Latest / Space News Today / Astronomy Q&A: Super Jupiters, Light Echoes & Cosmic Mysteries | Space Nuts: Astronomy Insights...

Transcript

Astronomy Q&A: Super Jupiters, Light Echoes & Cosmic Mysteries | Space Nuts: Astronomy Insights... · Space News Today

• 0:00
  Hello again. Thanks for joining us on a
• 0:02
  Q&A edition of Space Nuts. My name is
• 0:06
  Andrew Dunley. This is where we answer
• 0:08
  audience questions. And uh Daryl is
• 0:12
  asking uh could we witness the birth of
• 0:14
  our son?
• 0:16
  That's looking at old light, I suspect.
• 0:18
  Uh we also
• 0:21
  get a have a question from Renie who
• 0:23
  wants to know what we might solve over
• 0:25
  the next hundred years in astronomy and
• 0:27
  space science. Uh Dave is asking about a
• 0:30
  super Jupiter with a moon the size of
• 0:32
  Earth. It's a bit of a what if question
• 0:35
  and Cal is asking about whether or not a
• 0:38
  a gas giant could become a star. Fred
• 0:42
  will be answering all of those questions
• 0:43
  on this episode of Space Nuts.
• 0:46
  >> 15 seconds. Guidance is internal. 10 9
• 0:51
  Ignition sequence start.
• 0:53
  >> Space Nuts. 5 4 3 2
• 0:56
  >> 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1
• 0:59
  >> space notice.
• 1:00
  >> Astronauts report. It feels good.
• 1:03
  >> You'll also be answering the question as
• 1:04
  to why sometimes when you push a button,
• 1:06
  nothing happens. Hello, Fred.
• 1:09
  >> That's usually because you've pressed
• 1:11
  the wrong button.
• 1:12
  >> I pressed the right button, but it
• 1:15
  didn't do anything. So,
• 1:17
  >> they used to used to happen on the radio
• 1:19
  a lot.
• 1:21
  >> Press a button, nothing happens.
• 1:22
  >> Yeah. Because and and you know what?
• 1:24
  It's a quirk of the digital age. When we
• 1:27
  worked in analog radio, a button was a
• 1:29
  button.
• 1:30
  >> Yeah.
• 1:30
  >> Until it broke.
• 1:32
  >> Yeah, that's right.
• 1:33
  >> But in the digital age, uh, you press
• 1:35
  the button and that goes, "No, no, I
• 1:37
  don't want to do that. No, sorry. Go
• 1:40
  find something else to push. Need a
• 1:42
  reboot."
• 1:43
  >> Yeah, indeed. How you been, Fred?
• 1:46
  >> Very well, thank you. Yes. um uh you
• 1:49
  know just relishing uh being back home
• 1:51
  and being back into the routine with
• 1:53
  Space Nuts uh twice a week.
• 1:55
  >> Yes, indeed. Although it's it's so close
• 1:57
  to the end of the year, we we're just
• 1:59
  about to go into summer recess or
• 2:02
  Christmas New Year recess, but we won't
• 2:04
  I don't think we'll take a heck of a
• 2:05
  long time off. We we'll work it out.
• 2:07
  We've got to work it out.
• 2:09
  >> Uh now, I've got four text questions and
• 2:13
  um we we get a lot more text questions
• 2:16
  than we do audio. So, I thought we'd
• 2:17
  bump a few of these off politely. Uh, so
• 2:21
  let's get to our first one. Uh, good
• 2:23
  day, space nuts. When we look up um uh
• 2:27
  when we look up at our space, we're
• 2:29
  always looking back in time. So, when we
• 2:33
  look at Andromeda, the light was uh that
• 2:35
  we see is 2 to 2 and a half million
• 2:37
  years old. Could we train our telescopes
• 2:39
  to see light from 4 and a half billion
• 2:42
  years ago and see our sun being born? My
• 2:45
  guess is no, but I love the idea of it.
• 2:48
  That comes from Daryl in South Australia
• 2:50
  who is a patron. Uh thank you Darl. Uh
• 2:53
  much appreciated. So um yeah, if you
• 2:55
  want to become a patron and jump on our
• 2:57
  website and get all the details, uh and
• 3:00
  and the platforms are Patreon or
• 3:02
  Supercast or Sprea or Apple Podcast.
