 --> 00:10:25 really any galaxies in the voids, which is
00:10:25 --> 00:10:27 why they're called voids, because there
00:10:29 --> 00:10:31 no galaxies there. They're pretty empty.
00:10:31 --> 00:10:34 Um, um, but I don't think even if
00:10:34 --> 00:10:36 you stuck a galaxy in one of these voids,
00:10:37 --> 00:10:40 I don't think the curvature of the
00:10:40 --> 00:10:43 space will be enough to mimic the
00:10:43 --> 00:10:46 phenomena of dark matter. I think it will be
00:10:46 --> 00:10:47 too, too weak.
00:10:47 --> 00:10:50 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. And lots of people are trying to
00:10:50 --> 00:10:51 disprove dark matter, aren't they?
00:10:52 --> 00:10:54 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. I mean it's great that
00:10:54 --> 00:10:57 they are, uh, one. One of them's a
00:10:58 --> 00:11:01 space nuts listener. Peter Verwein, I don't
00:11:01 --> 00:11:02 know. They're still doing his PhD on um,
00:11:02 --> 00:11:05 Mond, um, modified Newtonian dynamics.
00:11:05 --> 00:11:07 But he certainly was last time we spoke.
00:11:08 --> 00:11:09 Yeah.
00:11:10 --> 00:11:11 Andrew Dunkley: Hopefully, um, they'll figure it out one day
00:11:11 --> 00:11:14 because it is one of the great mysteries, uh,
00:11:14 --> 00:11:16 dark matter, dark energy, um,
00:11:16 --> 00:11:18 as we talked about in the last episode,
00:11:18 --> 00:11:21 wormholes, multiple universe theory.
00:11:22 --> 00:11:24 There's quite a few, um, big
00:11:25 --> 00:11:27 issues if you like, uh, being debated
00:11:28 --> 00:11:31 and theories being put forward, but uh, no
00:11:31 --> 00:11:32 answers yet. Uh, although
00:11:34 --> 00:11:36 the science seems to very heavily
00:11:36 --> 00:11:38 favour the existence and effect of dark
00:11:38 --> 00:11:39 matter.
00:11:39 --> 00:11:42 Professor Fred Watson: It does. It's the simplest explanation. It's
00:11:42 --> 00:11:43 Occam's razor. You apply the simplest
00:11:44 --> 00:11:46 explanation to something. Um, and
00:11:47 --> 00:11:50 yeah, dark matter fits that bill. And if you
00:11:50 --> 00:11:52 get rid of it, uh, you know, if you build a
00:11:52 --> 00:11:54 theory that says that Newtonian
00:11:54 --> 00:11:56 dynamics doesn't work at very low
00:11:56 --> 00:11:58 accelerations, which is what modified
00:11:58 --> 00:12:01 Newtonian dynamics is about, then it upsets
00:12:01 --> 00:12:03 other measurements that you can make. Yes. It
00:12:03 --> 00:12:05 means you don't have to have something extra
00:12:05 --> 00:12:07 to hold galaxies together, but you have
00:12:07 --> 00:12:09 problems with clusters of galaxies and things
00:12:09 --> 00:12:12 of that sort. So dark matter
00:12:12 --> 00:12:15 seems to fit the bill. The annoying thing is
00:12:15 --> 00:12:17 we've no idea what it is and we can't find
00:12:17 --> 00:12:17 it.
00:12:18 --> 00:12:20 Andrew Dunkley: Yes, um, in fact finding
00:12:20 --> 00:12:23 anything of that nature is very, very
00:12:23 --> 00:12:25 difficult. Um, a Large Hadron
00:12:25 --> 00:12:28 Colliders had a few specks of success
00:12:29 --> 00:12:30 but um, but.
00:12:30 --> 00:12:32 Professor Fred Watson: Not nothing like what was hoped for.
00:12:33 --> 00:12:36 The um, the upgrade to 14 tera electron
00:12:36 --> 00:12:39 volts, which is what happened a decade
00:12:39 --> 00:12:40 or so ago. More than a decade now.
00:12:40 --> 00:12:43 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, yeah. Maybe they need to
00:12:43 --> 00:12:45 put some new batteries in it or something.
