Latest / Space News Today / Space Chronicles: Blue Origin’s Boom, The Case for Primordial Black Holes | Space Nuts:...

Transcript

Space Chronicles: Blue Origin’s Boom, The Case for Primordial Black Holes | Space Nuts:... · Space News Today

• 0:02
  Hello again. Thank you for joining us.
• 0:04
  This is Space Nuts, where we talk
• 0:06
  astronomy and space science. My name is
• 0:09
  Andrew Dunley. Great to have your
• 0:10
  company. Well, you've probably been
• 0:12
  listening to Jonty for the last few
• 0:15
  weeks with Fred overseas, gallivanting
• 0:18
  as he does. He loves to gallivant. And
• 0:22
  he's back. And what we're going to talk
• 0:24
  about today, uh, all sorts of things.
• 0:26
  The Blue Origin blowout. You've probably
• 0:28
  seen the footage. Wow. Uh, primordial
• 0:31
  black holes, gravitational micro
• 0:33
  lensing, and is dark matter a fury.
• 0:36
  We'll deal with all of that today on
• 0:38
  Space Nuts.
• 0:40
  >> 15 seconds. Guidance is internal. 10 9g
• 0:44
  Ignition sequence start.
• 0:46
  >> Space nuts.
• 0:47
  >> 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1
• 0:52
  >> Space Nuts.
• 0:53
  >> Astronauts report. It feels good.
• 0:56
  >> And he's back. and he's looking well.
• 0:59
  It's Professor Fred Watson, astronomer
• 1:01
  at large. Hello, Fred.
• 1:03
  >> Hello, Andrew. You're looking well, too.
• 1:04
  It's nice to see you.
• 1:05
  >> Yeah, it's good to see you, too. I mean,
• 1:08
  it's been a while for both of us
• 1:09
  because, uh, we had to do a lot of
• 1:12
  catchup episodes, but we didn't quite
• 1:14
  have enough time to cover everything, so
• 1:16
  we brought Jonty in.
• 1:17
  >> Uh, but he and I had to do catchup
• 1:20
  episodes to cover an absence of mine.
• 1:23
  So, um I haven't actually recorded with
• 1:26
  you for quite a while.
• 1:28
  >> Yes. Yeah. Must be a couple of months or
• 1:30
  so.
• 1:30
  >> Yeah, it would be. But it doesn't sound
• 1:32
  like that to the audience. Really?
• 1:34
  >> No, probably not.
• 1:35
  >> Yes. It's all witchery.
• 1:39
  >> Well, we Yeah, I think so. I think so.
• 1:41
  Yeah, there's at least two or three of
• 1:42
  them.
• 1:43
  >> Yeah. Okay, good.
• 1:44
  >> So, where did where did you go? You you
• 1:47
  were all over the place.
• 1:48
  >> Uh yes. So it was uh a conference in
• 1:51
  Germany that took me up to Europe and
• 1:53
  that that actually wasn't really
• 1:56
  interesting um because in fact I was
• 1:59
  going to Scotland before that. I had a
• 2:01
  week with my daughters in Scotland and
• 2:03
  then off to Germany. But the trip there
• 2:05
  of course um we can't fly through the
• 2:08
  Middle East at the moment because of the
• 2:10
  war going on there. And so my flight via
• 2:15
  via Dubai, they were long cancelled, but
• 2:17
  Marley managed to pull me a flight up to
• 2:20
  Seoul in Korea. And then on thin air
• 2:24
  from Soul over the North Pole, and I've
• 2:27
  actually got a certificate to prove that
• 2:29
  I've been over the North Pole. It's over
• 2:32
  there. I can't go and grab it, but
• 2:34
  >> uh and then into into Helsinki, and then
• 2:36
  yes, it was cold. Then then um uh across
• 2:40
  to Edinburgh. So the the polar flight
• 2:42
  was really interesting because we
• 2:43
  started off in Seoul in Korea uh and
• 2:47
  then you know took off uh with with Vin
• 2:50
  Air and I expected us to head towards
• 2:53
  the towards the west cuz that's what you
• 2:56
  do. Uh but no, we headed to the east.
• 2:59
  Wow.
• 3:00
  >> And we actually went up between Russia
• 3:03
  and America. So up the Bearing Straight.
• 3:06
  Wow.
• 3:07
  >> So, it went far enough east that you
• 3:09
  could turn north right up the bearing
• 3:11
  straight. So, you got Russia on one
• 3:12
  side, America on the other, and then
• 3:14
  over the North Pole uh with with a
• 3:17
  little Polar certificate to prove it.