• 3:04
  They all do their own versions of uh
• 3:07
  patron services. So, uh, if, uh, you're
• 3:09
  interested in joining Daryl, uh, that
• 3:12
  would be greatly appreciated, but it's
• 3:14
  not mandatory. Okay, this one I I
• 3:17
  suspect he's right that we probably
• 3:20
  can't look back at the birth of our son.
• 3:22
  It's not as simple as just finding it
• 3:25
  and going, "Oh, look at that. That's
• 3:26
  that's what was happening, you know, all
• 3:28
  those billions of years ago." But, um,
• 3:30
  we can see a lot of stuff that's
• 3:32
  historical. Just about everything,
• 3:33
  actually.
• 3:35
  Yep, that's right. you're as exactly as
• 3:37
  Daryl says, when you look out into
• 3:39
  space, you're always looking back in
• 3:40
  time. And that's the trick. So, um, we
• 3:44
  do indeed see the Andromeda galaxy two
• 3:48
  and a half million years after the light
• 3:50
  left. So, we're looking back.
• 3:53
  >> That's shortening slowly because
• 3:56
  ultimately
• 3:58
  >> That's right, actually. Um, and as well,
• 4:00
  just a a quick um plug for the Andromeda
• 4:04
  galaxy while we're talking. It's um very
• 4:06
  much in our skies at the moment. Uh
• 4:09
  November is the time of year when
• 4:10
  Andromeda is sort of at its highest. Uh
• 4:13
  it only skirts our northern horizon here
• 4:16
  in Australia, but if you're in Europe or
• 4:19
  the United States or elsewhere in the
• 4:21
  northern hemisphere, it passes almost
• 4:23
  overhead. Um and in fact, I was looking
• 4:25
  for it a few nights ago from Cyprus. Uh,
• 4:29
  but the pair of binoculars that I had
• 4:32
  weren't good enough to find it among the
• 4:34
  light pollution of the place where I was
• 4:36
  looking. So, I didn't see it, but I kind
• 4:38
  of knew where it was. I saw Saturn
• 4:40
  instead. Um, never mind. Uh, that um is
• 4:44
  uh the you know that that's what happens
• 4:47
  when you're looking at something that is
• 4:49
  so far away the light has taken two and
• 4:50
  a half million years to get here. Um the
• 4:54
  problem with finding our son being born
• 4:57
  uh is that uh that happened 4.5 as
• 5:01
  exactly as Daryl says 4.5 billion years
• 5:04
  ago and the sun is only 150 million
• 5:07
  kilometers away. So we can never see the
• 5:10
  sun uh uh except at any other stage than
• 5:15
  what it was 8 minutes ago. That's the
• 5:17
  look back time for the sun. It's about 8
• 5:19
  minutes. Um, so when you see the sun,
• 5:22
  you're seeing it as it was eight minutes
• 5:24
  ago, not four and a half billion years
• 5:26
  ago. So really, the only way you could
• 5:29
  do this, and it still wouldn't really
• 5:32
  work, but if you could find a way of
• 5:34
  putting a mirror uh 2.25
• 5:39
  billion years from us looking back at
• 5:42
  us, and you look in that mirror, then
• 5:45
  the light from the sun being born will
• 5:47
  have gone out to the mirror, taken 2.25
• 5:50
  25 billion years to do that. It'll take
• 5:52
  another 2.25 billion years to get uh to
• 5:56
  now when we're looking at it and we
• 5:59
  might see the sun being born. But that
• 6:00
  is flight of fancy because it's never
• 6:03
  going to happen.
• 6:04
  >> Even gravitational lensing probably
• 6:06
  couldn't bend like that.
• 6:07
  >> No, that's right. That's correct. You're
• 6:09
  right.
• 6:11
  >> Sorry, Darl. Uh probably not, but um
• 6:14
  great question and keep them coming. Uh
• 6:18
  but we are seeing and learning so much
• 6:21
  from from uh historical light and and
• 6:24
  gravitational lensing and we even get to
• 6:26
  witness certain things more than once
• 6:28
  because the light gets split
• 6:31
  >> two or three ways and we can see
• 6:33
  something from different angles. It it's
• 6:35
  really quite um quite amazing what
• 6:37
  what's going on out there. And it um to
• 6:40
  to quote Jonty, it makes my head hurt
• 6:43
  sometimes to try and think of how this
• 6:45
  is all working and why it's all
• 6:47
  happening. And um
• 6:48
  >> yeah, that's right. Mine does all the
• 6:50
  time.