00:12:46 --> 00:12:48 Professor Fred Watson: Uh, there are plans for something like new
00:12:48 --> 00:12:50 batteries, but it's a bit more,
00:12:51 --> 00:12:54 um, a little bit more far reaching than that.
00:12:54 --> 00:12:55 So the Large Hadron Collider is a 27
00:12:55 --> 00:12:58 kilometre underground tunnel, circular.
00:12:59 --> 00:13:02 Uh, they want to increase the energy of it
00:13:02 --> 00:13:04 in order to find these heavier particles
00:13:04 --> 00:13:06 which might be what? Dark matter. Which might
00:13:06 --> 00:13:08 include dark matter particles. But to do that
00:13:08 --> 00:13:11 you've got to make the, the Large Hadron
00:13:11 --> 00:13:13 Collider bigger. And so what they're talking
00:13:13 --> 00:13:16 about now is the future circular collider
00:13:16 --> 00:13:18 which has a tunnel length of 100
00:13:18 --> 00:13:19 kilometres.
00:13:19 --> 00:13:20 Andrew Dunkley: Whoa.
00:13:20 --> 00:13:23 Professor Fred Watson: Not 27, but 100. Uh, and that's
00:13:23 --> 00:13:25 not funded. It's still uh, you know, gleaming
00:13:25 --> 00:13:28 people's eyes. But if it was funded today
00:13:29 --> 00:13:31 and was going to be built, it would come
00:13:31 --> 00:13:33 online in 2070,
00:13:34 --> 00:13:37 uh, by which time space Nuts might actually
00:13:37 --> 00:13:40 be defunct by then. I can imagine that.
00:13:40 --> 00:13:42 Although Jonty might keep it going.
00:13:42 --> 00:13:45 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. He may not. Nothing ever
00:13:45 --> 00:13:48 gets taken off the Internet, so it'll be
00:13:48 --> 00:13:50 there somewhere. Yes.
00:13:51 --> 00:13:53 Okay, so, uh, the answer is probably not.
00:13:55 --> 00:13:55 That's it.
00:13:55 --> 00:13:57 Professor Fred Watson: That's the correct answer. Probably.
00:13:57 --> 00:13:59 Andrew Dunkley: Probably not. All right, good thinking
00:13:59 --> 00:14:01 though, Rob, thanks for getting in touch with
00:14:01 --> 00:14:03 us. Great to hear from you. This is Space
00:14:03 --> 00:14:06 Nuts Q and A edition with Andrew Dunkley and
00:14:06 --> 00:14:07 Professor Fred Watson Watson.
00:14:11 --> 00:14:12 Space Nuts.
00:14:13 --> 00:14:15 Now, our next question is also a text
00:14:15 --> 00:14:17 question and it comes from
00:14:17 --> 00:14:20 Ian. Ian Anderson. Uh, my question is,
00:14:20 --> 00:14:23 if beings have developed vessels that
00:14:23 --> 00:14:26 travel at light speed, would we be able to
00:14:26 --> 00:14:29 detect them with current technology, could
00:14:29 --> 00:14:31 human eyes detect an object travelling at
00:14:31 --> 00:14:33 light speed? Yeah. Ah, interesting question,
00:14:33 --> 00:14:34 Ian.
00:14:35 --> 00:14:36 Professor Fred Watson: Um, well, the only things that travel at
00:14:36 --> 00:14:38 light speed are photons.
00:14:38 --> 00:14:39 Andrew Dunkley: Yes.
00:14:39 --> 00:14:41 Professor Fred Watson: Because it's impossible for anything else to
00:14:41 --> 00:14:44 reach light speed. Uh,
00:14:44 --> 00:14:46 yeah, because in a vacuum. Yes,
00:14:47 --> 00:14:48 that was correct. Yeah.