• 3:19
  Nice touchdown in Helsinki. Yeah.
• 3:21
  >> Uh an hour or so there, then a nice
• 3:23
  flight over to Edinburgh. And there was
• 3:25
  with my daughter directly. It was great.
• 3:28
  >> Yeah. Fantastic. Um I've got an Arctic
• 3:31
  Circle certificate, I think.
• 3:33
  >> Yes, you will have. Yeah, I've got one
• 3:34
  of those as well, a North Cape
• 3:35
  certificate, in fact.
• 3:36
  >> Oh, yeah.
• 3:38
  >> Yeah. Um, but the conference I went to
• 3:40
  in Germany, uh, was, um, it was the 60th
• 3:44
  birthday conference of a colleague with
• 3:46
  whom I've worked very closely, uh, on
• 3:48
  the rave survey, which we've talked
• 3:50
  about before, the radio velocity
• 3:51
  experiment. Uh, Matias Steinmet's hair,
• 3:54
  Dr. Professor Matias Steinmets, uh, very
• 3:57
  senior German astronomer now. He, uh,
• 4:00
  led the project. I was the project
• 4:01
  manager. So we worked very closely
• 4:03
  together with a team of people most of
• 4:05
  whom were at the conference to celebrate
• 4:07
  his 60th birthday. So I was the sole
• 4:10
  Australian representative so they made a
• 4:12
  bit of a fuss of me which was nice. Uh I
• 4:14
  got the the kickoff talk and uh and they
• 4:17
  they looked after me. Uh so it was very
• 4:19
  very good and I I picked up a lot of
• 4:21
  what's happening currently in the field
• 4:24
  of science that we're doing. Well we
• 4:25
  might mention some of that a bit later
• 4:26
  on in the show.
• 4:27
  >> Sounds good. Uh my trip uh was a little
• 4:30
  closer to home, only a 9-hour flight
• 4:32
  away. We went to uh Vietnam for two and
• 4:35
  a half weeks. And uh people jokingly
• 4:37
  said to me, "Don't mention the war." But
• 4:40
  don't mention the war. M
• 4:42
  >> it's uh it's still very sensitive
• 4:44
  subject and and imagine
• 4:46
  >> what blew my mind and this will be of
• 4:48
  interest to um I suppose American
• 4:51
  listeners because of America's
• 4:53
  involvement in the Vietnam War but um
• 4:55
  there is still strong division between
• 4:58
  North and South
• 4:59
  >> and it hasn't been forgotten even 50
• 5:02
  years after it ended there's still very
• 5:05
  much focused on the aftermath of of that
• 5:08
  conflict
• 5:11
  >> I suppose just because it had it was
• 5:12
  such a defining time in their history.
• 5:14
  And uh I mean the Vietnam War was only a
• 5:17
  part of what they dealt with. They
• 5:18
  they'd been dealing with colonialism
• 5:21
  prior to that from France for for
• 5:25
  decades and decades.
• 5:27
  >> Uh so it's quite extraordinary. There
• 5:30
  was a a great uh documentary series I
• 5:34
  think it was on SPS in Australia called
• 5:36
  The Birth of a Nation. And uh one of our
• 5:39
  guides actually mentioned it and said,
• 5:41
  "We'd love to see it over here, but
• 5:43
  we're not allowed."
• 5:45
  >> Oh, interesting.
• 5:46
  >> So, I watched it and um I'm going to try
• 5:49
  and figure out how to get it to him, but
• 5:50
  I don't know. I don't know.
• 5:52
  >> We'll see.
• 5:52
  >> You could get You could run a foul of uh
• 5:56
  diplomatic nicities if you tried that.
• 5:58
  Who knows?
• 5:59
  >> Could do. Could do. Anyway,
• 6:01
  >> especially if you talk about it on a
• 6:02
  public podcast.
• 6:03
  >> Yeah, maybe like you are doing now. Am
• 6:07
  I?
• 6:08
  >> They're probably not allowed to watch
• 6:09
  this over in Vietnam either.
• 6:11
  >> Maybe not. Maybe not.
• 6:13
  >> It was funny though cuz I was posting
• 6:14
  posting uh some little videos. I like
• 6:17
  like to do little videos while I'm away
• 6:18
  and I was posting them on Tik Tok. I
• 6:20
  picked up 140 Vietnamese followers.
• 6:24
  >> Oh, that's fantastic.
• 6:26
  >> Yeah, I thought it was cool.
