Latest / Space Nuts: Astronomy Insights & Cosmic Discoveries / Quantum Quandaries: Photons, Black Holes & the Secrets of Cosmic Orbits

Transcript

Quantum Quandaries: Photons, Black Holes & the Secrets of Cosmic Orbits · Space Nuts: Astronomy Insights & Cosmic Discoveries

0:00
Heidi Campo: Welcome back to another exciting Q A
0:02
episode of space nuts.
0:05
Voice Over Guy: 15 seconds. Guidance is internal.
0:08
10, 9. Ignition
0:10
sequence time. Space nuts. 5, 4, 3,
0:13
2. 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4,
0:16
3, 2, 1. Space nuts.
0:18
Astronauts report. It feels good.
0:21
Heidi Campo: I'm your host for this episode, Heidi Campo.
0:24
Filling in for Andrew Dunkley. Joining me
0:27
today is Professor Fred Watson,
0:29
astronomer at large. How are you today, Fred?
0:33
Professor Fred Watson: I'm fine, thanks. I'm still at large, uh,
0:36
which is always good. Uh, no, very well,
0:38
thank you Heidi, and I hope you are too.
0:40
How's the weather doing in Houston? You were
0:43
concerned about the heat and the
0:46
rain and.
0:47
Heidi Campo: Oh, it's been beautiful. Last, uh, couple
0:49
days have really been nice. I actually sat
0:51
out, um, on the, on that patio. We have a
0:54
little patio in our backyard. Had a little
0:56
sparkling water, watched my dog play in the
0:59
yard and it was pretty nice. I think they
1:01
sprayed for the mosquitoes recently. So those
1:03
have calmed down.
1:05
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, that's right.
1:06
Heidi Campo: And no hurricanes yet, which is, let's knock
1:09
uh, on wood because that's my favorite part
1:12
right now is not having.
1:13
Professor Fred Watson: Hurricanes as it would be.
1:16
Yeah.
1:18
Heidi Campo: All right, well, we have uh, our first
1:21
question today is uh, from
1:23
Greg from Minnesota, also a
1:26
hurricane free zone. You're safe
1:29
from the hurricanes, Greg. I hope you're
1:31
enjoying not having them in Minnesota.
1:34
And uh, Greg says, g' day, Fred.
1:37
And howdy Heidi. I'm Greg from
1:40
Minnesota usa and I have a question about
1:42
photons and quantum energy levels.
1:45
We know that energy is quanticized,
1:48
that therefore photons can only exist
1:51
at certain discrete energy levels. We also
1:54
know that space is expanding and that travel
1:56
traveling through the expanding space saps
1:58
energy from the traveling photons. What
2:01
happens when a photon has been traveling so
2:04
long, so far that the energy it
2:06
carries drops below the minimum allowed
2:09
quantum energy level? Does it
2:11
disappear? I love the podcast and I'm looking
2:14
forward to your answer.
2:17
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, this is, ah, I think this is a great
2:20
question and it certainly had me scratching
2:22
my head, Heidi. Uh, it sent me
2:25
to um, the Fermilab,
2:28
which of course is uh, one of the
2:31
key, uh, nuclear physics facilities
2:34
in your country. Uh, they
2:37
um, have a marvelous website called
2:40
uh, Physics Questions People Ask Fermilab.
2:42
And I think the, the
2:45
nuances of the answer, uh, are probably best
2:48
expressed by uh, the, the
2:51
um, the account that I've
2:54
got in front of me which is by uh, one
2:57
of their uh, PhD physicists. In fact,
3:00
uh, Lila is the editor of the Office of
3:03
Public Affairs, Lila Belcora,
3:06
who says, and I think this
3:09
puts it a little bit into
3:11
perspective let's put aside the
3:14
idea of a photon losing energy
3:17
in transit as an explanation for
3:19
redshift. A photon doesn't lose energy
3:22
unless it collides with a particle. Uh,
3:26
photons can scatter off interstellar
3:27
electrons, for example. Uh,
3:30
photons carry energy, but they don't lose
3:33
energy just because they travel.
3:36
And this is the key to it, as
3:39
Lila says, the key to understanding the
3:41
dilemma of a redshifted photon.
3:44
And that's to say, one that's traveling
3:46
through space, uh, through expanding space.