00:14:48 --> 00:14:51 Um, yes. All right, let's clarify that
00:14:51 --> 00:14:54 too. In a vacuum, that's good. 300
00:14:54 --> 00:14:56 kilometres per second. Um, um,
00:14:57 --> 00:14:59 relativity says that in order to
00:14:59 --> 00:15:02 accelerate something, uh, with
00:15:02 --> 00:15:05 mass to the speed of light, you need
00:15:05 --> 00:15:08 to input infinite energy. And
00:15:08 --> 00:15:10 that's a bit of a drawback really,
00:15:11 --> 00:15:13 uh, to travel at light speed. So photons do
00:15:13 --> 00:15:16 travel at light speed. We don't actually see
00:15:16 --> 00:15:19 photons as they whiz by, but we see their
00:15:19 --> 00:15:21 effect when they hit a surface. Uh, whether
00:15:21 --> 00:15:23 it's the retina of an eye or the wall behind
00:15:23 --> 00:15:25 the screen I'm looking at here now, the wall
00:15:25 --> 00:15:27 behind me, uh, that's when you see the
00:15:27 --> 00:15:29 photons because they're basically
00:15:30 --> 00:15:33 radiate the light. Yeah. Back to
00:15:33 --> 00:15:35 you. Um, so,
00:15:36 --> 00:15:38 uh, if, I mean,
00:15:38 --> 00:15:40 if you had some object
00:15:41 --> 00:15:43 travelling at very nearly the speed of light,
00:15:43 --> 00:15:46 invented by some alien
00:15:46 --> 00:15:49 beings of superb intelligence, um,
00:15:50 --> 00:15:52 you would be able to see it, but you'd have
00:15:52 --> 00:15:55 to be in certain places, uh,
00:15:55 --> 00:15:58 because the light would radiate out
00:15:58 --> 00:16:00 from it in a kind of almost like a shockwave.
00:16:01 --> 00:16:03 Uh, so you, you would only see it in
00:16:03 --> 00:16:06 if you looked in certain directions. It's,
00:16:06 --> 00:16:09 it's a phenomenon called aberration.
00:16:09 --> 00:16:12 It's the way a beam of light changes
00:16:12 --> 00:16:15 direction because of the velocity of the
00:16:15 --> 00:16:16 moving object.
00:16:17 --> 00:16:19 Andrew Dunkley: Sounds similar to when a fighter, ah, jet
00:16:19 --> 00:16:21 hits the speed of sound. Um,
00:16:23 --> 00:16:24 people, they've actually taken a few
00:16:24 --> 00:16:27 photographs of aircraft at that precise
00:16:27 --> 00:16:30 moment and actually causes condensation
00:16:30 --> 00:16:33 in some cases around the aircraft, like
00:16:33 --> 00:16:35 they're bursting out of a cloud. But they
00:16:35 --> 00:16:37 actually created the cloud. Yeah, yeah. And
00:16:37 --> 00:16:40 the Big Bang and the Big Bang. That created
00:16:40 --> 00:16:43 the Big Bang as well. I grew up near
00:16:43 --> 00:16:45 an RAF base.
00:16:45 --> 00:16:45 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
00:16:45 --> 00:16:47 Andrew Dunkley: And we quite often used to hear
00:16:48 --> 00:16:51 sonic booms. Yeah, usually it was until they
00:16:51 --> 00:16:51 banned it.
00:16:52 --> 00:16:54 Professor Fred Watson: That's right, it was. They were double,
00:16:54 --> 00:16:56 weren't they? Didn't you get two bangs?
00:16:56 --> 00:16:56 Andrew Dunkley: Yes.
00:16:56 --> 00:16:59 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, that's what I thought. Um,
00:16:59 --> 00:17:02 yes, so, um, indeed. I used to live near an
00:17:02 --> 00:17:04 RAF base when I was a student M. At St.
00:17:04 --> 00:17:07 Andrews. There's ah, a. The Lucas Royal Air
00:17:07 --> 00:17:08 Force Base right next door. They used to
00:17:08 --> 00:17:10 scramble their jets nearly every day because
00:17:10 --> 00:17:12 of Russian bombers intercepting uh.
00:17:12 --> 00:17:13 Andrew Dunkley: Gosh.
00:17:13 --> 00:17:15 Professor Fred Watson: Intercepting airspace. So not much has
00:17:15 --> 00:17:18 changed, has it? In the world of, of
00:17:20 --> 00:17:22 Russian aircraft probing the defences of the
00:17:22 --> 00:17:23 Western Alliance.
