Latest / Space Nuts: Astronomy Insights & Cosmic Discoveries / Primordial Black Holes, Murchison Upgrades & the New Space Race

Transcript

Primordial Black Holes, Murchison Upgrades & the New Space Race · Space Nuts: Astronomy Insights & Cosmic Discoveries

0:00
Professor Fred Watson: Hi there.
0:00
Andrew Dunkley: Thanks for joining us again for Space Nuts.
0:03
My name is Andrew Dunkley, where we, uh, are,
0:05
uh, talking astronomy and space science every
0:07
week with Professor Fred Watson Watson.
0:09
Coming up on this episode, have we discovered
0:12
a primordial black hole? I believe this has
0:14
been up for discussion before, but we might
0:16
have some new information for you. Good news
0:19
from the Murchison Wide Field Array
0:23
and, uh, Mark two of the space race
0:26
could see China in the lead. We'll tell you
0:28
all about that on this episode of space
0:31
nuts. 15 seconds.
0:32
Voice Over Guy: Guidance is internal. 10,
0:35
9. Ignition sequence start.
0:38
Space nuts. 5, 4, 3, 2. 1, 2,
0:41
3, 4, 5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
0:44
Space nuts. Astronauts report it feels
0:47
good.
0:48
Andrew Dunkley: Yes. And this episode, proudly supported by
0:51
SpaceX. Uh, it's like trying to land an
0:53
unmanned rocket back on a floating
0:56
pad is how it feels at the moment.
1:00
Ah, Very unstable Internet connection. And,
1:03
um, yes, this is take two. Believe we did the
1:05
whole show and had to start again, didn't we,
1:07
Fred Watson?
1:08
Professor Fred Watson: Something like that, yeah.
1:10
Andrew Dunkley: I think we got 10 seconds in. T
1:13
minus 10 and the whole thing went.
1:16
How are you, Fred Watson?
1:18
Professor Fred Watson: I'm very well, thank you. Uh, it's great to
1:20
see you, Andrew. Uh, good to see you looking
1:21
a bit less jazz, like we were together.
1:24
Yeah.
1:25
Andrew Dunkley: And I'm wearing my DART T shirt.
1:27
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
1:28
Andrew Dunkley: Um, which Mari Claire sent me from the Dart
1:31
mission when she witnessed the impact moment.
1:33
Ah, at NASA. Um, yep.
1:36
And Jordy. Hello, Jordy.
1:38
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, Jordy's still there. Uh, um, he's, um.
1:41
He's kind of, um. Well, he howls at things
1:44
when it. When he. When he gets a surprise, he
1:46
starts howling. Yeah. And he's surprised at
1:49
the moment because, um, I've got washing
1:51
outside on the line and every time the wind
1:52
blows, he thinks it's a threat, so he
1:55
howls. And, uh, it's quite a windy day, so
1:58
we're probably.
1:58
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, it is here too.
2:00
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. Yeah.
2:01
Andrew Dunkley: Yes. Uh, well, um, dogs and
2:04
cats living together. That's the world we're
2:06
in at the moment. Um, we'll get
2:09
straight to it, Fred Watson.
2:10
Uh, now, there's been a lot of, uh, movement
2:13
in the news about the, uh, potential
2:16
discovery of a primordial. Primordial black
2:18
hole that may have formed not long after
2:22
the. The Big Bang itself, which is
2:24
something that, uh, was predicted by
2:27
Stephen Hawking. And look,
2:30
they have not exactly confirmed it. In
2:33
fact, uh, that might be very difficult. But,
2:36
um, if it's real, this is a very exciting
2:39
discovery indeed. But there's. There's a bit
2:41
more going on than that. I know you've
2:42
probably talked to Heidi about this, um, but
2:45
this one came up in, in Facebook discussions
2:48
and so uh, we thought we'd bring it up on the
2:51
show.
2:53
Professor Fred Watson: Definitely Andrew. Uh, because there's a new
2:55
paper as well which is um,
2:58
actually Science Alert describes it as
3:01
a dazzling new paper which is pretty good
3:04
coming from the University of Cambridge. Uh,
3:06
I used to know all the people in Cambridge
3:08
who are working on this stuff but that's a
3:10
long time ago and I don't know them anymore.
3:11
I don't know Ignace Jordz
3:14
Balis I think is their
3:17
name. Uh, and that is a lead
3:20
author of this paper. Uh, what we talked
3:23
about in your absence uh Andrew
3:26
while uh, Heidi was in the hot seat was uh,
3:29
these little red dots, which is
3:32
becoming the official name for
3:35
uh, targets that the
3:37
James Webb Telescope has identified
3:41
as uh, little red dots because that's what
3:43
they look like. But
3:47
you can measure their redshift and it turns
3:50
out the reason they're red is
3:53
that their light has been stretched so much
3:55
because they are uh. Actually
3:58
we're seeing them at a look back time of
3:59
something like 13.2 billion
4:02
years. Remember the universe we think is
4:05
30.8 billion years old. So we're seeing
4:07
these 600 million years after the Big Bang.
4:10
So no wonder they look like little red dots.
4:12
They're little because they're so far away
4:14
and they're red because they're highly
4:16
redshifted. And the dots because basically
4:18
you can't see any structure. Uh, and that's
4:20
the interesting part of this because
4:23
um, they are assumed to be galaxies. Uh
4:26
and uh, in fact you know the, all the
4:28
evidence is that they are indeed galaxies but
4:31
they're galaxies with
4:34
not um, many stars, um, stars,
4:37
um, you know, at a much lower density
4:40
than we find in stars today.
4:43
And so the um,
4:46
most notable feature of them
4:49
is a central black hole.
4:51
Uh, and how do we know that there's a black
4:54
hole there? Because uh, you can sense
4:57
the rotation. If I remember rightly, you're
4:59
seeing velocities of well over a thousand
5:01
kilometres per second of material,
5:04
uh, which is going around in orbit around
5:06
something and that something has to be a
5:08
black hole because there's nothing else could
5:10
fit into the uh, squeeze into the small
5:13
space that it's occupying. So what
5:16
they've basically discovered and uh, they're
5:18
talking, this is Cambridge University group
5:20
is talking specifically about one
5:23
um, particular object. It's called QSO.1 uh,
5:26
it's a, odd name because QSO
5:29
is um, a standard
5:32
contraction of quasi stellar Ah Object
5:35
qso quasi stellar object. Something that
5:37
looks like a star but isn't. I suppose it is.
5:40
It does look like a star, but isn't. But we
5:42
now identify QSOs with quasars.
5:45
And this may be a quasar,
5:48
but we're not seeing the outbursts of X
5:50
radiation that we normally get from quasars.
5:52
So what uh, is being suggested
5:55
is that what we have here is
5:59
a uh, black hole. Yes. Uh, apparently
6:02
50 million solar masses, something like that,
6:06
which is big compared with our poor uh,
6:09
little 4.1 million solar mass black
6:12
hole at Sagittarius, a star in the centre of
6:14
our galaxy. Uh, so, so it is a supermassive
6:17
black hole. I mean it's not the, you know,
6:19
the, the behemoths that have billions um,
6:22
of, of solar masses. It's not that big.
6:25
Uh, but it's, it is big. And the fact
6:28
that it's 50 million solar masses and we're
6:30
seeing it as the universe as it
6:33
was 600 million years after the Big Bang
6:36
begs the question, how did it get so big?
6:38
Yeah. And so uh, basically
6:42
the uh, the bottom line is
6:44
that uh, it's, it could
6:47
be that we are seeing, as you said,
6:50
primordial black holes, which indeed were,
6:53
were um, predicted by Stephen Hawking, uh,
6:56
among others. Uh, these things should
6:59
develop after the Big Bang.