3:49
And so the space has expanded, the photon has
3:51
been redshifted. It's got, uh, a lower energy
3:54
level. Uh, the key to understanding that
3:57
dilemma is that not all observers will
3:59
measure the same energy of the photon. Let's
4:02
say an observer is traveling with a star or
4:04
galaxy and sees a photon in the yellow
4:06
portion of the spectrum. An observer who is
4:09
moving with respect to the star, and it
4:11
doesn't matter if it's a star or the observer
4:13
moving away sees the same photon in the
4:16
red part of the spectrum. That's okay. It
4:19
doesn't violate the principle of
4:20
conservation, conservation of energy, because
4:23
they make their measurements in different
4:25
reference frames. So,
4:28
um, that's a complicated way of
4:31
saying, uh, that,
4:33
um, uh,
4:36
yes, uh, photon energy is quantized,
4:39
but it's never going to reach a stage
4:42
when it falls, uh, below
4:44
the minimum allowed quantum energy level.
4:47
So it doesn't disappear. Um, I
4:50
hope, Greg, that explains, uh, the answer to
4:53
your question. Uh, it's one that had me
4:55
scratching my head for quite a while. And I
4:57
thought that Lila's comment in the Fermilab
5:00
website actually put it very well. Uh, if you
5:03
want to follow up on that, it's pretty easy
5:04
to find. Just look for inquiring minds,
5:07
physics questions people ask Fermilab, and,
5:10
uh, uh, have a look at it. It's um, very
5:13
nicely written and perhaps lays
5:16
to rest some of the things that we do think
5:17
of. We take for granted that photons are
5:20
losing energy because they get red sh.
5:22
Shifted, but they're only redshifted in our
5:24
frame of reference. Ah, that's the
5:27
interesting nuance, uh, to this question.
5:32
Heidi Campo: Yeah, I'm still wrapping my head around that
5:35
one. That's so interesting. Whenever you go
5:38
anywhere close to the world of quantum,
5:41
it's just everything changes. All the
5:44
rules change.
5:45
Professor Fred Watson: That's right, they do. Um, a lot of
5:48
it's completely counterintuitive, uh, but
5:51
it seems to work. We, uh,
5:54
hear about in quantum physics, uh, for
5:57
example, entanglement, this idea that
6:00
you can bring two particles together and
6:02
they'll behave as one particle. Even though
6:04
you then separate them, uh, they still think
6:07
they're one particle. That is quite
6:10
counterintuitive.
6:12
Heidi Campo: Yeah, there was a cute little movie that came
6:15
out recently. Um, it had Chris Pratt
6:18
and. Oh, my gosh, everyone's
6:21
gonna make fun of me because I can't remember
6:22
the girl's name. She's the girl who's from
6:24
Stranger Things. She's very, she's very
6:27
famous right now. But their whole. The whole
6:29
premise was once particles
6:32
touch, then they're never separated. And it
6:35
was kind of a, like a love story type thing.
6:37
It was kind of cute. But, yeah, once
6:39
particles have. Have touched, you never lose
6:41
that connection. It was kind of cute.
6:44
Um, well, our next question is from
6:47
Russell, and this is an audio question.
6:51
So we are. I'm going to give Fred a second to
6:53
cue that up, and then we are going to play
6:56
that question for you guys to listen to you
6:58
now. And then Fred is going to answer that
7:00
question for all of you. So here is
7:03
Russell's question.
7:05
Mikey: Hello, Fred and Andrew. This is Russell, uh,
7:08
from Reading in the uk. Um, there's been a
7:11
recent suggestion that the universe is inside
7:13
a black hole. But my understanding is that
7:16
the event horizon of a black hole is a. Not a
7:18
thin membrane, but extends all the way down
7:21
to the singularity. Um, this means that
7:24
light and everything else can only travel in
7:25
one direction, which is towards the
7:27
singularity. So it would be immediately
7:30
obvious if we were inside a black hole,
7:32
because you could only see in one direction,
7:34
which is away from the singularity.
7:38
What have I missed? Thanks for the great
7:40
show.