00:17:23 --> 00:17:26 Andrew Dunkley: Well, yeah, these days, um, around Australia
00:17:26 --> 00:17:27 it's Chinese ships.
00:17:28 --> 00:17:28 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
00:17:28 --> 00:17:30 Andrew Dunkley: So, yeah, seen a few of those.
00:17:31 --> 00:17:33 Um, but yeah, we used to see all sorts of
00:17:33 --> 00:17:35 weird and wonderful planes, uh, flying over
00:17:35 --> 00:17:37 the, the Mackie trainers. The
00:17:38 --> 00:17:40 Mirage jets were in action when I was
00:17:40 --> 00:17:43 a kid. Uh, we used to see the uh, Bell Huey
00:17:43 --> 00:17:46 helicopters. Uh, they even had uh, wear
00:17:46 --> 00:17:49 aways and windshields back then. The,
00:17:49 --> 00:17:50 the old prop aircraft.
00:17:51 --> 00:17:51 Professor Fred Watson: Right.
00:17:51 --> 00:17:54 Andrew Dunkley: Um, yeah, this was at uh, Williamtown Air
00:17:54 --> 00:17:56 Force Base, which was only 15 minutes drive
00:17:56 --> 00:17:59 away from where we lived. So. But there were
00:17:59 --> 00:18:00 jets up there all the time.
00:18:00 --> 00:18:02 Professor Fred Watson: Always There would be. Still are actually.
00:18:02 --> 00:18:04 William town's still pretty active.
00:18:04 --> 00:18:06 Andrew Dunkley: Well, yeah, of course. Right next door to.
00:18:06 --> 00:18:08 It's uh, Newcastle International Airport.
00:18:09 --> 00:18:09 Professor Fred Watson: That's right.
00:18:09 --> 00:18:12 Andrew Dunkley: So yeah, it's a pretty busy place these days.
00:18:13 --> 00:18:15 Uh, did we finish with uh, Ian's question?
00:18:15 --> 00:18:17 Uh, no, you probably wouldn't, would you? If
00:18:17 --> 00:18:18 there was a spacecraft.
00:18:18 --> 00:18:19 Professor Fred Watson: That's right.
00:18:19 --> 00:18:21 Andrew Dunkley: Capable of light speed.
00:18:22 --> 00:18:24 Professor Fred Watson: Yes. Well, you wouldn't if it was capable of
00:18:24 --> 00:18:25 light speed. But if it was just under the
00:18:25 --> 00:18:27 speed of light and you were looking in the
00:18:27 --> 00:18:29 right direction, then you would see it. Yeah.
00:18:29 --> 00:18:30 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. Okay.
00:18:30 --> 00:18:32 Professor Fred Watson: It will be very heavily blue shifted as well.
00:18:32 --> 00:18:33 The radiation.
00:18:33 --> 00:18:35 Andrew Dunkley: Ah, okay. There's a telltale sign.
00:18:35 --> 00:18:36 Professor Fred Watson: There you go.
00:18:36 --> 00:18:38 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, we'll keep an eye out for them.
00:18:38 --> 00:18:40 Professor Fred Watson: Look for blue lights in the street and if you
00:18:40 --> 00:18:43 see them, pull over quickly.
00:18:43 --> 00:18:46 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, thanks Ian. Um, good to hear from
00:18:46 --> 00:18:48 you. Our final questions and audio question
00:18:48 --> 00:18:49 coming from
00:18:50 --> 00:18:51 Martin.
00:18:52 --> 00:18:54 Berman Gorvine: Hello, space nuts.
00:18:55 --> 00:18:58 Martin Berman Gourvine here, writer
00:18:59 --> 00:19:01 extraordinaire in many
00:19:02 --> 00:19:04 genres with
00:19:06 --> 00:19:08 a cosmic
00:19:08 --> 00:19:11 philosophical question. But
00:19:11 --> 00:19:13 first I want to say, Andrew, I
00:19:13 --> 00:19:16 forgive you for not looking me up
00:19:17 --> 00:19:19 when you were in the Washington D.C. area
00:19:20 --> 00:19:23 because I realised that if
00:19:23 --> 00:19:25 we had gotten together
00:19:26 --> 00:19:29 the uh,
00:19:29 --> 00:19:32 field of dad jokes would have
00:19:32 --> 00:19:35 been so dense that nothing
00:19:35 --> 00:19:37 could have escaped it. Not even
00:19:37 --> 00:19:40 groans. So My
00:19:40 --> 00:19:42 question for today is,
00:19:44 --> 00:19:47 what if the universe
00:19:47 --> 00:19:50 were indeed a simulation? Is
00:19:50 --> 00:19:52 there any hard proof
00:19:53 --> 00:19:56 we could have that such a thing were
00:19:56 --> 00:19:59 true? And I have to say I don't believe
00:19:59 --> 00:20:01 it for a moment.