7:01
Um, and
7:05
there are subtleties here. Um, and I might
7:07
quote one uh, of the
7:10
authors. Uh, it's actually this is a quote
7:13
from the paper itself. Um, uh,
7:16
and we're talking now about something that's
7:19
got high mass but not many
7:21
stars. The only scenarios that can account
7:24
for such a system are those invoking
7:27
heavy seeds. And that's in, in uh,
7:30
inverted commas such as direct
7:32
collapse black holes, which are called
7:35
dcbhs. Direct
7:37
collapse black holes resulting from the
7:40
direct collapse of massive pristine cloud. So
7:42
that, what's that set that is saying is
7:44
you've got a cloud of gas, it collapses. It
7:47
doesn't form stars, it just collapses
7:49
straight into a black hole. And you and I
7:52
have talked about that some years ago. The
7:53
idea of these direct collapse black holes.
7:57
So that's one possibility for what this is.
8:00
Or primordial black holes
8:02
formed in the first second after the Big
8:05
Bang. Um, now
8:08
what they say is, uh, in fact this is the
8:10
article reading it from Science Alert. It's a
8:12
very nicely written article. I should uh,
8:14
name the author. It is Michelle Starr. What a
8:17
name for somebody who writes about astronomy.
8:20
Michelle. Um, Starr says both scenarios would
8:23
need further investigation. On the one hand,
8:26
direct collapse black holes would be
8:28
accompanied by ultraviolet light not seen in
8:30
QSO1. On the other hand,
8:32
PBHs primordial black holes are
8:35
considerably smaller than 50 million solar
8:38
masses. It is possible, however, that
8:41
the object is the product of rapid growth
8:44
both through accretion that's just gathering
8:47
stuff up and collisional processes that's
8:50
black holes colliding, making
8:51
QSO1 potentially the first
8:54
direct evidence for the existence of
8:57
primordial black holes. And so,
8:59
you know, uh, it's now, that's where
9:02
the situation lies now that we
9:05
don't have, um, a
9:08
definite answer. Uh, and once
9:11
again Michel says the paper remains to be
9:13
peer reviewed and it is quite an
9:16
extraordinary claim. So we'll be waiting to
9:18
see how this line of inquiry develops. So
9:20
will Jordy. Whatever the outcome though,
9:22
we're sure that little red dots are going to
9:24
tell us something really fascinating about
9:26
the birth of the universe. So it's an ongoing
9:29
story, Andrew, and uh, it's an evolution of
9:31
what we talked about with Heidi. But I think
9:33
you and I will be talking about this again
9:35
quite soon probably.
9:36
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, I don't doubt it. And it'll spawn a lot
9:39
of questions too, I'm sure. When you think
9:42
about it though, if it's been around for
9:44
13.2 billion years, it's had plenty of
9:47
time to get
9:49
its stuff together, you know, to grow and
9:52
to um, develop,
9:55
I suppose. Um, you know, 50, what was
9:58
it, 50 million.
9:59
Professor Fred Watson: 50 million solar masses. But remember, we're
10:02
seeing that, we're seeing that
10:04
13.2 billion years ago.
10:07
So what's it like? Who knows what it would
10:09
look like now? That's right, yeah, yeah.
10:11
Andrew Dunkley: Ah, fascinating story. Yes, plenty, uh, of
10:14
places where you can, um, read up on that,
10:16
phys.org or
10:18
sciencealert.com and
10:21
many others, uh, carrying this story because
10:23
if it turns out to be what we think it is, it
10:25
is, uh, certainly quite a discovery.
10:28
This is Space Nuts. Andrew Dunkley here with
10:30
Professor Fred Watson Watson.
10:32
Speaker C: Three, two, one.
10:35
Andrew Dunkley: Space Nuts. Now Fred Watson, uh, a little
10:38
closer to home. Western Australia to be
10:40
exact. Good news coming out of the merchants.
10:43
Murchison, uh, Wide Field
10:46
Array.
10:47
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, yes, that's right. Um, this is a story I
10:50
like, um, a lot because I've always been a
10:52
big fan of the Murchison Wide Field Array.
10:54
It's a Curtin University operated
10:57
set of antennas, um, at,
11:00
uh, the observatory is called in Yarimana
11:03
Garibundara, the CSIRO Radio
11:05
Murchison Radio Astronomy Observatory. That's
11:07
its full name. Uh, in
11:10
Yarimana Il Ghari Bundara is Wajiri
11:13
language, uh, and it means sharing sky and
11:15
stars. And the Wadji people ah, are playing a
11:18
big role actually in the development of the
11:20
Square Kilometre Array, uh, low
11:22
frequency, uh, arm, um, if you put it that
11:25
way, which is also being built there. Uh, and
11:28
in many ways the Murchison Widefield Array,
11:30
the one we're talking about now, was the
11:32
precursor to that um, Square
11:34
Kilometre Array telescope. Because unlike the
11:37
traditional steerable dishes, and in fact one
11:39
of the pathfinders for the Square Kilometre
11:42
Array was steerable dishes here in
11:45
Australia, again at Murchison, um,
11:48
um, unlike those steerable dishes, uh, these
11:51
antennas uh, look like something
11:53
different. So in the case of the Square
11:56
Kilometre Array, and we've discussed this
11:57
many times, it's paddocks full of um,
12:00
Christmas trees, metal Christmas trees, uh,
12:03
131,000 of them. Uh, that's
12:05
still work in progress. We talked recently
12:08
about the images received from the first
12:10
thousand of those antennas. Uh, but the
12:13
Merchant Wide Field Array uh, is a
12:16
different style of thing but it's the same
12:19
kind of idea except their antennas look
12:21
different. They are not
12:24
2 metre tall Christmas trees, they're about
12:26
half a metre tall and about three quarters of
12:29
a metre wide reed yards
12:32
for that if you're not in metre land.
12:35
Um, um, but they look like. Well the first
12:38
time I've saw them and I have visited this
12:39
site, first time I saw them I thought they
12:41
just look like a, a field full of coat
12:43
hangers that somebody's thrown away. They've
12:46
just sort of assembled themselves in a
12:49
peculiar way. Uh.
12:51
Andrew Dunkley: Oh yeah, yeah. I'm looking at a photo now
12:53
and.
12:53
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, do you see what I mean?
12:55
Andrew Dunkley: My first impression was um,
12:58
metallic spiders.
12:59
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, that's right. They've got that about
13:02
them as well. Yeah. Um, the, the reason,
13:05
um, I, uh, I was, I
13:07
remember being really impressed. Um, so
13:10
they're like. So each one of these, as I said
13:12
it's half a metre wide, it's made of metal,
13:15
it's shiny, uh, it's um, it's got
13:18
basically four legs. So it's a four legged
13:20
spider. Uh, but it's got these structures
13:22
that are look just like bits of bent coat
13:24
hanger. It sort of spells its own name
13:27
because you can make uh, each one of those
13:30
antennas give you an M M, a W
13:33
and if you look sideways an A, which is the
13:35
Murchison Widefield Array. I thought that was
13:38
very clever. I think that was completely
13:40
accidental because when I talked to the
13:42
Murchison people they never thought of that.
13:43
They thought it was crazy actually.
13:47
Um, so uh, it is uh, in the
13:50
news because the
13:53
uh, um, uh,
13:55
phase three of the development
13:58
has now been completed. And phase
14:01
three was uh, doubling the number
14:04
of antennas. It was originally 4,000,
14:06
4,096, uh, uh,
14:10
within a 20 square kilometre area,
14:13
quite a large area, uh, but it's gone up
14:16
now to a uh, total of
14:20
uh, 8,000, uh, I can't remember the exact
14:22
number. It's just over 8,000.
14:25
Andrew Dunkley: 8,192.
14:27
Professor Fred Watson: I should have done it because it's double.