• 6:51
  >> Um but you you reminded me something I
• 6:53
  meant to mention uh because there is a
• 6:55
  you know there is a quirky thing. We can
• 6:58
  look back uh at some events that took
• 7:01
  place in the historical past. And what
• 7:03
  I'm thinking of is light echoes. Uh so
• 7:06
  for example the supernova that was
• 7:09
  observed by Tikry the Danish astronomer
• 7:13
  in um I think it was 1572 when he
• 7:17
  observed that uh that has recently been
• 7:20
  observed again because it lit up dust
• 7:23
  clouds uh which give it a a dog leg path
• 7:27
  uh so these dust clouds are sort of 400
• 7:30
  light years away and you get this dogleg
• 7:32
  path and the light comes to us again
• 7:35
  with that 400 year delay. And so we can
• 7:38
  see what that supernova looked like
• 7:40
  because the light is still traveling and
• 7:42
  you can analyze that with modern
• 7:44
  instruments and find out what sort of
• 7:45
  supernova it was. I think we covered
• 7:47
  those in space notes quite a while ago,
• 7:48
  but it's great. Light echoes are
• 7:50
  terrific things.
• 7:51
  >> Yes, indeed. Thanks for your question,
• 7:54
  Darl.
• 7:56
  >> Let's take a break from the show so I
• 7:58
  can tell you about our sponsor, NordVPN.
• 8:00
  With NordVPN, you can explore the web
• 8:03
  securely and privately, no matter where
• 8:06
  you are. Whether you're streaming space
• 8:08
  documentaries, downloading data from the
• 8:11
  International Space Station, legally, of
• 8:14
  course, or just browsing from a coffee
• 8:16
  shop, NordVPN has your back. uh fast
• 8:20
  connection speeds, no data logs, and
• 8:23
  protection across all your devices,
• 8:25
  including your smart TV, plus access to
• 8:28
  content from around the globe. It's like
• 8:31
  having a wormhole to the internet. Sorry
• 8:35
  about that. Uh without the black holes.
• 8:37
  Haha. Uh right now, Space Nuts listeners
• 8:40
  get an exclusive deal.
• 8:42
  nordvpn.com/spacenuts.
• 8:45
  Huge savings plus an extra four months
• 8:48
  free. Uh that is fabulous.
• 8:50
  nordvpn.com/spacenuts
• 8:54
  uh helps you stay protected online and
• 8:57
  gives you everyday access without any
• 9:00
  fear that your private data will be
• 9:02
  stolen. That's nordvpn.com/spacenuts.
• 9:06
  And don't forget to use the code word
• 9:08
  spacenuts at the checkout.
• 9:10
  nordvpn.com/spacenuts.
• 9:15
  3 2 1
• 9:18
  >> Space nuts.
• 9:20
  >> This one comes from Renie. Knowing the
• 9:22
  pace at which technology builds on
• 9:24
  itself, do you think we will have solved
• 9:26
  the mysteries of what was before the Big
• 9:28
  Bang, dark matter, dark energy, and the
• 9:31
  expansion of the universe, let's say,
• 9:33
  within the next 100 years. Uh Renie's
• 9:36
  from California, uh and a regular
• 9:39
  contributor. Thank you, Renie. Um I I
• 9:41
  suspect we'll have solved maybe one or
• 9:43
  two of those things. uh even while you
• 9:46
  were away uh and maybe just before you
• 9:49
  went, they were starting to sort of
• 9:51
  waver on the expansion of the universe
• 9:54
  theory. They were starting to think,
• 9:56
  well, no, we're we're probably now
• 9:58
  looking at a ganab gibb. Uh so that
• 10:02
  that's now starting to change. Um the
• 10:06
  evidence is is mounting up to um change
• 10:10
  the the the probability in that regard.
• 10:12
  So yeah um 100 years is a long time in
• 10:16
  terms of um science and and astronomy
• 10:20
  development. It yes it is at the rate
• 10:23
  technology is changing now. Absolutely.
• 10:25
  And I think Renie asks a really good
• 10:27
  question. You know it it um behooves us
• 10:29
  from time to time to stop and think well
• 10:31
  what we going to find out next.