00:20:02 --> 00:20:05 I'm with, uh, Dr. Samuel Johnson
00:20:05 --> 00:20:07 on this one, who
00:20:07 --> 00:20:10 refuted Bishop
00:20:10 --> 00:20:12 Barclay's idealism by
00:20:12 --> 00:20:14 kicking a pebble.
00:20:15 --> 00:20:18 And the only proof I could think of
00:20:18 --> 00:20:20 that the universe
00:20:21 --> 00:20:24 would be a simulation would be
00:20:24 --> 00:20:27 if we discovered that the
00:20:27 --> 00:20:30 redshift of an
00:20:30 --> 00:20:32 extremely distant galaxy were the
00:20:32 --> 00:20:35 square root of a negative number.
00:20:36 --> 00:20:39 Get it? Then the
00:20:39 --> 00:20:40 redshift would be
00:20:41 --> 00:20:44 imaginary, and hence the
00:20:44 --> 00:20:46 whole universe would be imaginary,
00:20:46 --> 00:20:49 which makes about as much sense as
00:20:49 --> 00:20:52 anything in this whole question.
00:20:54 --> 00:20:56 Can't wait for the answer, Vermin.
00:20:58 --> 00:21:00 Over and out.
00:21:00 --> 00:21:01 Out.
00:21:02 --> 00:21:04 Andrew Dunkley: I think he answered it himself, didn't he?
00:21:06 --> 00:21:06 Professor Fred Watson: And.
00:21:06 --> 00:21:08 Andrew Dunkley: And, um. Martin.
00:21:08 --> 00:21:08 Professor Fred Watson: Yes.
00:21:08 --> 00:21:10 Andrew Dunkley: Uh, I'm sorry we didn't get together, but,
00:21:10 --> 00:21:13 uh, my time in Washington, um, was very,
00:21:13 --> 00:21:15 very limited and we were on an organised tour
00:21:15 --> 00:21:17 and we all had to be in certain places at
00:21:17 --> 00:21:18 certain times. So
00:21:20 --> 00:21:23 just. I. I didn't have a minute
00:21:23 --> 00:21:26 up my sleeve. Uh, so that's.
00:21:26 --> 00:21:28 But I did think of you while I was there. I
00:21:28 --> 00:21:30 hope you detected that in our simulation
00:21:30 --> 00:21:32 universe style of life.
00:21:33 --> 00:21:35 Professor Fred Watson: Martin might have had 40 people turning up on
00:21:35 --> 00:21:38 his doorstep if you came here too.
00:21:38 --> 00:21:40 Andrew Dunkley: Um. Are we living in a simulation?
00:21:41 --> 00:21:44 Look, I, uh, think there are those that
00:21:44 --> 00:21:46 argue that, um, our universe is a
00:21:46 --> 00:21:49 manifestation of our minds
00:21:50 --> 00:21:52 that's been put forward. But,
00:21:53 --> 00:21:55 um, then, yes, simulation theories,
00:21:55 --> 00:21:57 that's sort of doing the rounds
00:21:58 --> 00:22:00 fairly regularly these days too.
00:22:00 --> 00:22:03 Professor Fred Watson: Uh, yeah, it is
00:22:03 --> 00:22:06 an interesting one. Um, how you prove that
00:22:06 --> 00:22:09 we're not in a simulation? The what? The
00:22:10 --> 00:22:12 only line of argument that
00:22:12 --> 00:22:15 I've heard, and, um, it's quite an old one,
00:22:15 --> 00:22:18 is that if we discovered that
00:22:19 --> 00:22:22 space time was quantized
00:22:22 --> 00:22:25 so it was moved in jerks rather than
00:22:25 --> 00:22:28 smoothly, um, that might suggest
00:22:28 --> 00:22:31 that we're in a digital simulation. If
00:22:31 --> 00:22:34 you've got space time being represented by
00:22:34 --> 00:22:37 something that's, uh, you know, that's.