14:29
4,096 could have probably done that in
14:32
my head but never mind, I couldn't. It's been
14:34
a long day. It's out to 30 square
14:37
kilometres and that actually. So
14:40
doubling the, the, you know, doubling the
14:43
number of antennas basically doubles the
14:44
sensitivity, at least at some level. Uh,
14:47
expanding its footprint from 20 to 30 square
14:50
kilometres actually increases what
14:53
we call the baseline of the array. And that's
14:56
sort of the equivalent to the, the width of a
14:58
mirror. If you were thinking of a visible
15:00
light or optical telescope, the diameter of
15:02
the mirror, uh, is what tells you how much
15:05
detail you can see. And
15:08
in a way what they've done is they've
15:10
expanded that footprint out to 30 square
15:12
kilometres and so it will let you
15:15
see more detail. Higher uh, resolution
15:18
is the technical term. Basically it lets you
15:21
see finer detail in whatever you're looking
15:22
at. And so they've done all
15:25
that. It's not just the coat hangers that you
15:28
have to expand all the uh,
15:32
software, the hardware, uh, things called the
15:35
correlators which are the basically
15:37
supercomputers that combine the image,
15:40
sorry the signal from each coat hanger
15:43
to turn it into um, a coherent
15:46
image. Uh, that's all new
15:49
as well. And so um,
15:52
it's a really significant increase
15:55
in the capabilities of the MWA
15:58
and what they're. Sorry, go ahead.
16:01
Andrew Dunkley: Now you're probably about to answer the
16:03
question I was about to ask because uh,
16:06
um, I've, it said,
16:09
um, one of the primary focus areas of this
16:11
effort was the epoch of reionization. What
16:14
does that mean?
16:15
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, so that's the time, um, effectively
16:19
uh, not long after the Big Bang, when the
16:20
universe became transparent. Uh,
16:23
and um, so
16:26
you know, one of the reasons why we build
16:28
these huge radio telescope arrays is to
16:31
probe an era, um,
16:34
after the Big Bang, but before the first
16:36
stars and galaxies lit up,
16:39
where um, basically the universe was just
16:42
full of cold hydrogen. And uh, cold
16:45
hydrogen curiously does emit radio waves.
16:48
It emits them at a frequency of
16:50
uh, 14, 20
16:53
megahertz if I remember rightly. We used to
16:55
call it the 21 centimetre line because that's
16:58
its wavelength. But I think these days we
17:00
talk in frequencies and I think it's 14, 20
17:02
megahertz. I'm not a radio astronomer, so I
17:04
have to try and remember these numbers. Um,
17:07
they don't come intuitively, although 21
17:09
centimetres does, because I think a lot of
17:11
astronomers know about that stuff. Anyway,
17:13
that's the, uh, wavelength or the frequency
17:16
that cold hydrogen emits. Um, and that's very
17:19
convenient because it means that you can find
17:21
cold hydrogen in the universe and your radio
17:24
waves pass through the dust of the universe
17:26
as if it was, it wasn't there. That's why
17:28
with visible light telescopes we can't see
17:30
the spiral arms of our galaxy. But you can,
17:33
uh, with the radio telescope because you can
17:35
see, you could trace out where the cold
17:37
hydrogen is. Cold hydrogen hangs around on
17:40
spiral arms of galaxies. But it was also
17:42
there in the early universe. The cold
17:44
hydrogen was the raw material of the first
17:46
stars and galaxies. Um, so that epoch
17:49
of Rhiannon's, ah, reionization
17:53
corresponds to a time when the first stars
17:55
and galaxies switched on and the radiation
17:58
that they spread out into the universe
18:00
basically made the universe transparent.
18:03
That's the bottom line. So, um,
18:06
that can be detected, the signal of that can
18:08
be detected by radio telescopes and the
18:11
mwa. I think, if I remember rightly
18:14
talking to my radio astronomy colleagues, I
18:16
think it was built specifically for that, to
18:18
look for the epoch of reionization, the
18:21
time when the universe started to transmit
18:23
light. So, fantastic stuff.
18:26
Um, it's a five and a
18:29
half million Australian dollar upgrade. Uh,
18:32
but I think that we like money well spent.
18:35
Yeah.
18:35
Andrew Dunkley: 10 bucks US.
18:37
Professor Fred Watson: So,
18:37
um, soon
18:40
to be a million bucks US.
18:44
Andrew Dunkley: Oh boy. Um, is that all it's
18:47
going to do? I mean, no. Um, Is it a case
18:49
if you had one job?
18:52
Professor Fred Watson: No, that's right. And you
18:54
didn't do it? Um, I mean, people have
18:57
been telling me that all my life.
19:01
Anyway, um, uh, no, look, there's,
19:04
there's a lot of other things. Um, now one of
19:07
the things that it should be able to detect
19:10
is fast radio bursts. Um,
19:13
but my recollection from
19:16
talking to MWA scientists
19:20
was that the, the original version,
19:22
the 4096 antenna version,
19:25
never did detect a fast radio
19:28
burst. And that's interesting because,
19:31
um, fast radio bursts, um,
19:35
perhaps it's telling you that they, they
19:37
don't emit in the
19:40
lower frequencies, which, um, the
19:43
mwa, the Murchison Wide Field Array is
19:46
tuned to. It's A, it's a low frequency
19:48
array and it's a higher frequencies where the
19:51
fast radio bursts have been discovered so
19:54
far. But um, I think the
19:57
improvement in sensitivity
19:59
um, will actually allow fast
20:02
radio bursts to be detected and then we might
20:05
start finding very large numbers.
20:07
Because the trick that I didn't mention that
20:10
the MWA is able to employ is it can look
20:13
at the whole sky at once. Oh yeah, Pretty
20:15
impressive. Good trick. Uh, yeah, that's
20:18
um, that's what you can do with um, with a,
20:21
you know, an array of coat hangers rather
20:23
than a dish that you've got to point in a
20:25
particular direction. These coat hangers are
20:27
bringing signals in all the time and it's
20:30
just how you, how you interrogate them. If I
20:33
put it that way, uh, that tells you where
20:35
you're pointing and you can interrogate many,
20:37
many different directions at once.
20:39
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, quite amazing. So, and, and how much
20:41
bigger are they going to make the
20:44
um, Mwax?
20:48
Professor Fred Watson: I think, I think phase
20:51
three might be the final thing. I
20:54
remember them talking about phase three. I
20:55
visited there uh, in 2018.
20:58
Um, I visited the site and saw the
21:02
ah, array antennas, the Cortana like things.
21:05
But a bit later than that I also visited
21:07
their headquarters which are in Perth in
21:09
Western Australia. And this is
21:12
probably five years ago now, five to six
21:13
years ago. They were talking then about
21:16
uh, the next phase, but I think that was
21:19
where their horizon lay. And it may well be
21:22
that that's the end of the story for the nwa.
21:25
But I'm, I'm gonna preface that or not
21:28
preface it, but qualify it by saying that
21:30
could be just based on information that was
21:33
probably good six years ago but not, might
21:36
not be good now.
21:37
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, well that's the way it goes sometimes.
21:40
Professor Fred Watson: Certainly does it. Yes.
21:43
We're always out of day. Yeah, well that's,
21:45
that's only a few.
21:47
Andrew Dunkley: Days but yeah, yeah that's astronomy. We're
21:49
13.8 billion years
21:52
out of date sometimes.
21:55
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, if you would like to read.
21:56
Andrew Dunkley: Up on that story, universetoday.com or
21:59
spaceconnectonline.com or just do a
22:02
search for Murchison Wide
22:05
Field Array, uh, on your favourite search
22:08
engine. This is Space Nuts, Andrew Dunkley
22:10
here with Professor Fred Watson Watson.