7:40
Professor Fred Watson: So Russell's asking what he missed,
7:44
and I don't think he missed anything,
7:45
actually, because, um,
7:49
you know, the idea of the
7:51
universe being a black
7:54
hole or the whole universe being within a
7:56
black hole is extremely,
7:59
um, speculative and
8:03
really does not have the,
8:06
uh, imprimatur of the scientific
8:09
community. And that's just another way of
8:11
saying nobody believes it. Um, and so,
8:14
um, uh, you know, questions like that, I
8:17
think are very good ones because intuitively
8:19
you would expect that to be the case.
8:22
Now, um, just pursuing this a bit
8:25
further. The people who
8:28
work on theories that perhaps the universe is
8:31
inside a black hole, they are
8:34
not stupid. So they're
8:37
people who have big, great
8:39
insights in physics. Uh, and so I
8:42
suspect, um, their thinking is
8:45
along the lines that if we are,
8:49
if we're in a black hole, we're not just
8:51
within the event horizon. We
8:53
may well be within the singularity. Because
8:56
a black hole is a singularity. It's A point
8:59
where physics breaks down. Uh, it's
9:01
basically a point of zero dimensions
9:04
and infinite density. Um, are
9:07
we inside that? Uh,
9:10
if so, that would mean all bets are off. We
9:12
wouldn't have any idea how physics worked.
9:15
But the universe seems to be pretty well
9:17
behaved and we can understand it from the
9:19
physical laws that we have. Um, if we're
9:21
inside the event horizon, then we should see
9:24
evidence somewhere of the black hole itself.
9:27
Uh, like the kind of thing that Russell
9:29
suggested, uh, like going only one way. We
9:32
see no evidence whatsoever of that kind of
9:35
thing. The universe, uh, as far as we can
9:38
tell, is isotropic. That basically means
9:40
it's the same in all directions, give or take
9:43
a bit of structure that we find from
9:45
galaxies. Nevertheless, it's more or less the
9:47
same in all directions. And that seems to fly
9:49
in the face of the idea of a black hole
9:52
universe. So uh, I think Russell's asking
9:55
what he's missing. I don't think he's missing
9:57
anything. I think he's facing the same sort
9:59
of challenge as people who propose this idea
10:02
have to face. Uh, there's quite a lot of
10:04
material on this topic on the web. Uh,
10:07
not too hard to find. Um, it might be
10:10
worth a poke around. Russell, uh, nice to
10:12
hear your accent coming from reading down
10:15
there. I know reading not that well, but I do
10:18
know it in uh, in uh, south, uh, the
10:21
south of England.
10:24
There you are.
10:25
Heidi Campo: That was a good question. Um, I,
10:27
I recently re. Watched the movie Oppenheimer
10:30
and they brought up the, with quantum physics
10:33
and yeah, um, everything they said something
10:35
about, you know, about, you know, anybody can
10:38
do math and, but for the real theory it's
10:41
like can you hear the music? Can you see
10:43
what can't be seen? And I think that that's
10:46
really. We do get a lot of people writing in
10:49
with questions who think like that. We have a
10:52
lot of very creative, very
10:55
scientific minded people who are,
10:57
I mean you guys are, you guys all should be
11:00
scientists because some of the questions we
11:01
get are very, very
11:04
deep scientific thoughts.
11:08
Professor Fred Watson: Okay, we checked all four systems and.
11:10
Heidi Campo: Being with a girl, space nets, um,
11:13
and that. Let's bring that to our next
11:15
question which is going to be Paul
11:18
from Melbourne, Australia. He says
11:21
quick question. Hello, Heidi, Fred and
11:23
Andrew. When Isaac Newton noticed an
11:26
apple falling from the tree, did the
11:29
planet Earth ever so slightly get
11:32
tugged toward the apple as it fell
11:35
to the ground? Thanks. Love the show.
11:38
That's Paul from Melbourne with another
11:41
deep, thoughtful question.
11:43
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, I think the answer is yes
11:46
as well. Uh,
11:48
you know, um, when we think of the, and
11:51
this is the Newton idea that gravity was a
11:54
force. Einstein told us it's actually
11:56
something different from that. It's a
11:57
distortion of space. But, uh, just stick with
12:00
Newton's idea for the moment. Um, the
12:03
mutual attraction between the
12:06
apple and the Earth goes both ways.