00:22:37 --> 00:22:39 That's got discrete steps in it
00:22:39 --> 00:22:42 rather than, um, being completely smooth. And
00:22:42 --> 00:22:45 I'm thinking now about the way we
00:22:45 --> 00:22:47 record music digitally, where you chop up the
00:22:47 --> 00:22:49 waveform into these tiny digital
00:22:50 --> 00:22:52 steps, uh, and
00:22:52 --> 00:22:54 you wouldn't know that you were listening to
00:22:54 --> 00:22:57 a digital sound, uh, made up of
00:22:57 --> 00:23:00 little jumps, um, uh, in time.
00:23:01 --> 00:23:03 Uh, so if the universe was discovered to
00:23:03 --> 00:23:06 be like a digital waveform, then, yeah,
00:23:07 --> 00:23:10 maybe it would be a simulation,
00:23:11 --> 00:23:13 but it's still not. Still not definite proof.
00:23:13 --> 00:23:16 I think the only way we'd really know is if
00:23:16 --> 00:23:19 this big face appeared in the sky and they
00:23:19 --> 00:23:21 said, ah, you're being simulated, you're not
00:23:21 --> 00:23:24 real, wouldn't feel good. It
00:23:24 --> 00:23:26 wouldn't feel good. No, it would not be a
00:23:26 --> 00:23:27 feel good moment.
00:23:27 --> 00:23:29 Andrew Dunkley: I'd have a bit of a problem with that. But,
00:23:29 --> 00:23:32 um, it's certainly something that's been
00:23:32 --> 00:23:34 portrayed in various forms of sci
00:23:34 --> 00:23:36 fi. The, the simulated universe.
00:23:36 --> 00:23:37 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
00:23:37 --> 00:23:40 Andrew Dunkley: Um, but yeah,
00:23:40 --> 00:23:42 I just don't understand how it could have,
00:23:43 --> 00:23:46 uh, exist. It's. There's just too much
00:23:46 --> 00:23:49 going on. Like if it's a simulation, it's got
00:23:49 --> 00:23:50 a damn good computer programme running it.
00:23:50 --> 00:23:53 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, that's right. Um,
00:23:54 --> 00:23:55 yeah, the uh.
00:23:55 --> 00:23:58 I, um, I mean in
00:23:58 --> 00:24:01 a sense there's an equivalent problem which
00:24:01 --> 00:24:04 is being, I guess, looked at by
00:24:04 --> 00:24:06 the world's great theoretical physicists
00:24:07 --> 00:24:10 in into who ask
00:24:10 --> 00:24:13 the question, is there a deeper underlying
00:24:13 --> 00:24:16 reality that underpins
00:24:16 --> 00:24:18 both quantum mechanics on one hand and
00:24:18 --> 00:24:21 relativity on the other and sort of
00:24:21 --> 00:24:23 essentially brings them together? Uh, and if
00:24:23 --> 00:24:26 there is a deeper reality, what does it mean
00:24:26 --> 00:24:29 for our existence? And you're quite right.
00:24:29 --> 00:24:32 Um, you know, consciousness has been, has
00:24:32 --> 00:24:34 been, uh, um. Just
00:24:34 --> 00:24:37 excuse me one minute, I'll just call them
00:24:37 --> 00:24:40 back. Consciousness, uh, has been,
00:24:40 --> 00:24:43 um, uh, uh,
00:24:43 --> 00:24:46 regarded as maybe a part and parcel of what
00:24:46 --> 00:24:48 the universe does and the way it behaves. Uh,
00:24:48 --> 00:24:51 so that's a, ah, very intriguing
00:24:51 --> 00:24:54 puzzle. If you need consciousness in
00:24:54 --> 00:24:56 order for the universe to exist. What kind of
00:24:56 --> 00:24:57 a universe are we living in?