22:11
Um,
22:14
Space Nuts now final story. Fred Watson
22:17
uh, is uh, another goodie and
22:20
uh, a bit of a controversial one too. Uh, we,
22:23
we've talked many times about Artemis and
22:25
the, and the race back to the Moon and uh,
22:28
there's quite a few missions sort of
22:30
trundling around up there. The, the Indians
22:32
are having a Crack as well. Um, but
22:35
the space race as we
22:38
uh, witnessed it through the uh, the 50s and
22:41
60s and into the 70s, uh has
22:43
sort of got a phase two of its own going on
22:46
at the moment between the US and China.
22:49
And if you ask some people they're
22:52
saying China might win this.
22:56
Professor Fred Watson: Um, and in a way
22:59
you know, perhaps just coming to maybe what
23:02
the, what the reasoning is behind this.
23:05
Um, uh, the US
23:08
has got a very, very ambitious
23:11
vision for the Artemis project.
23:14
Um and that's what's taking
23:16
astronauts to the moon, uh, by
23:19
NASA, uh, their vision and what
23:22
you know, the point is uh, it's not
23:24
just planting flags and boots on the ground
23:27
which is what the Apollo missions were.
23:30
That's right. It's much more than that. It's
23:32
actually kind of set, setting the stage for a
23:35
permanent lunar base. It's
23:38
doing things like being able to refuel your
23:41
spacecraft in orbit um,
23:44
and transfer fuel. It's having the necessary
23:47
spacecraft to land you on the moon. Um,
23:49
and that's the vision of the, of
23:52
NASA, uh, which is a lot different
23:55
probably from China's vision
23:58
which will be just to get boots on the ground
24:00
and plant a flag. Uh, and that
24:03
now is something
24:05
technologically a lot simpler because it's
24:08
what they did in the Apollo era. But it's
24:10
technologically a lot simpler than what
24:12
Artemis uh, is aiming to
24:14
do. So the story comes about because of
24:18
uh, it was a U.S. senate Committee on
24:21
Commerce, Science and Transportation. Uh
24:24
so this uh, uh committee
24:27
had testimony from various
24:30
individuals and perhaps the most notable
24:33
was the former NASA administrator. Remember
24:35
the boss of NASA is called the administrator.
24:38
Um, his name was Jim
24:40
Bridenstine. Uh, he was a very well known and
24:43
very well respected, respected NASA
24:46
administrator. I think he was followed by
24:48
Bill Nelson who's the only one I've
24:51
met. Um, um, and Bill too a
24:54
very well respected administrator who
24:57
basically uh, left his post
25:00
at the uh, time of the new government
25:02
in the United States. But Jim Bridenstine
25:06
making a comment um, that he
25:09
considered that uh, because of the
25:11
complexity and
25:14
perhaps questioning even the feasibility
25:17
of NASA's Artemis programme, he
25:20
thinks the United States is highly unlikely,
25:23
and that's his words, highly unlikely to land
25:26
astronauts on the moon before China
25:29
because of challenges with
25:32
well as it's described orbital refuelling and
25:34
an ambitious architecture. So the
25:37
architecture is just you know, what, what is
25:39
the structure of this mission? How do you do
25:41
it? What kind of spacecraft do you use? Where
25:43
do you get them? What do you do in orbit?
25:46
Um, the, the hearing actually
25:48
um, uh has a Provocative
25:51
name itself. Um, the hearing
25:54
was entitled There's a Bad Moon on the Rise,
25:57
why Congress and NASA Must Thwart China in
26:00
the Space Race. So it's really quite an
26:03
interesting one. And it's got, um, you know,
26:05
it's got congressmen, congresswomen from both
26:07
sides, from both sides of politics.
26:10
Um, I think, um, the
26:15
um, issue that uh,
26:18
Bridenstine highlights
26:21
is, well, there are a few. One is that the
26:24
sls, the space Launch System, which you'll
26:27
remember has been tested out once with a
26:30
robotic fly around the moon. That's probably
26:32
was it four years ago now, quite a while
26:35
ago. Um, and he describes it as
26:37
extraordinarily expensive. And I guess
26:41
by the standards of 2025,
26:44
that is probably right because we are used
26:47
now to a company that
26:49
reuses all its um,
26:52
all its launch vehicles. I saw that SpaceX
26:57
has flown one of its uh, Falcon 9
26:59
boosters 30 times. Uh, and
27:03
that's amazing. They were talking about
27:04
limiting it to 10 times, but this one's done
27:07
30 launches. And these of course are for
27:09
Starlink, uh, communication satellites.
27:12
But the SLS is the sort of Rolls Royce of
27:15
launch systems. It is very, very expensive.
27:19
But uh, Bridenstine advocates
27:22
that for continuing to use it because it's
27:24
already there, it's already developed.
27:27
Um, but uh, his, his complaints
27:30
are twofold. One is that
27:33
in order to do what Artemis will do,
27:36
uh, you need to be able to refuel spacecraft
27:39
in orbit. And this is. These are cryogenic
27:41
fuels. You know, the temperature is minus
27:43
250Celsius or something that
27:46
ridiculously cold. That has never been done
27:48
before. Um, and that has to be done
27:51
in order to make this work. And the other
27:54
complaint is that the lunar lander
27:57
is um, basically still
28:00
untested. So, uh, um,
28:03
There were um,
28:06
two contracts awarded for
28:09
what's called the HLS, the Human Landing
28:11
System, um, to develop two
28:14
vehicles. One is the Starship,
28:16
SpaceX's Starship, and that's the top end,
28:20
you know, Starship itself is, is the
28:22
Falcon super heavy booster and what they call
28:25
the ship, which is the top end of it. Uh, and
28:28
it's. The ship will also be the
28:31
lander, the HLS lander, uh, for
28:34
Artemis 3 and 4 missions. Now Artemis 3 is
28:37
going to be the first mission to land
28:38
astronauts back on the moon. Artemis 2
28:41
will be a lunar orbit, uh,
28:44
mission. But then they also contracted
28:47
Blue Origin's Blue Moon Mark two, which is
28:49
another landing system for Artemis V.
28:52
Uh, now none of these
28:55
really have been tried and tested yet.
28:58
Uh, SpaceX, uh, is talking about
29:00
some upcoming missions, uh, which
29:03
they hope will be what is required to prove
29:06
the starship, uh, version. Um, I'm not sure
29:09
where Blue Origin is, but. So the complaint
29:11
is, uh, by Bridenstine, that we're so far
29:14
behind with all this, there's a really good
29:15
chance that the Chinese will get there, uh,
29:18
get there first. Um. Yeah, it's.
29:21
Yep. Go ahead.
29:23
Andrew Dunkley: Does it matter? Does it really matter? They
29:25
have completely different goals, completely
29:28
different agendas.
29:30
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
29:30
Andrew Dunkley: Does it really matter if China lands on the
29:32
moon and starts walking around before the
29:34
United States does? Is there some advantage
29:37
in them doing that? Because they're not
29:39
trying to achieve the same end as the
29:42
United States, as NASA. So, uh.
29:45
And the US already proved that they were
29:47
first back in
29:49
1969.
29:51
So it's, it's not
29:54
really a race, is it? Not, not, not that kind
29:57
of race.
29:58
Professor Fred Watson: Um. Uh. Don't you think if,
30:00
um. If China landed astronauts on the
30:03
moon before the US did, the president
30:06
would implode, wouldn't he? Or something
30:09
would. Yeah.
30:10
Andrew Dunkley: But, you know, are.
30:12
Professor Fred Watson: They.
30:12
Andrew Dunkley: Are, ah, they. It's just politics, isn't it?
30:15
I mean, it's just posturing that
30:18
the US has already done it. They don't have
30:20
to do it again before China because, you
30:22
know, they did it before China.
30:25
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, I, uh. I think national
30:28
pride is playing a huge.
30:29
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, probably.
30:30
Professor Fred Watson: And one that we might not recognise to the
30:33
extent that perhaps some of our listeners
30:35
will. Um, I think it's.