12:09
The gravity of the apple would also be
12:11
attracting the Earth, Uh, but not
12:14
to any significant degree, of course, because
12:16
of the, you know, the ratio of their masses
12:18
is so high. But there would be, um,
12:21
an infinitesimal nudge of the Earth
12:24
up towards the Atlanta. Um, I
12:27
think. So the answer is yes. Um, uh,
12:30
it's a great question, Paul. Uh, Paul might
12:33
also be interested to know that the apple
12:34
tree is still there. Uh, that Newton
12:37
is, uh, reported to have seen
12:40
the apple falling down. Um,
12:44
the place where he worked out his theory of
12:46
gravity. He was actually in quarantine
12:48
from Cambridge in a place called
12:50
Lincolnshire, which is further north than
12:52
Cambridge, when he lived in the
12:55
family manor because they were, uh, well, uh,
12:58
very well healed family. But his bedroom
13:00
window overlooked this apple tree in
13:03
the orchard. Uh, and so maybe it was
13:06
looking out of his bedroom window that he saw
13:08
apples falling and made him think about this
13:11
force that pulls stuff down to the ground,
13:14
which is the same force that keeps the Earth
13:16
in its orbit around the sun and keeps the
13:18
moon in orbit around the Earth. Um, so,
13:20
um, it's nice that the apple tree is still
13:22
there. It's got a fence, uh, around it now,
13:24
so nobody cuts it down.
13:26
Heidi Campo: Does it still produce fruit?
13:28
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, I don't know the answer to that, Heidi.
13:30
Um, it might just be a little bit elderly
13:32
because that was all in the 1680s when that
13:35
was happening. So. 1660s. I beg your pardon.
13:38
When that was happening.
13:38
Heidi Campo: That would be pretty crazy. I'm just thinking
13:40
of the capitalist thought with that is. Okay,
13:43
we're gonna sell, um, Newton apple juice,
13:46
and it's gonna be from this tree, and we're
13:48
gonna brand it as. This is the genius. This
13:50
is what genius? The genius apple juice.
13:54
Professor Fred Watson: I think you're right on the money there. Uh,
13:55
and that's probably, that's probably the fact
13:57
that it doesn't produce apples anymore is why
13:59
that hasn't happened.
14:01
Heidi Campo: Yeah, unfortunately.
14:06
Professor Fred Watson: Three, two, one.
14:09
Mikey: Space nuts.
14:11
Heidi Campo: All right, well, our very last question today
14:13
is from Mikey, and this is also another
14:16
audio question, so I'm going to give Fred a
14:19
chance to cue that up, and then we are going
14:21
to play that for all of you to hear Mikey's
14:24
question, and then Fred will answer that. So
14:26
I'm going to go ahead and play that now.
14:28
Mikey: Hey Fred and Andrew, I hope you're doing
14:30
well. This is Mikey once again from Illinois.
14:33
Um, I wanted to talk about the European Space
14:35
Agency's solar orbiter. And
14:38
I know that it was the first
14:41
spacecraft to ever take images of the north
14:44
and south pole of the sun, which is a huge
14:46
thing because every time we've taken any
14:49
photos it's been from the ecliptic plane.
14:51
Um, and that got me thinking, was that
14:54
spacecraft or is that spacecraft the
14:57
only thing to ever make that orbit that
14:59
wasn't in the ecliptic plane? Man made or
15:02
not? Is there anything else in our solar
15:04
system that takes that, that
15:07
kind of orbit or was that
15:09
spacecraft the only thing ever in our
15:12
solar system to orbit outside of the
15:15
ecliptic plane? Um,
15:18
that's just, it's hurting my head thinking
15:20
about that. Uh, hopefully that
15:23
question makes sense to you guys and I can't
15:25
wait to hear the answer.
15:27
Heidi Campo: I can't wait to hear the answer either. This
15:29
is a really good question with
15:32
quite a thought provoking idea to
15:35
it. I, I've never thought of that as well. We
15:37
don't really often see pictures of the top
15:40
and bottom of the celestial bodies.