00:24:58 --> 00:25:01 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, that's one of the things, um,
00:25:02 --> 00:25:04 uh, I think has been talked about fairly
00:25:04 --> 00:25:07 heavily in recent years. Um,
00:25:08 --> 00:25:11 that, that one really is a mind blower
00:25:11 --> 00:25:13 though, that, um, consciousness created the
00:25:13 --> 00:25:14 universe.
00:25:14 --> 00:25:15 Professor Fred Watson: Uh, yep.
00:25:15 --> 00:25:18 Andrew Dunkley: Again, very hard to believe.
00:25:20 --> 00:25:22 And, and it would, I don't know how it would
00:25:22 --> 00:25:23 work.
00:25:25 --> 00:25:27 Professor Fred Watson: No, uh, that's right. I mean, whose
00:25:27 --> 00:25:28 consciousness are we talking about here?
00:25:29 --> 00:25:30 Andrew Dunkley: Uh, well, that's right.
00:25:30 --> 00:25:31 Professor Fred Watson: Gods or ours or.
00:25:32 --> 00:25:34 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, or a collective.
00:25:34 --> 00:25:37 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, collective, yeah. M. Interesting.
00:25:37 --> 00:25:40 Andrew Dunkley: All very interesting and all very weird. But,
00:25:40 --> 00:25:43 um, always good to talk about.
00:25:43 --> 00:25:45 Uh, but thank you, Martin, for asking and
00:25:45 --> 00:25:47 answering your own question and allowing us
00:25:47 --> 00:25:49 to discuss it. It was um, it was a good one.
00:25:50 --> 00:25:52 Keep them coming. Uh, if you've got some
00:25:52 --> 00:25:54 questions for us, please send them in. We uh,
00:25:55 --> 00:25:56 encourage you to do that. Don't forget to
00:25:56 --> 00:25:58 tell us who you are and where you're from.
00:25:59 --> 00:26:01 And you can do that through our website
00:26:01 --> 00:26:03 spacenutspodcast.com or
00:26:03 --> 00:26:06 spacenuts IO and you just
00:26:06 --> 00:26:08 click on the little tab up the top that says
00:26:08 --> 00:26:11 ama. We did, I think, look at getting that
00:26:11 --> 00:26:13 change to, you know, voice
00:26:13 --> 00:26:15 messages and things, but I don't think this
00:26:15 --> 00:26:18 interface allows it. But yeah, you can fill
00:26:18 --> 00:26:20 in the blanks there as well. If, uh, you've
00:26:20 --> 00:26:22 got a device with a microphone, it's pretty
00:26:22 --> 00:26:24 easy to send us a voice message or a voice
00:26:25 --> 00:26:27 question. Fred Watson, we're all done. Thanks
00:26:27 --> 00:26:29 for helping out today with all of that.
00:26:30 --> 00:26:32 Professor Fred Watson: Uh, it's a pleasure. I'm, uh, glad to be of
00:26:32 --> 00:26:32 assistance.
00:26:33 --> 00:26:34 Andrew Dunkley: We'll see you next week.
00:26:34 --> 00:26:35 Professor Fred Watson: Sounds like it. Yeah.
00:26:36 --> 00:26:39 Andrew Dunkley: See you later this week, as the case may be.
00:26:39 --> 00:26:42 Yes, thanks, Professor
00:26:42 --> 00:26:43 Fred Watson Watson, astronomer at large. And
00:26:43 --> 00:26:46 thanks to Huw in the studio, who couldn't be
00:26:46 --> 00:26:49 with us today because he's a simulation.
00:26:50 --> 00:26:52 Uh, and from me, Andrew Dunkley.
00:26:53 --> 00:26:55 Catch uh you next time. Bye bye,
00:26:55 --> 00:26:57 Voice Over Guy: Space Nuts. You've been listening to the
00:26:57 --> 00:27:00 Space Nuts podcast, Mission Complete Houston,
00:27:00 --> 00:27:03 available at Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
00:27:03 --> 00:27:06 iHeartRadio or your favourite podcast
00:27:06 --> 00:27:08 player. You can also stream on demand at
00:27:08 --> 00:27:11 bitesz.com This has been another quality
00:27:11 --> 00:27:13 podcast production from Bitesz.com