30:37
I think it would be a, ah. I think it would
30:40
be a real, um, challenge
30:43
to the US if China landed first. I
30:46
think it really would, in this year, shape
30:48
them to the core. Yes, a little
30:51
bit like. A little bit like
30:54
when, uh, the Soviet Union put the first
30:56
artificial satellite into orbit.
30:59
I remember the fallout from that. It was,
31:02
you know, I was still a youngster. I was only
31:04
10. Was I? No, was 12.
31:07
Anyway, um, it was,
31:09
um. You know, it was there. It was, it.
31:12
It absolutely shook the US to the
31:15
core. Uh, that. That the Soviet
31:18
Union could put a spacecraft into orbit,
31:21
which meant that it could launch a ballistic
31:22
missile anywhere on the planet or land one
31:25
anywhere on the planet. So that's the
31:26
underlying thing. Now that imperative's gone.
31:29
Everybody knows that there's half a dozen
31:31
countries who could land a ballistic missile
31:33
pretty well anywhere on the planet. Um, but I
31:35
think it's the national PR issue. I think it
31:38
would be seen as an affront almost to
31:41
US pride in space. Uh,
31:44
what is going to happen about it? I don't
31:46
know. I don't know whether this hearing will
31:47
actually produce any changes, but
31:51
be interesting to see how it goes.
31:53
Andrew Dunkley: It will, yes. Uh, you can read all about
31:56
it@nasaspaceflight.com.
31:59
um, yeah. Very interesting article indeed.
32:02
Um, Fred Watson, we've done. That's it.
32:05
Professor Fred Watson: Good gracious.
32:08
Andrew Dunkley: Just for this episode.
32:09
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. Episode 555. Yes.
32:11
Andrew Dunkley: I didn't mention that, did I? Yeah, 555.
32:14
Um, I don't know. Is that a lucky number in
32:17
China? In China or is it triple A?
32:20
I don't know. Um, yes.
32:23
Anyway, Fred Watson, thank you so much. It's
32:25
always good fun.
32:26
Professor Fred Watson: It is. Uh, thank you for having me, Andrew.
32:29
Um, I'll be invited back sometimes.
32:32
Andrew Dunkley: Maybe in five minutes, five days,
32:35
whatever comes first.
32:36
Professor Fred Watson: Yes.
32:36
Andrew Dunkley: You never know. Thanks, Fred Watson.
32:38
Professor Fred Watson Watson, astronomer at
32:40
large, part of the team here at Spacenus. Uh,
32:43
and of course, uh, thanks to Huw in the
32:45
studio, who couldn't be with us today, had to
32:47
put his cat Sputnik down. Uh,
32:50
unfortunately, I don't know where that came
32:53
from. And from me, Andrew Dunkley, thanks for
32:55
your company. We'll see you on the next
32:57
episode of Space Nuts.
33:03
Space Nuts. Hello again. Thanks for joining
33:05
us. This is Space Nuts, where we talk
33:08
astronomy and space science. And it's
33:11
good to have your company on this a Q A
33:13
edition. And what are we talking about today?
33:16
Oh, uh, something completely different, new
33:18
and unchallenged in the annals of
33:21
Space Nuts and the wider world of astronomy.
33:24
Uh, somebody's got a black hole question
33:28
and the next question is a dark matter
33:31
question. They just dovetail beautifully,
33:33
those two. And then, uh, we've got a bit of a
33:36
Dutch treat for you. Uh, Robert from the
33:38
Netherlands is asking about the Fermi paradox
33:41
and Angela from the Netherlands has,
33:44
um, an idea to send bugs into space
33:47
on purpose. And joining us again to
33:50
solve all of those little riddles is
33:52
Professor Fred Watson Watson, astronomer at
33:53
large, still wearing the same shirt as he was
33:55
last. Hello, Fred Watson.
33:58
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, I only change my shirts
34:01
once a week, apparently.
34:03
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. Ah, well, I do that on holidays because
34:08
although on our, on our cruise we, um, we
34:11
did all our own washing because. Well, they
34:14
charge you to do washing on a, on a cruise
34:16
ship if you, if you want them to do it. But,
34:18
uh, they had laundries on this ship, so we
34:20
did our own, which turned out to be a very
34:22
good thing.
34:23
Professor Fred Watson: So, um, it's sort of where
34:26
on. You're on board for 13 weeks, weren't
34:28
you? 13 weeks is a little bit long to keep
34:31
the same shirt.
34:32
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, basically it's pretty tough wearing the
34:34
same pair of undies. For 13 weeks and
34:37
expecting people to actually sit down and
34:39
have dinner with you.
34:40
Professor Fred Watson: It's. It's not.
34:43
It's not.
34:44
Andrew Dunkley: Not advised. Not advised, no.
34:47
Professor Fred Watson: You sounds like you tried it, actually.
34:51
Andrew Dunkley: No, I haven't. No, I haven't.
34:54
Professor Fred Watson: Your wife wouldn't let me do that. No.
34:56
Andrew Dunkley: No, definitely not.
34:57
Um, now, uh, we've got a bunch of questions
35:00
to get through, and we.
35:02
Professor Fred Watson: Might as well get the ball rolling.
35:04
Andrew Dunkley: With Dave, who has a question
35:06
related to black holes.
35:08
Speaker C: Hey, Professor Fred Watson Watson,
35:11
Andrew and or Heidi, whoever this may be.
35:14
Um, got a question about black holes. Like
35:17
all my other questions. I've been watching a
35:20
lot of documentaries and something
35:23
that still questions me is
35:26
black holes, do they move or are they
35:29
stationary? And if they do move,
35:32
do they move through space and time
35:36
or space time, like the fabric of space?
35:39
And if so, are they eating the fabric of
35:41
space or is it just going around the black
35:44
hole and then back into place? How come we
35:46
don't see trails behind the black holes where
35:49
they've just eaten away fabric of space?
35:52
Um, not quite sure how that works
35:55
or anything like that.
35:58
And if, if they all do rotate, which we think
36:01
they do, do they
36:04
rotationally pull on the fabric of
36:07
space?
36:08
Professor Fred Watson: Thank you.
36:10
Andrew Dunkley: Okay, great. Ah, question. Thank you, Dave.
36:13
And we'll get a great answer. Now,
36:16
although it's an interesting question, we,
36:18
um, from my perspective, and I think we
36:21
have touched on this before,
36:24
everything moves in space. Nothing is
36:26
standing still, is it?
36:29
Professor Fred Watson: No, you're right, Andrew. That's exactly the.
36:31
That's exactly the answer I was about to
36:32
give.
36:33
Andrew Dunkley: Oh, okay. Thanks, Dave.
36:34
Next question comes from.
36:37
Professor Fred Watson: Um, let's just, um, cover
36:40
Dave's last part of that question first,
36:42
which is trials. Do they.
36:45
It was where if black holes are rotating, do
36:48
they. The space time kind of do
36:51
they drag it round? And indeed they do. It's
36:53
a process called frame dragging. Um, the
36:55
Earth does it actually. So any rotating
36:57
object drags the framework of space
37:00
time around with it. And I think the same
37:02
happens with black holes. I think we covered
37:05
the story, um, probably
37:08
a couple of years ago maybe, Andrew, which
37:10
was about a demonstration that black
37:13
holes, rotating black holes do,
37:16
um, uh, exhibit frame dragging, that
37:19
space time does sort of get dragged around
37:21
with them. Uh, so, uh,
37:24
having said that, um, then
37:28
the idea of black holes moving through
37:30
space is not, I guess, that difficult.