• 10:33
  >> Um the expansion of the universe. Yes
• 10:36
  you're right. the the the most recent uh
• 10:39
  observations seem to suggest that the
• 10:42
  acceleration of the expansion is slowing
• 10:45
  down
• 10:46
  >> and if the acceleration slows down
• 10:48
  enough then it might well start to
• 10:51
  decelerate and so yes perhaps one day
• 10:54
  I've forgotten how many billion years
• 10:56
  into the future it is it's 40 or 50 I
• 10:58
  think we might have a gab gibb a big
• 11:00
  crunch when everything falls back
• 11:02
  together so you're right that's this is
• 11:05
  discoveries or or what you might call
• 11:07
  facts about the universe that are that
• 11:09
  are constantly being updated. Um so the
• 11:12
  big bang what was before the big bang
• 11:14
  that's always an open question because
• 11:16
  um the general theory of relativity
• 11:20
  suggests that time started with the big
• 11:22
  bang and so before might not have any
• 11:25
  meaning. Uh but there are people
• 11:28
  thinking well maybe that's not correct.
• 11:30
  Uh we've talked about, you know,
• 11:32
  explosive um um phenomena in in a kind
• 11:36
  of continuum, things like gi gigantic
• 11:40
  black holes exploding. And if we're in
• 11:42
  one of them, that might be what we see
• 11:44
  as a big bang, even though that black
• 11:46
  hole was in space that existed already.
• 11:48
  This is another idea that I think we
• 11:50
  talked about a few months ago, Andrew.
• 11:52
  So, um that's um you know, how you find
• 11:55
  the evidence for all those things is the
• 11:57
  important bit. And at the moment, our
• 12:00
  perhaps most powerful tools are the
• 12:02
  cosmic microwave background radiation,
• 12:04
  the flash of the big bang, which is
• 12:06
  still being analyzed. Um, and
• 12:08
  gravitational wave telescopes, which
• 12:10
  might lead us to some inferences about
• 12:13
  the the the the dynamics of the big
• 12:15
  bang, the way material shifted around.
• 12:18
  Um, so that's one I think uh we'll see a
• 12:22
  lot more uh emphasis and we might have
• 12:24
  new discoveries about it. dark matter I
• 12:27
  hope will get to the bottom of that
• 12:30
  within uh maybe the next 10 years rather
• 12:33
  than the next hundred years but um it's
• 12:36
  a problem that's existed for 90 years uh
• 12:39
  since Fritz Vicki first spotted it so it
• 12:42
  might still have another 90 years to go
• 12:44
  I don't know dark energy um that it
• 12:48
  really feeds into the or our
• 12:51
  understanding of dark energy uh is
• 12:53
  basically tied up with our understanding
• 12:55
  of the the where the acceleration of the
• 12:57
  universe is changing. Because if you've
• 13:00
  if the acceleration is actually
• 13:02
  decreasing as we now think it might be
• 13:05
  then dark energy is not what we used to
• 13:07
  call the cosmological constant. It's not
• 13:09
  a constant phenomenon. It's something
• 13:12
  that evolves with time and that becomes
• 13:14
  even more mysterious. So I think of all
• 13:16
  those dark energy is the one that's
• 13:18
  going to take us the longest to work
• 13:20
  out. But I hope it's not 100 years cuz I
• 13:22
  won't be around in 100 years time even
• 13:24
  with the best will in the world.
• 13:26
  >> Yeah.
• 13:27
  >> Yeah, I know. Um but you know
• 13:32
  where technology is going it's it's just
• 13:34
  going ahead in leaps and bounds. You
• 13:36
  look how quickly artificial intelligence
• 13:38
  has taken off.
• 13:38
  >> That's right. Uh what are we going to be
• 13:40
  able to do in 100 years with telescopes
• 13:43
  and uh you know there'll probably be
• 13:45
  telescop telescopes uh on the moon and
• 13:49
  Mars and maybe on a few of the other
• 13:51
  moons in other parts of the solar
• 13:53
  system. Um you know there'll be more
• 13:56
  space telescopes than you can poke a
• 13:58
  stick at I imagine and and very very
• 14:00
  high tech compared to what we can
• 14:02
  achieve now which is really high-tech in
• 14:04
  itself.
• 14:05
  >> Yeah. Um space telescopes um are things
• 14:09
  that are not that prolific because
• 14:11
  they're expensive compared with
• 14:13
  groundbased telescopes and astronomy
• 14:15
  doesn't really have budgets that are
• 14:17
  huge um you know compared with something
• 14:20
  like defense or or education or all all
• 14:22
  of those other publicly funded things.