15:43
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, that's right. Um, so the, the,
15:46
so the answer to, to um, Mikey's question,
15:49
um, which is, does anything
15:52
in the solar system orbit outside
15:55
the ecliptic plane? The ecliptic plane being
15:57
the plane in which the planets, uh, and most
16:00
of the asteroids orbit the sun. And the
16:02
answer is yes, um, comets do. So
16:05
comets come in to uh, the inner
16:08
solar system in their very elongated orbits
16:10
from pretty well all angles. Uh, and
16:13
so they sometimes come from the, you know,
16:16
above the ecliptic plane, sometimes from
16:17
below it. Uh, and um,
16:20
that's why we think that the source of comets
16:23
is actually a spherical shell of
16:26
cometary material, uh because they do come in
16:28
from all angles. So uh, it
16:31
stands to reason that they're uh, their
16:34
origin. If there is a cloud of these things
16:36
outside the, outside the
16:39
domain, uh, of the planets as we think there
16:42
is, then it would be spherical and we call
16:45
it the Oort cloud. It was Jan Oort, a great
16:47
Dutch astronomer who postulated that. So
16:50
comets do, they're natural objects that do
16:53
orbit well outside the plane of the ecliptic.
16:56
Um, but in terms of uh, spacecraft,
16:59
uh, no, um, there
17:02
are spacecraft that are above uh,
17:05
and below the ecliptic. In fact, Voyager 2 is
17:08
the classic example that ah,
17:10
uh, is heading out of the solar system well
17:13
below the plane of the ecliptic. It's well to
17:16
the south of the ecliptic plane, which is why
17:18
the only radio telescope in the world that
17:21
could communicate with it is here in
17:22
Australia. Uh, because we see that
17:26
part of the sky. Um, but uh,
17:29
you're absolutely right, Mikey, that uh, this
17:32
is the first time a, uh, spacecraft
17:35
has seen the poles of the sun.
17:38
Um, and it's actually, um, only
17:41
at the moment. I think the tilt
17:44
of the spacecraft's orbits to the ecliptic is
17:47
only about 15 degrees. It's not very high,
17:49
but it's still enough to be able to see over
17:51
the top and uh, uh, of the sun.
17:55
Uh, sorry, uh, it's the bottom of the sun, if
17:57
we put it that way, because I think it's the
17:58
south polar region that's been imaged. Uh,
18:01
but they are, uh, esa, the European Space
18:04
Agency, have plans to increase the tilt of
18:07
the orbit. So we'll see, we'll have a much
18:10
better view of the Sun's south
18:12
pole. Um,
18:15
the process of
18:17
changing the angle of an orbit is actually
18:21
quite expensive in terms of fuel. It's
18:23
not a straightforward thing to do. Uh, so
18:26
it's uh, you know, it's very ambitious thing
18:29
to do for the
18:32
operators and the mission controllers for the
18:34
um, Solar Orbiter spacecraft to be able to do
18:37
that. Uh, it's obviously been built into the
18:39
mission. The spacecraft um, actually went
18:41
into orbit around The sun in 2020. So
18:44
it's been working for five years. And I think
18:46
the mission profile has this steady increase
18:49
of the, of the orbital angle. Uh,
18:52
what's perhaps even more interesting than
18:54
that is what they found at the Sun's poles,
18:56
uh, the south pole. And that is
18:59
uh, a, uh, confusion of magnetic
19:01
fields. Uh, the Sun's magnetism is
19:04
very bizarre. Unlike the Earth, where the
19:06
magnetic fields are strongest, uh, around the
19:09
poles of the Earth, it's the opposite way
19:12
around on the sun. At least at the moment,
19:14
uh, it's something that changes with the
19:16
Sun's 11 year cycle. Uh, so
19:19
at the moment the Sun's magnetic activity is
19:22
really mostly around its equator rather
19:25
than at the poles. And there's a jumble of
19:27
magnetic fields, uh, being discovered at, ah,
19:30
the poles, which is probably due to the
19:33
fact that at the peak of the Sun's activity,
19:36
which is where we are now, the magnetic field
19:38
of the sun actually switches from north to
19:41
south. Uh, and so that might be why we're
19:43
seeing this confusion at the pole of the Sun.
19:46
So yeah, great question and such an
19:49
interesting spacecraft as well. I once again
19:52
encourage you to get online and check out
19:54
Issa's solar orbiter there's some fabulous
19:57
stuff on the web with many, many images of
20:00
what's happening, uh, near the sun's poles.
20:03
Heidi Campo: Yeah, I think I was reading about that one
20:05
recently too. And yeah, I mean, really, this
20:08
industry is picking up. There's so much
20:10
happening every day it's hard to keep track
20:12
of.