37:33
Uh, and indeed they do exactly as you've
37:35
said, Andrew. Everything moves, uh, and it's
37:38
twofold. One is that they're being carried
37:40
along by space itself, what we call the
37:42
Hubble flow, which is Due to the expansion of
37:45
the universe. And I think Dave touched on
37:47
that by talking about, you know, the fabric
37:50
of space time. Yes, the fabric of space time
37:52
itself is moving and takes stuff along with
37:54
it. Um, but,
37:57
uh, uh, galaxies we
38:00
know, have what we call peculiar velocities.
38:03
Uh, they actually move around, um,
38:06
within the moving fabric of space.
38:10
Excuse me. The analogue that we often give
38:12
is, uh, to liken the expansion of the
38:15
universe to a river flowing. And the galaxies
38:17
being like people zooming around the river on
38:20
boats. They're being carried along by the
38:21
river flow, but they still move around with
38:23
their own peculiar motion. And galaxies
38:26
do that too, not perhaps zipping around quite
38:29
like boats do. Uh, but, uh, they're
38:32
drawn to one another by their own gravity.
38:34
Uh, so they do move through space. And yes,
38:36
um, a black hole will move through the space
38:39
time that it's in, but it won't leave a
38:42
trail behind it. Um, the space
38:45
time bends around it, just as Dave suggested.
38:48
There, uh, as it goes through, it's
38:50
distorting the space time. But, uh, you know,
38:53
the space time sort of recovers as it's gone
38:55
past. Uh, so it's not like there'll be a
38:58
wake that we could look for trailing behind,
39:01
uh, supermassive black holes. Interesting
39:03
idea, though.
39:04
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. Yeah, it'd be. It'd be so easy to find
39:06
them if they left trails.
39:08
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, that's right. It would.
39:10
Andrew Dunkley: Let's say you chase snails, you know, if
39:13
you're a snail hunter.
39:15
Professor Fred Watson: Well, I'm sure you do. Yeah, we get, um,
39:18
on damp days, uh, we occasionally get invaded
39:21
by slugs in our. In our laundry and
39:23
daily trails as well, which are based.
39:29
Yeah.
39:29
Andrew Dunkley: Where were we the other day? Um, and walked
39:32
outside because it had been raining, and
39:33
there were slugs the size of sausage dogs.
39:37
Uh, they were. They were enormous.
39:39
Was in the United States somewhere up in, uh.
39:42
Up around Buffalo, I think, somewhere. Oh,
39:44
yeah.
39:46
Professor Fred Watson: Big boogers.
39:47
Andrew Dunkley: Oh, no. Was it Niagara Falls? Niagara
39:50
Falls. They were like this, like, you
39:53
know, you could wrap them around your head if
39:54
you're so inclined, get a decent.
39:56
Professor Fred Watson: Meal out of one of them.
39:57
Andrew Dunkley: Oh, yeah.
39:58
Professor Fred Watson: Yes.
39:58
Andrew Dunkley: Yum. Um, although that reminds me,
40:01
while we were overseas, I think it was when
40:03
we were in Spain. Listen to me. Name
40:06
dropping. Um, the, um.
40:08
Um. One of the staff on the ship was doing a
40:11
presentation about our next stop, and she
40:13
said, while you're there, go and get some of
40:15
this stuff. And it was. It was like a skin
40:16
cream that had snail slime in it.
40:21
My wife bought some and is still using
40:24
it. Uh, she thinks it's fabulous.
40:27
So there you are. There's something to that.
40:29
Go and rub snails on your face.
40:33
And by the way, that, uh, that still, that
40:35
story you referred to from a couple of years
40:37
ago, uh, was, uh, about frame
40:40
dragging, uh, of supermassive black holes
40:43
was, uh. May 2024. There you are.
40:46
Professor Fred Watson: Okay. Hm. There you go. The memory's not
40:49
quite gone yet, but it will eventually.
40:52
Andrew Dunkley: I do recall us talking about it. Uh,
40:55
thanks, David, for your question.
40:56
Our next question comes from Jared in
40:59
Melbourne. Hi, Fred Watson, Heidi, Huw, Dave.
41:02
Just kidding, Andrew. Thank you. They haven't
41:03
gotten the Dave thing, have they? Haven't let
41:06
that one go. So, three months away, that one
41:08
would die its natural death. But no, no, it's
41:11
just popped itself up again. Um,
41:14
we talk about galaxies having halos of
41:16
dark matter gravitationally bound to them,
41:19
thus affecting their rotational rate
41:22
as compared to the predicted rotation
41:24
rate's, uh, centre edge.
41:28
Yeah. Okay. Uh, so then while. Yeah,
41:31
so then while wondering if the sun
41:33
has a portion of dark matter gravitationally
41:36
bound to it, I read that people think it's
41:39
m. Not much of a halo at all for something
41:42
like the sun, as dark matter particles are
41:44
moving too fast to be captured by the Sun.
41:47
I'm very interested to know why people, uh,
41:50
might expect dark matter to be moving too
41:53
fast to be captured by the sun when we have
41:55
so few insights about what it is at all.
41:58
How do they conclude it's whizzing around
42:00
faster than escape velocity? Keen, uh,
42:04
to get your thoughts. Keep up the great work.
42:06
Jared from Melbourne.
42:10
Professor Fred Watson: And great question. Which, um,
42:13
doesn't really have an answer. Okay.
42:16
Um, and that's because we know so little
42:19
about dark matter. Um,
42:21
it's certainly, uh,
42:24
the thinking a few years ago
42:27
was that dark matter
42:30
halos have a minimum size or blobs
42:33
of dark matter have a minimum size. And as
42:36
Gerard suggests, that would be related to the
42:38
velocity of the dark matter particles. Um,
42:42
you know what that minimum size would be? Uh,
42:45
if the, the faster the particles are moving,
42:47
the bigger the blob of dark matter. I
42:50
seem to remember a number being touted around
42:53
which was about 100 parsecs and a parsec is.
42:56
Was it 3.23 light years? I can never
42:59
get the exact number. It's about three light
43:00
years. So roughly 300 light years.
43:04
However, I think there have been more recent
43:06
observations that suggest that it might be
43:09
clumpier than that it might clump together on
43:11
smaller scales. Um, however, having
43:14
said that, I think it is probably
43:17
unlikely, though, that the sun itself would
43:20
have uh, its own lump of dark matter.
43:22
I think the, you know, the sun's
43:25
neighbourhood and the spiral arms
43:28
that were embedded in might,
43:31
might have higher density, uh, chunks
43:34
of dark matter than perhaps the outer halo
43:37
of the galaxy. Uh, but
43:40
if it's, you know, if those early
43:41
measurements are anything like realistic,
43:43
then it would be on a scale of hundreds of
43:46
light years rather than um, hundreds of
43:48
millions of kilometres, which is what you'd
43:50
need for it to be within bound to the
43:53
solar system. So uh, we don't really know the
43:56
answer to your question, Gerard, but um,
43:59
people do think about it. It's one of the
44:02
biggest big issues and one of the challenges
44:04
is how do you plot, how do you map the
44:07
biggest or smallest chunk of dark matter? Um,
44:10
when the best way to
44:13
see it is um,
44:16
to look at the distortion
44:19
effect of say a cluster of galaxies in the
44:22
foreground and look at how that distorts the
44:24
images of galaxies in the background. Because
44:26
the distortion is due to all the mass in the
44:28
cluster, not just the mass you can see
44:31
that allows you to map the dark matter in a
44:33
cluster. Um, but it, it doesn't
44:36
really, unless you've got some very special
44:39
circumstances, it doesn't really make it
44:41
easy to say just how big or
44:44
small the biggest lump of dark matter, the
44:47
characteristic lump size of dark
44:50
matter might be. Um, so we're still working
44:52
on it, uh, and um, maybe we'll get back to
44:54
you when we know the answer.
44:56
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, well, you never know. Uh, a parsec is
44:59
equal to 3.26 light years.