• 14:25
  So astronomy tends to be very much
• 14:27
  picking up the pieces and something like
• 14:29
  the James Webb telescope is an exception
• 14:31
  uh that uh is revolutionary but it's
• 14:35
  true that there are other space
• 14:37
  telescopes coming on stream the grace
• 14:39
  nomen roman telescope which we will be
• 14:41
  launched I think within the next year
• 14:44
  probably sooner I hope
• 14:46
  >> I looked up a while back that there
• 14:48
  there are 27 or something in the
• 14:51
  pipeline
• 14:52
  >> in the pipeline yeah not all of those
• 14:54
  will be funded
• 14:55
  And you know so that when you think like
• 14:58
  the James Web telescope
• 15:00
  came it got into action what 2022
• 15:04
  is that right something like that
• 15:06
  thereabouts. Uh the last big thing in
• 15:08
  optical astronomy and infrared astronomy
• 15:11
  was the Hubble telescope launched in
• 15:13
  1990. So, you know, that's like 30 years
• 15:17
  inter interlude. But yeah, you're right.
• 15:19
  Um, as time goes on, I mean, one of the
• 15:21
  things that will that is changing that
• 15:23
  will actually affect this is that it's
• 15:26
  now much cheaper to put stuff into orbit
• 15:28
  than it was.
• 15:29
  >> Uh, partly because of SpaceX being able
• 15:32
  to reuse its Falcon boosters. Um the the
• 15:35
  latest record is one that has flown 31
• 15:37
  times uh which is quite extraordinary.
• 15:40
  But also we've now got Blue Origin
• 15:41
  coming into the picture with their
• 15:43
  successful recovery of their new new
• 15:45
  Glenn booster a couple of weeks ago
• 15:47
  which is fantastic. So things are
• 15:49
  changing. Yeah.
• 15:50
  >> Yes indeed. Thanks Renie. Great to hear
• 15:52
  from you. This is Space Nuts with Andrew
• 15:55
  Dunley and Professor Fred Watson.
• 16:00
  >> Space Nuts.
• 16:02
  >> Okay, next question. And hey guys,
• 16:04
  greetings from Dave. He's from Sussex
• 16:06
  County in New Jersey. I have a pretty
• 16:08
  quick question in 25 parts. Uh suppose,
• 16:12
  no, suppose that a Jupiter size or subbr
• 16:16
  dwarf planet um has a moon the size of
• 16:19
  Earth. Would the moon necessarily be
• 16:21
  tidily locked to the planet? Also, would
• 16:25
  it be possible for the Earth-sized
• 16:27
  satellite to be in the Goldilock zone of
• 16:30
  the super Jupiter? love listening to
• 16:32
  your podcasts. It's good stuff. Thanks,
• 16:35
  Dave. Appreciate it.
• 16:38
  I like this question because um you
• 16:40
  know, when you're talking gas giants,
• 16:43
  sub brown dwarves, um you know, failed
• 16:45
  stars, whatever you like, um you're
• 16:47
  getting into some pretty exciting
• 16:49
  territory.
• 16:51
  Uh you are indeed. That's right. Um and
• 16:54
  uh so super Jupiters, things bigger than
• 16:57
  Jupiter. Uh, and um, as exactly as Dave
• 17:02
  says, that would be a subbr dwarf. Um,
• 17:06
  I've got to get my thinking right here.
• 17:07
  I think a brown dwarf. Um, I probably
• 17:11
  hope I don't get this number wrong, but
• 17:14
  I think it has to be more than 13 times
• 17:17
  the mass of Jupiter for the low-level
• 17:20
  nuclear reactions that will power it and
• 17:22
  turn it into a brown dwarf uh to
• 17:24
  actually make much difference to it to
• 17:26
  to mean that it radiates in the infrared
• 17:29
  region of the spectrum. In a sense,
• 17:31
  Jupiter itself is a sub brown dwarf
• 17:33
  because it actually uh radiates I think
• 17:36
  it's 50% more radiation than it receives
• 17:40
  u from the sun. So it there are nuclear
• 17:42
  processes taking place deep in Jupiter
• 17:44
  that actually give off energy. Uh and so
• 17:48
  something like you know if you have
• 17:50
  something let's say halfway between a
• 17:52
  brown dwarf and a Jupiter uh and it's
• 17:54
  got a moon the size of the earth that's
• 17:56
  the scenario that Dave's postulating.
• 17:59
  Yep.