20:12
But uh, we mentioned this a little bit before
20:15
we started recording, but Fred, you
20:18
subscribed to so many, um, news resources and
20:21
it's your morning routine. I've got one
20:23
question for you about how much time do
20:26
you dedicate a morning to reading through
20:29
the space news and updating, updating
20:32
yourself to stay up to date? Can you walk us
20:34
through a little bit of what that routine
20:35
looks like for people who want to, you know,
20:38
who kind of aspire to be a little bit more
20:40
like you and have that discipline?
20:42
Professor Fred Watson: It's um. I always feel that I spend
20:45
too much time doing it because I've always
20:48
got things that I want to achieve
20:51
during the day. And usually it's writing an
20:53
article or, you know,
20:56
at the moment I'm trying to get my head
20:58
around some, uh, some legal
21:00
stuff that I'm involved with in terms of, um,
21:04
uh, acting, uh, on behalf of.
21:08
I won't say what it's about, but it's
21:10
astronomy related, uh,
21:13
you know, legal, legal issues. So that,
21:15
that's the kind of thing that I should be
21:17
really getting onto. But my head really wants
21:19
to soak in what's coming out in the science
21:22
news. So sometimes it's an hour, uh, in the
21:25
morning that I spend delving into these
21:28
stories. Uh, because you, you know, you see a
21:31
headline and uh, especially when
21:33
you're, I mean, I've spent my entire life
21:36
working in this field. So it's stuff that,
21:39
that has basically been second nature
21:42
to me. So quite often I'll see a headline and
21:44
think, but wait a minute, if that's the case,
21:47
then this mustn't be right. And that
21:49
mustn't be right. And that sucks me in
21:52
straight away. It's like clickbait almost.
21:55
And it works perfectly for me, uh, because
21:58
it, I see a headline, it immediately raises
22:00
questions. So yeah, I've got to look at that
22:02
story. So yes, it's probably,
22:05
you know, as I said, it's part of the morning
22:07
routine. I would say
22:09
typically half an hour, but often it's more
22:12
like an hour and sometimes all morning if
22:14
there's really interesting stuff going on.
22:17
Heidi Campo: Well, thank you for sharing your uh, all
22:20
the knowledge with us.
22:21
Professor Fred Watson: Oh, well, uh, yes, it's all secondhand
22:24
knowledge. Well, a lot of it is. Some of it
22:26
is stuff I've worked on myself, but. But a
22:28
lot of, uh, what I do is really,
22:31
um, in a sense, it's my way of paying homage
22:34
to these fabulous scientists who are working
22:36
around the world on stuff that's very close
22:38
to my heart and yours, too, Heidi, in
22:41
space, uh, research and astronomy.
22:44
So, um, it's a great way to
22:47
perhaps give back to those researchers,
22:50
uh, a little bit of the kudos that, uh,
22:53
they deserve, uh, on a wider platform,
22:56
which is, I guess, what Space Nuts is.
22:58
Heidi Campo: Yeah, yeah. I mean, that's. That's how I
23:00
originally found the podcast is. I just
23:02
wanted a different medium to start learning
23:04
more about space. And here we are.
23:06
Professor Fred Watson: There you are. Yeah, you definitely got
23:08
sucked in, Heidi.
23:09
Heidi Campo: I got sucked in. Your. Your, uh, your
23:12
orbit was strong.
23:14
All right, everybody, well, this has been
23:16
another wonderful episode. Thank you so much
23:19
for tuning in. Please keep your amazing
23:21
questions coming. You guys really are half
23:23
the show, and we appreciate you and we look
23:25
forward to these questions. Um, with that
23:28
being said, I have nothing else to say. Fred,
23:31
do you want to sign us off?
23:33
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, just, uh, keep. Keep an eye on what's
23:36
going on. Space astronomy, uh, is looking up,
23:38
as we all say, uh, and it's true, certainly,
23:41
of space science as well. So keep on looking
23:43
up, keep on tuning into Spacenauts, and we'll
23:46
catch you next time.
23:48
Voice Over Guy: You've been listening to the Space Nuts
23:50
podcast, available at
23:53
Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
23:55
iHeartRadio, or your favorite podcast
23:57
player. You can also stream on
23:59
dmand at bitesz.com this has been another
24:02
quality podcast production from
24:04
bitesz.com