45:02
Professor Fred Watson: I think I said 3.23, didn't I? And that's
45:04
wrong. Well, it's close. 3.3. It's close.
45:07
Yeah. I can never remember the last number in
45:09
that 3.26 should be really, it's easy to
45:12
remember because three times two is six. So
45:14
that should tell you, shouldn't it, on there,
45:16
you know, uh, neat. Well, all I've got to do
45:19
is remember that.
45:20
Andrew Dunkley: Test you next week.
45:24
Professor Fred Watson: Thanks. Thanks Dave. Thanks Dave.
45:27
I always appreciate your tests.
45:31
Andrew Dunkley: Okay, uh, thanks Jared, for your question.
45:34
This is Space Nuts Andrew Dunkley here with
45:36
Professor Fred Watson Watson.
45:38
Space Nuts. Uh, now, uh,
45:41
welcome to the Dutch part of our show
45:43
where uh, all the questions come from the
45:45
Netherlands. And the first one is from
45:48
Robert.
45:49
Professor Fred Watson: Hey, Professor.
45:50
Andrew Dunkley: No, it's not. This one is hello friend
45:52
Andrew and.
45:53
Professor Fred Watson: Heidi, this is Robert from the Netherlands.
45:56
I have a question about the resolution to the
45:59
Fermi paradox. What could be the most
46:02
credible answer to this conundrum? Is it
46:04
because the rare Earth theory that Their
46:07
civilizations of aliens are very, very rare.
46:10
Are they very hostile? And if they destroy
46:12
everything around us, are they simply too far
46:14
away and they stop expanding after a couple
46:17
of planets? Or are we alone in the
46:19
universe? I would love to hear the
46:21
professor's opinion this. Thank you so much.
46:25
Andrew Dunkley: Thank you Robert. Um, yeah, it
46:28
brings up that age old question which I'm
46:31
sure you were going to ask question,
46:34
where is everybody?
46:36
Professor Fred Watson: Well that's right, that was the um, that's
46:38
the basis of the Fermi paradox. Yeah, passed
46:40
in 1950. And the logic, Enrico
46:43
Fermi's logic was if you
46:46
have space faring
46:49
civilizations, um, which uh,
46:52
evolved you know, maybe a few billion
46:55
years ago, um, then there should be evidence
46:58
for them everywhere. And
47:01
we don't see it, we uh, don't see any
47:03
evidence. Uh, that evidence might be in the
47:06
form of artefacts. If
47:08
they've sent things into orbit around, you
47:11
know, the solar systems. And there's at least
47:13
one person on our planet who thinks that's
47:15
happened already. Uh, Avi Loeb with some of
47:18
these um, extraterrestrial asteroids and
47:21
comet comets, probably all three of them
47:23
anyway. Ah so. But we don't have
47:26
any real evidence that that's the case. And I
47:29
think I would lump together Robert's first
47:32
and last options there
47:34
where he spoke about the Earth being in
47:37
incredibly, or Earth like conditions being
47:39
incredibly rare so that
47:42
intelligent life might be incredibly rare. Or
47:45
his last option, that it's unique, that we
47:48
are unique in the universe. Um, those two
47:51
are not that different from one another.
47:54
Um, because either way, you know, if, if
47:56
you've only got one civilization,
47:59
communicable civilization per galaxy,
48:02
um, and then you might as well forget it.
48:05
You're alone in the universe basically.
48:08
Um, which I think is, I uh,
48:11
think that is disturbing because
48:14
it means, you know, if we wipe ourselves
48:17
out or if we become extinct through whatever
48:19
process, uh, we are,
48:22
we are how the universe thinks about itself.
48:25
That's um, I think that's a quote from Brian
48:27
Cox. Life is what lets the universe
48:30
understand itself. Um, and
48:33
um, if we, if we're
48:35
gone and uh, well and we're the only species
48:38
in the universe that can understand it,
48:39
what's the rest of it for? Well, it's all
48:42
a bit of, a, bit of a pain.
48:44
Andrew Dunkley: Well yeah, but it brings about,
48:47
um, you know, you can get into areas
48:50
of theology then. And um,
48:54
then that's one
48:57
um, idea that uh, is well documented and well
49:00
supported. Um, creationism,
49:03
uh, we could just be
49:05
one freak accident that.
49:09
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
49:10
Andrew Dunkley: And the universe existing
49:13
in itself is the greatest mystery. How is
49:16
their existence? I think I've asked that
49:18
question before and no one's ever told me the
49:20
answer.
49:20
Professor Fred Watson: It's a philosophical question, that's what it
49:22
is.
49:23
Andrew Dunkley: It is, yeah.
49:23
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, um, I mean it's uh, you know
49:26
there's um, there's a quantum physics answer
49:29
to that as well. If, if um, if
49:32
we weren't there to perceive the universe,
49:35
would the universe still exist? Because um,
49:38
in quantum mechanics it looks as though the
49:41
observer plays a significant role in the
49:43
nature of reality. And that's why scientists
49:46
are constantly looking for a theory that
49:48
underpins both quantum mechanics
49:51
and relativity. Uh,
49:55
the grand unifying theory which we haven't
49:57
got yet, uh, that might tell us whether the
50:00
observer is necessary, uh, in
50:03
terms of the well being of the universe. It
50:06
raises extraordinary questions. Uh, but I
50:09
think it's certainly my thinking, and this
50:11
comes from talking to astrobiologists who
50:13
think that step from um, from
50:16
single celled organisms to multi celled
50:19
organisms could be a really rare step.
50:22
Uh, then perhaps we are very rare. Perhaps we
50:25
are a freak of nature. Um,
50:27
it's uh, I would lean towards that
50:30
rather than the idea that life is everywhere,
50:33
uh, and think that the answer to the Fermi
50:35
paradox. Where is everybody? Well, they're
50:37
just not there, most of them. Yeah, yeah,
50:39
they're not there.
50:40
Andrew Dunkley: Well there may not be peoples, but there may
50:43
be bacterial life of some kind or.
50:46
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, that's right, but, and that might turn
50:48
out to be quite common, but it needn't
50:51
necessarily evolve into anything more
50:53
substantial.
50:54
Andrew Dunkley: No, no, definitely not. And if you're looking
50:57
for aliens, as you said, if they've been
50:59
around long enough, we should see the
51:00
evidence, uh, whether it be a um,
51:03
passing spacecraft or a
51:05
megastructure of some kind that we
51:08
might see around a planet or a star or
51:11
a um, uh,
51:14
a conspicuous gas in their atmosphere that
51:17
couldn't be natural, things like that. But we
51:20
haven't found any of that.
51:21
Professor Fred Watson: Airport radar, uh, all of that airport
51:24
radar, yes. Square kilometre array able to
51:26
detect airport radar at 50 light years. So
51:29
once it comes on stream we
51:32
might know we're alone within 50 light years.
51:35
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, well that is it exactly.
51:38
Uh, so Robert. No, um, yes,
51:41
we're still alone at this point in time. And
51:43
um. Yes, and we're feeling it, we really are.
51:48
Um, but I'm, I, I sort
51:51
of err on the side of caution when it comes
51:53
to revealing our presence. I'm, I'm a little
51:55
bit with um, Stephen,
51:58
Stephen Hawking. Uh, yeah, you don't want to
52:01
make Too big a noise. Just in case they go,
52:03
oh, that's a lovely place. We'll have that.
52:06
So the British and the Portuguese did so.
52:09
And the Dutch. And the Dutch. Our last two
52:12
people are Dutch. My wife's Dutch, so I can
52:15
get away with things like that.
52:17
Professor Fred Watson: The, um. Yeah.
52:18
Andrew Dunkley: Uh, and the French. I mean, the French did it
52:21
too.
52:22
Professor Fred Watson: We, we, um. We're already, you
52:25
know, we've already given it away because
52:27
we've got airport radar.