• 17:59
  >> Would the moon necessarily be tied
• 18:00
  locked to the planet? In other words,
• 18:02
  would that moon, the earth-sized object
• 18:04
  uh be um one that always faced its
• 18:08
  parent planet? And I think the answer to
• 18:10
  that is yes. Uh because it's all about
• 18:13
  mass. This whole gravitational locking
• 18:16
  of uh of um moons uh around planets or
• 18:20
  indeed planets around their parent star
• 18:22
  because the same thing happens. It's all
• 18:24
  about gravity. Uh, and if you got, you
• 18:27
  know, two objects that are bigger than
• 18:29
  the ones that we think of at the moment,
• 18:31
  uh, then I think you would still get the
• 18:34
  tidal locking. So, my guess is that your
• 18:36
  moon, your Earth-sized moon would be,
• 18:39
  uh, tidly locked. In other words, it
• 18:41
  would always face the sub brown dwarf.
• 18:45
  And then, uh, would it be possible for
• 18:47
  the Earth-sized satellite to be in the
• 18:48
  Goldilock zone of the super Jupiter? Uh
• 18:51
  so that depends on just how much energy
• 18:54
  you're getting from it. I mean the the
• 18:57
  Goldilock zone of a brown dwarf is much
• 18:59
  closer uh to the brown dwarf than it is
• 19:02
  for a normal star. Uh and maybe uh you
• 19:06
  don't you can't get near enough. That
• 19:08
  might be the answer to that question
• 19:10
  that the Goldilock zone is so close to
• 19:12
  the super Jupiter uh that it really is,
• 19:16
  you know, it's not something that's at
• 19:18
  all practical. I'm guessing at that, and
• 19:20
  some planetary specialists might correct
• 19:22
  me, but I think that will be the case
• 19:24
  that you're not going to find the
• 19:26
  Goldilock zone of a super Jupiter uh
• 19:28
  that's going to be very helpful um for
• 19:31
  uh for life on an Earth-sized satellite
• 19:34
  of such a such a star. Um work that one
• 19:38
  out for yourself.
• 19:40
  >> Yeah, you were right though. 13 um is
• 19:43
  your masses.
• 19:44
  >> Okay, good.
• 19:44
  >> Uh when you get to Sorry, I put my hands
• 19:47
  in front of the camera there. uh 13 to
• 19:49
  80 Jupiter masses is defined as a brown
• 19:52
  dwarf.
• 19:53
  >> Um and then beyond that is a star, I
• 19:56
  guess, because it can
• 19:57
  >> Yes.
• 19:58
  >> burn hydrogen or something. Is that it?
• 20:00
  >> That's right. Red.
• 20:01
  >> Y yeah. Yes. So uh yeah, under 13 is um
• 20:06
  is is basically just a gas giant.
• 20:09
  >> Indeed. That's right.
• 20:10
  >> Yes. Right.
• 20:12
  >> Or a sub or a subbrand dwarf.
• 20:13
  >> Or a subbrand dwarf. Yes. Yeah. Just
• 20:16
  It's hard to Yeah.
• 20:18
  Okay.
• 20:19
  >> Um, so yeah, the title locking question
• 20:23
  definitely probably would probably
• 20:25
  definitely would happen that way.
• 20:27
  >> I think as Dave said, uh, great
• 20:30
  question. Thank you for sending it in,
• 20:32
  Dave.
• 20:35
  >> 3 2 1
• 20:38
  >> Space Nuts.
• 20:40
  >> Our final question today comes from Cal.
• 20:43
  Hi, Space Nuts. was uh wondering if a
• 20:46
  gas giant orbiting a star that went
• 20:49
  supernova can then subsequently absorb
• 20:52
  the debris from that star at the end of
• 20:54
  its life to form enough mass to then
• 20:57
  form itself
• 20:59
  into a star. And the second part of my
• 21:02
  question is uh is uh if not can a gas
• 21:06
  giant have enough mass and gravity for
• 21:09
  other smaller planets to end up orbiting
• 21:11
  the gas giant with no star? Is there any
• 21:15
  uh example or evidence of this ever
• 21:17
  happening out there? Thank you so much.
• 21:18
  Cal from Swansea uh Swansy, New South
• 21:20
  Wales in the um Lake McQuary region of
• 21:24
  New South Wales, just uh across near the
• 21:27
  coast from us. I drove through there the
• 21:29
  other day actually.
• 21:32
  >> Yes. Uh so um what was it? What's he
• 21:34
  want to know? Gas giant. Um
• 21:37
  a gas giant orbiting a star that goes
• 21:39
  supernova. Could it absorb enough energy
• 21:41
  to become a star itself? First part of
• 21:44
  his question.