• 6:27
  >> There you go. That at least I can watch
• 6:29
  your Tik Tok stuff.
• 6:30
  >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh particularly the one I
• 6:33
  did at uh Harong Bay. It's beautiful
• 6:35
  part of the world. And I only did a
• 6:37
  60-second sort of 360 degree scan of the
• 6:40
  the place. But uh for some reason that
• 6:43
  video's gone nuts. It's uh at last count
• 6:45
  had 14 and a half thousand views.
• 6:48
  >> Whoa.
• 6:50
  >> I don't understand it, but uh yeah, that
• 6:52
  was nice.
• 6:54
  >> And we did all the other stuff. Train
• 6:55
  Street, you know, where the train runs
• 6:57
  next to the cafes in in um
• 6:59
  >> No, I didn't. Yeah. Yeah. It's very
• 7:01
  popular.
• 7:02
  >> Somewhere I should go.
• 7:03
  >> Yeah. uh up in Hanoi and uh many other
• 7:05
  places. I won't I won't bore people to
• 7:07
  tears with it. We got to get down to
• 7:09
  business. Uh our first topic, Fred, is
• 7:12
  very explosive. This is the um the the
• 7:16
  Blue Origin not launch that happened the
• 7:19
  other day. Uh in fact, I don't even
• 7:21
  think it got an inch off the ground
• 7:23
  before it went up in a beautiful um
• 7:26
  nuclear plume.
• 7:27
  >> It was very like a nuclear plume. And
• 7:29
  no, it wasn't actually meant to get off
• 7:31
  the ground. This was a fire test. So it
• 7:33
  was fired. All right.
• 7:35
  >> Yeah, it did. Uh it was um um Yes.
• 7:39
  Basically testing out the engines for
• 7:42
  for a launch that was forthcoming that
• 7:44
  was going to take a whole lot of sat uh
• 7:47
  telecommunication satellites
• 7:50
  uh up uh into orbit. Uh they were
• 7:53
  fortunately not on the rocket. Um I
• 7:56
  think there were uh the Amazon Leo uh
• 7:59
  satellites which is the what used to be
• 8:01
  called Kiper uh and is perhaps the
• 8:04
  principal com competitor potentially to
• 8:07
  Starink. Um uh anyway the satellites
• 8:10
  were not on the on the booster uh and uh
• 8:16
  it's basically was to test fire it seven
• 8:19
  engines. This is the new Glenn booster
• 8:21
  which is Blue Origin's heavy lift
• 8:24
  booster. It's not as heavy lift as the
• 8:27
  SpaceX uh super heavy uh booster that
• 8:31
  takes the Starship up.
• 8:32
  >> It's not lifting anything now, is it?
• 8:34
  >> Uh it's not. No. And uh what's it it's
• 8:38
  got sort of serious ramifications
• 8:41
  because not only did they blow up the
• 8:44
  rocket, they also blew up the launch
• 8:45
  pad. Uh effectively there's a lot of
• 8:48
  damage uh to the launchpad which is if I
• 8:51
  remember right, it is at Cape Canaveral.
• 8:53
  >> Yeah, I think so. Uh and um that uh
• 8:57
  explosion has caused damage that people
• 8:59
  are now talking about several months if
• 9:02
  not a year or so to repair. Uh and
• 9:06
  that's bad because that's the only
• 9:07
  facility in the world that can launch
• 9:09
  the new Glenn booster.
• 9:11
  >> And the new Glen booster is needed for
• 9:13
  the Arteimus program. Uh uh in
• 9:17
  particular uh later this year there was
• 9:20
  supposed to be a test launch of the
• 9:24
  their Blue Moon lander. This is Blue
• 9:27
  Origins Luna lander um which is the uh
• 9:31
  the um basically uh the competition if I
• 9:36
  can put it that way with the SpaceX
• 9:38
  Starship. So NASA contracted both SpaceX
• 9:41
  and Blue Origin to develop a lander,
• 9:44
  Luna lander for the moon. SP X has
• 9:47
  theirs based on the Starship. Um this
• 9:51
  what is it 4 to 50 m tall? It's
• 9:53
  colossal.