52:31
Andrew Dunkley: Yes, we have. Yes, we have.
52:33
Thanks, Robert. Great to hear from you. And
52:35
our final question comes from the
52:37
Netherlands. And it's, uh, a text
52:39
question from Angela. I learned from earlier
52:42
episodes that any it sent to space must
52:45
be sterile, free of bugs. This is
52:48
to prevent contamination of the celestial
52:50
bodies. However, could we consider the
52:52
opposite? Send bugs, seeds, bacteria,
52:55
etc. Out into space on purpose. This
52:58
will give life a small chance to
53:01
evolve somewhere else and escape
53:03
the potential one and only planet in our
53:05
Milky Way that contains life. Kind regards,
53:08
Angela from Amsterdam. She's sort of going
53:11
on from what, um, Robert was talking
53:14
about. Um, you know, we've got evidence of
53:17
life on one planet, but she's saying, well,
53:19
why don't we go seeding the other planets?
53:22
Let's, you know, let's not keep our, uh,
53:24
spacecraft, uh, clean. Let's
53:27
just line people up. You can all hock on the
53:29
spacecraft and off
53:32
it goes and we see the
53:35
universe. Um, look, it worked
53:37
in South America. The Spanish took all their
53:40
nasties over there and nearly wiped the
53:42
people out. So.
53:44
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, that's right, yeah.
53:47
Uh, so, uh, I mean,
53:51
to some extent this has already happened. Uh,
53:53
because, uh, the. I think it was the
53:56
Beersheba spacecraft, which was a
53:59
private Israeli venture
54:02
which crashed on the moon, carried
54:05
fruit flies, it carried tardigrades,
54:08
carried a few of other things. Um,
54:10
they presumably perished in the accident.
54:13
But the question I would have for
54:15
Angela, I mean. Yes, okay, you fill a
54:18
spacecraft full of earthly creatures. It's a
54:21
bit like Noah's Ark, really. Yeah. Two by
54:23
two, um, you
54:26
seal it so that it's
54:29
not gonna destroy
54:32
another planet, uh, or
54:35
seed another planet if it crashes. So you
54:37
make it crash proof. But then you've got to
54:40
sustain these organisms to keep them alive.
54:43
And that's a, uh, tricky mission.
54:46
Uh, you know, how do you. If you're talking
54:48
about, um, lengths of time measured
54:51
perhaps in millions or billions of
54:54
years, which is how long it might take to
54:57
land on another world in another solar
55:00
system. Uh, how do you keep things alive
55:02
for that long?
55:03
Andrew Dunkley: I've got the answer.
55:05
Professor Fred Watson: Have you all good?
55:05
Andrew Dunkley: I've got the answer. When I was growing up,
55:08
they were selling sea monkeys
55:11
at toys stores. Yeah.
55:13
Professor Fred Watson: Yep.
55:14
Andrew Dunkley: You bought the packet?
55:16
Professor Fred Watson: Yep.
55:16
Andrew Dunkley: You filled, you filled a jar full of water,
55:19
you tipped the packet in and then all these
55:21
things came to life. Uh,
55:24
sea monkeys.
55:25
Professor Fred Watson: What were they?
55:26
Andrew Dunkley: Dunno. Krill
55:29
probably, something like that. There was a
55:32
kind of little crustacean. Hang on, I'm going
55:34
to look it up. I honestly can't remember what
55:36
they were.
55:37
Professor Fred Watson: Tardigrades are a bit like that because
55:39
tardigrades can dehydrate themselves
55:41
completely. That's how they. They've survived
55:43
on the outside of the space station.
55:46
Um, but once you.
55:48
Andrew Dunkley: Brian, I was right. They're shrimp. Brine
55:51
shrimp. We're seeing monkeys.
55:52
Professor Fred Watson: Yep.
55:53
Andrew Dunkley: Uh, they were developed in the United States
55:55
in 1957, uh, by
55:57
Harold von Braunhutt, uh, and
56:00
sold as eggs intended to be added to water.
56:03
Um, and you used to buy them and take them
56:06
home, put them in the water and they'd hatch
56:08
and you'd have sea monkeys. There you, ah,
56:10
are.
56:12
There's the solution.
56:14
Professor Fred Watson: Now, how long did they last once you put them
56:16
in water?
56:17
Andrew Dunkley: 5 minutes? Usually they did. No.
56:21
Professor Fred Watson: I don't know. I didn't last. Yeah, so it
56:23
does. Okay. Yes.
56:26
So it doesn't really give you much time to
56:28
start a new population of species from planet
56:31
Earth. Probably not if you find water on
56:34
another world. Yeah, I mean, it's. And of
56:37
course there's an ethical side to this as
56:38
well. Uh, my answer to. Well,
56:41
it's the answer to, um, why
56:44
we. Why we sterilise spacecraft going to
56:46
Mars. Because we don't want to. To
56:48
contaminate Mars with earthly microbes. If
56:51
there are microbes there of Martian origin
56:53
already, you don't want to intermix them.
56:57
Andrew Dunkley: See, Angela, he had to do that. He just had
57:00
to do the, the ethical thing.
57:03
You and I are on a different page, but. Yeah,
57:06
well, coming from Angela.
57:08
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
57:10
Andrew Dunkley: But, you know, if, if the Thermi paradox,
57:13
Fermi paradox is what it is, then why are
57:15
we worried? Anyway?
57:16
Professor Fred Watson: It doesn't matter. That's right. It just
57:18
doesn't matter. Yes. Can send anything
57:21
anywhere. Well, that might be the way it ends
57:23
up. If we never find any existence, any
57:26
evidence of life somewhere else. But I think
57:28
this is a study that's still in its infancy.
57:31
Astrobiology has only been around for 30
57:32
years or something, so we've still got a long
57:35
way to go.
57:36
Andrew Dunkley: We have, yes. Um. Uh,
57:39
yes, at this stage we're playing it safe.
57:43
I think the day will come Angela, where
57:45
we'll, we'll load up an arc spacecraft and
57:47
we will send them hither and thither
57:52
and try to populate another planet.
57:56
Who knows? Could happen. Uh, thanks, Angela.
57:58
Great question, though. Really enjoyed
58:00
mincing that one up. Uh, and,
58:03
uh, that brings us to the end of the show,
58:05
Fred Watson. Thank you.
58:07
Professor Fred Watson: Um, thank you, Andrew. Thanks for your
58:09
tolerance and patience and.
58:11
Andrew Dunkley: Um, I think it's the other way around,
58:12
Fred Watson.
58:13
Professor Fred Watson: But anyway, thanks for not dropping
58:16
out on me.
58:17
Andrew Dunkley: Uh, yes, we've had a golden run today.
58:20
Yeah, it's been good after the massive full
58:23
start, but, uh, yeah, we were all good.
58:25
Thanks, Fred Watson. We'll catch you next
58:27
time.
58:28
Professor Fred Watson: Sounds great. Thanks, Andrew.
58:30
Andrew Dunkley: Professor Fred Watson Watson, Astronomer
58:31
Large, with us every week, uh, twice, uh, on
58:34
Space Nuts. And thanks to Huw in the studio,
58:36
who couldn't be with us today because he's
58:38
just putting his Dutch nationality
58:40
application in. He's sick of being a Kiwi. He
58:43
wants to be Dutch because, you know, they're
58:45
so cool. Well, I married one, so they must
58:48
be. And from me, Andrew Dunkley, thanks for
58:50
your company. Catch you on the next episode
58:52
of Space Nuts.
58:53
Professor Fred Watson: Bye. Bye.
58:54
Voice Over Guy: You've been listening to the Space Nuts
58:57
podcast, available at
59:00
Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
59:02
iHeartRadio or your favourite podcast
59:04
player. You can also stream on
59:06
demand at bitesz.com this has been another
59:09
quality podcast production from
59:11
bitesz.com