• 21:45
  >> Um, so when an object turns into a
• 21:48
  supernova, uh, it basically blasts
• 21:51
  debris at very high velocity, uh, into
• 21:55
  the surrounding region of space. Um, and
• 21:59
  it's not even clear that a gas giant
• 22:01
  would survive that, let alone accrete
• 22:04
  debris to form a star itself. So, I
• 22:07
  think the answer to that first part of
• 22:08
  the question is no. Um, if uh you know,
• 22:13
  if if you've got uh this this gas giant
• 22:16
  orbiting a star that goes supernova, I
• 22:19
  don't think it would end up a star
• 22:20
  itself. It might even end up being
• 22:23
  destroyed by the by the shock waves that
• 22:25
  come from the supernova.
• 22:27
  Um, on the other hand, we do have one
• 22:29
  example of a planet orbiting something
• 22:31
  that has gone supernova, and that was
• 22:34
  the first extra solar planet that was
• 22:37
  discovered back in the 1970s,
• 22:39
  I think. Uh, to there's something called
• 22:42
  the double pulsar.
• 22:44
  I think I'm writing dig digging that up
• 22:47
  from my memory. Anyway, a second part of
• 22:49
  the question. If not, can a gas giant
• 22:51
  have enough mass and gravity for the
• 22:52
  other smaller planets to end up orbiting
• 22:54
  it with no star? Um, so perhaps what
• 22:59
  you're thinking of here is a, you know,
• 23:01
  one of these objects that we call a
• 23:02
  rogue planet or an orphan planet,
• 23:04
  something that is going through space
• 23:05
  with no star. Uh, and many of them are
• 23:09
  gas giants. That's right. They they
• 23:11
  might be what we could call failed
• 23:12
  stars. And probably, uh, they have their
• 23:15
  own moons, which might in some
• 23:17
  circumstances be the size of smaller
• 23:20
  planets. Uh we haven't observed any
• 23:23
  moons of rogue planets or orphan planets
• 23:25
  yet but um it's possible they might be
• 23:28
  there. Uh so the last bit of the
• 23:31
  question is there any example or
• 23:32
  evidence of this ever happening out
• 23:34
  there? Um I don't think there is but I
• 23:36
  wouldn't rule it out. It might well turn
• 23:38
  up that we see uh objects in orbit
• 23:41
  around rogue planets when we've got um
• 23:44
  well probably the next generation of of
• 23:47
  big telescopes.
• 23:48
  >> Yes indeed. Uh when it comes to
• 23:51
  astronomy, it's very difficult to rule
• 23:53
  rule anything out a lot of the time
• 23:54
  because uh the more exoplanets to we
• 23:58
  discover, the more unusual things we
• 24:01
  tend to find like those those cotton
• 24:04
  cotton canned planets.
• 24:06
  >> Yeah, that's right.
• 24:06
  >> Um you know, really huge planets that
• 24:10
  have got, you know, next to no density
• 24:12
  at all in some respects. They they're
• 24:14
  just like vapor um for one of a better
• 24:18
  term. And there probably is a better
• 24:20
  term for that, but um there there's and
• 24:23
  and we're finding uh and Johnny and I
• 24:26
  talked about this recently and you and I
• 24:27
  have talked about this that our solar
• 24:29
  system starting to look like it is not
• 24:31
  typical
• 24:32
  >> when we look at other solar systems and
• 24:35
  how they've formed and how gas giants
• 24:37
  seem to be on the interior rather than
• 24:39
  the exterior. Ours seems to have kind of
• 24:41
  flipped
• 24:42
  >> and doesn't look normal at all. We're
• 24:45
  we're unique possibly. I would think in
• 24:48
  the scheme of things we wouldn't be, but
• 24:50
  um it's just looking that way.
• 24:51
  >> But we're certainly absolutely right. We
• 24:54
  we look very unusual. We look a bit
• 24:56
  conspicuous. Really?
• 24:57
  >> Yeah. And we've got one other thing
• 24:58
  that's really weird that no other solar
• 25:00
  systems shown us that they've got yet.
• 25:02
  We've got a planet with life, an
• 25:06
  abundance of life in in a great many
• 25:08
  forms from cidal cells right up to
• 25:10
  complex life forms. Uh
• 25:13
  >> yeah,
• 25:14
  >> you know, plant life. Um the list is is
• 25:18
  long. It's when when you really think
• 25:21
  about it, this planet is miraculous
• 25:24
  with with what it what it contains. It's
• 25:27
  >> Well, that's right. And that's one of
• 25:30
  the reasons why um
• 25:33
  you know why why there is such an
• 25:35
  emphasis on detecting other earthlike
• 25:40
  environments to see whether the same
• 25:42
  sort of miraculous array of living
• 25:44
  organisms can exist there. And so far
• 25:47
  we've drawn a blank.