• 9:54
  >> Uh to land that on a rough surface on
• 9:56
  the moon, I'm not sure I'd be that keen
• 9:59
  on that, but never mind. uh the uh the
• 10:02
  Blue Origin version, the Blue uh Blue
• 10:06
  Moon as it's called. Uh that is only
• 10:08
  eight stories high. Uh so it's it's uh
• 10:12
  shorter. Uh but these two are both in
• 10:15
  the running to land the first astronauts
• 10:17
  on the lunar surface in 2028. Yeah. Uh
• 10:20
  so um there was going to be a test of uh
• 10:23
  the the U New Glenn heavy lifter lifting
• 10:27
  up a blue moon um landing vehicle uh a
• 10:32
  prototype landing vehicle uh into into
• 10:35
  orbit and actually to touch it down on
• 10:36
  the moon and that was supposed to happen
• 10:38
  this year. That's clearly off the agenda
• 10:40
  now. Yeah. Uh and so um it's not going
• 10:43
  to happen. Actually, it's a little bit
• 10:44
  sad because I've just read today that
• 10:47
  that Luna lander um which of course
• 10:50
  wasn't on board the rocket when it
• 10:51
  exploded has just passed with flying
• 10:53
  colors its environmental test. There's
• 10:56
  an environmental test that everything
• 10:58
  goes through. is in a huge vacuum
• 11:00
  chamber um which is a NASA facility
• 11:04
  uh and you can you can change the uh the
• 11:08
  temperature to match those huge extremes
• 11:11
  of temperature that you would get on the
• 11:12
  moon. Uh so there the their prototype
• 11:15
  lunar lander the blue moon mark1 which
• 11:18
  is called endurance which is a great
• 11:21
  name because that's not what's happened
• 11:23
  to the booster but endurance has passed
• 11:25
  with flying colors. Sadly, at the
• 11:27
  moment, there's nothing to take it into
• 11:28
  space. So, we'll have to see how that
• 11:31
  evolves.
• 11:31
  >> Yeah, I think you you and I spoke about
• 11:35
  NASA looking at other options other than
• 11:37
  SpaceX um not long before you you went
• 11:40
  away and um and and now this is kind of,
• 11:45
  >> for one of a better term, blown up in
• 11:47
  Blue Origin's face because that takes
• 11:49
  them off the table, doesn't it? Uh it
• 11:51
  seems to for a while unless they can do
• 11:54
  some very rapid repairs to the launch
• 11:58
  vehic uh the sorry the launch site
• 12:01
  >> uh the launch facility. So yeah it could
• 12:03
  push back. So the idea was that late
• 12:06
  next year uh there would be the Optimus
• 12:09
  3 flight which would consist of these
• 12:12
  two potential lunar landing vehicles. Um
• 12:16
  the Starship on Space X's side, the Blue
• 12:18
  Moon on Blue Origin side. They were both
• 12:21
  going to be launched into Earth orbit uh
• 12:24
  to have um rendevous tests uh to
• 12:27
  demonstrate that their viability. Uh
• 12:29
  when you link them to the space launch
• 12:32
  system, the the basically the Orion
• 12:34
  spacecraft, which is what took the
• 12:36
  Arteimus 2 astronauts around the moon,
• 12:38
  that will take Artemis 3, beg you
• 12:41
  pardon, Otimus 4 astronauts to the moon,
• 12:44
  but to land they've got to transfer into
• 12:46
  another spacecraft and land on the lunar
• 12:48
  surface. So all that I think is being
• 12:52
  thrown into question uh with this
• 12:54
  explosion. We will wait to see. It's
• 12:56
  still too early. We don't even know what
• 12:58
  caused it yet. Uh it's it was only uh
• 13:01
  less than a week ago as we as we speak.
• 13:04
  Uh it was so we don't actually know what
• 13:07
  the consequences are likely to be, but
• 13:09
  they could be quite serious for the
• 13:12
  Otimus program.
• 13:13
  >> Yeah. Uh, I mean, uh, I think Elon Musk
• 13:16
  calls these things, um, successful
• 13:19
  failures. I I don't know.
• 13:22
  >> A rapid unscheduled disintegration.
• 13:24
  >> Yes. I don't know what Jeff Bezos calls
• 13:26
  them, but um,
• 13:29
  >> yeah, hopefully they can get down to the
• 13:30
  bottom of it, but it Yeah, it does throw
• 13:32
  a spanner into the works. Maybe it was a
• 13:34
  spanner thrown into the works that
• 13:35
  caused the explosion. Who who knows? The
• 13:38
  the one good news story part of the
• 13:40
  story is nobody was injured.
• 13:43
  Yeah. Wow. Because it, you know, when
• 13:45
  you, as you said, it looked like a
• 13:46
  nuclear explosion. It was incredible.
• 13:49
  >> Uh, and um the so there was huge
• 13:52
  potential for injury there, but but
• 13:54
  everybody was accounted for.