• 25:48
  >> No. The Drake equation remains at one.
• 25:51
  >> Yes, it does. That's right. Yeah.
• 25:53
  >> Would would um finding life on one of
• 25:57
  the ice moons in our solar system like
• 26:00
  Enceladus change the Drake equation?
• 26:03
  >> No. No. Because it was based on life
• 26:06
  that was capable of communication,
• 26:08
  wasn't it?
• 26:08
  >> That's right. It is. Yeah. It's it's
• 26:10
  basically life on planets around other
• 26:12
  stars. That's right.
• 26:13
  >> Yeah. So question set up. So no change
• 26:17
  to that.
• 26:18
  >> Indeed. All right. Uh Cal, thanks for
• 26:21
  the question. very uh very interesting
• 26:23
  and uh thoughtprovoking and um yeah oh
• 26:26
  that's right there was a question that
• 26:28
  came to my mind from Cal's question um
• 26:32
  how big a radius when a star goes
• 26:36
  supernova are we talking in terms of
• 26:38
  devastation
• 26:41
  >> uh you're talking about light years um
• 26:44
  because the shock the shock wave um you
• 26:47
  know when you think of like supernova
• 26:49
  1987a which is one of the best studied
• 26:52
  of all supernovi. It was in the large
• 26:53
  Melanic cloud. So relatively nearbyund
• 26:57
  whatever is it 130,000 light years away
• 27:00
  something like that.
• 27:02
  Yes, my numbers are all a bit rusty
• 27:04
  because of jet lag but it's something
• 27:06
  like that. Maybe 160,000. Anyway, never
• 27:09
  mind that. It's a long way off. uh and
• 27:11
  it's very well studied as and you can
• 27:12
  already see the you know the the the
• 27:15
  fact that um there's high energy
• 27:18
  radiation gone through a large large
• 27:21
  neighborhood around it measured in light
• 27:23
  years which of course is much bigger
• 27:25
  than the solar system. So that's the
• 27:27
  area of devastation. Yeah.
• 27:29
  >> So a planet sort of orbiting a star like
• 27:31
  that probably wouldn't have a prayer
• 27:33
  would it?
• 27:33
  >> Yeah. Yep. That's right.
• 27:35
  >> Okay.
• 27:37
  >> Thank you Cal. Uh enjoyed that question
• 27:39
  very much. And if you've got a question
• 27:40
  for us, please send it in. You can do
• 27:42
  that through the Spacenuts website,
• 27:44
  spacenutpodcast.com,
• 27:46
  spacenuts.io. Click on the AMA link at
• 27:49
  the top and you can send uh text or
• 27:51
  audio questions. Uh easy to send an
• 27:54
  audio question because if you've got a
• 27:55
  device with a microphone like a I don't
• 27:57
  know, a smartphone or or a tablet or a
• 28:00
  computer, they've all got them these
• 28:01
  days. Just um press and talk and uh
• 28:04
  don't forget forget to tell us who you
• 28:06
  are and where you're from. We're all
• 28:08
  done, Fred. Thank you.
• 28:10
  >> Great pleasure, Andrew. Good to chat and
• 28:12
  great to get our listeners questions
• 28:13
  again. There's some real intriguing
• 28:15
  thinking going on there.
• 28:17
  >> Indeed. Um, we'll catch up with you real
• 28:18
  soon. See you, Fred.
• 28:19
  >> Sounds good. Thanks a lot.
• 28:20
  >> Fred Watson, astronomer at large. And
• 28:23
  thanks to Hugh in the studio who
• 28:25
  couldn't be with us. We were just
• 28:26
  talking about gas giants. Well, he's got
• 28:28
  a giant gas problem
• 28:31
  and and he's had to go to hospital, but
• 28:33
  he'll be back soon. And from me, Andrew
• 28:35
  Duckley, thanks for your company. We
• 28:36
  will see you on the very next episode of
• 28:38
  Space Nuts. Until then, bye-bye.
• 28:41
  >> Space Nuts.
• 28:42
  >> You'll be listening to the Space Nuts
• 28:44
  podcast
• 28:46
  >> available at Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
• 28:49
  iHeart Radio, or your favorite podcast
• 28:52
  player. You can also stream on demand at
• 28:54
  >> byes.com.
• 28:56
  This has been another quality podcast
• 28:58
  production from byes.com.