• 13:56
  >> I I actually read today that some people
• 13:59
  who watched the explosion
• 14:02
  um this this sort of demonstrates how
• 14:03
  big and powerful it was took 37 seconds
• 14:08
  to feel the shock wave.
• 14:11
  >> Really? So they must have been a long
• 14:13
  way away.
• 14:13
  >> Yeah. But they could see it quite
• 14:15
  clearly. It was such a big explosion.
• 14:17
  But the shock wave took 37 seconds to
• 14:20
  reach
• 14:20
  >> there. That's amazing.
• 14:23
  >> Yeah. All right. Um so uh yeah, it it
• 14:26
  does sort of throw into question the
• 14:28
  future of Blue Origin um partnering with
• 14:31
  NASA for Artimus 3, but uh never write
• 14:35
  these people off. I've I've discovered
• 14:39
  >> we're not doing that. Um they will rise
• 14:42
  phoenix-l like from the ashes but it the
• 14:44
  question is how soon and what it will do
• 14:46
  to NASA's schedule.
• 14:47
  >> Exactly with Artemis. Yeah.
• 14:49
  >> More to come on that and you can read
• 14:51
  about it uh at the conversation website.
• 14:54
  This is Space Nuts. Andrew Dunley with
• 14:56
  Professor Fred Watson.
• 15:00
  Let's take a short break from the show
• 15:01
  to tell you about our sponsor NordVPN
• 15:04
  and to discuss your online privacy.
• 15:07
  Because let's face it, these days,
• 15:09
  whether you're browsing at home or
• 15:11
  jumping onto public Wi-Fi at a cafe or
• 15:14
  an airport or wherever, your data is
• 15:17
  constantly at risk. Hackers, trackers,
• 15:19
  even companies you've never heard of.
• 15:22
  They're all trying to get a piece of
• 15:23
  your digital life. And that's where
• 15:26
  NordVPN comes in. Uh our sponsor is
• 15:30
  fantastic. It's it's one I've been using
• 15:32
  for many years now myself and I have
• 15:36
  absolute faith in their product. NordVPN
• 15:39
  encrypts your internet connection, hides
• 15:41
  your IP address, and keeps your personal
• 15:44
  information safe from prying eyes. It's
• 15:47
  like uh putting an entire online world
• 15:50
  inside a secure tunnel. They've got over
• 15:53
  7,700 servers worldwide. You can browse
• 15:57
  fast, safely, and without restrictions.
• 16:01
  Plus, features like threat protection
• 16:03
  and ultraast speeds with Nord Links mean
• 16:06
  you're not sacrificing performance for
• 16:09
  security. You get both. Right now, you
• 16:12
  can grab our special space nuts deal and
• 16:15
  get 4 months extra for free. Plus,
• 16:17
  there's a 30-day money back guarantee.
• 16:20
  So, it's completely risk-f free to try.
• 16:22
  Just head along to our special URL,
• 16:25
  nordvpn.com/spacenuts.
• 16:29
  That's nordvpn.com/spacenuts.
• 16:32
  And don't forget to use the code
• 16:34
  spacenuts. That's nordvpn.com/spacenuts.
• 16:41
  Stay safe, stay private with nordvpn,
• 16:46
  our sponsor.
• 16:47
  >> Okay, we checked all four systems and
• 16:50
  with the go.
• 16:50
  >> Space Nuts
• 16:51
  >> now. And next story, Fred, uh, has a lot
• 16:55
  of moving parts as well. Nothing
• 16:57
  explosive, but uh, we're we're talking
• 17:00
  what primordial black holes and
• 17:02
  gravitational microlensing. Is that is
• 17:04
  that
• 17:05
  >> what it's about?
• 17:06
  >> It it's uh certainly the gravitational
• 17:08
  microlensing. Uh, what it means for
• 17:11
  primordial black holes, we remains to be
• 17:14
  seen, but uh, it's a good opportunity to
• 17:16
  talk about it and talk about the latest
• 17:18
  research on this. So, what's the story?
• 17:20
  Um on the night of the 18th of December
• 17:24
  2019,
• 17:26
  uh there was uh a microlensing event
• 17:30
  observed with a star in the large
• 17:33
  Melanic cloud, the the the nearest of
• 17:35
  our sort of largeish galactic neighbors,
• 17:38
  the um the the the satellite galaxy of
• 17:41
  our Milky Way, 165,000 light years away
• 17:44
  as the crow flies as far as I remember.
• 17:47
  So um what's a microlensing event? Well,
• 17:50
  something passes in front of a star. Uh,
• 17:53
  you can't actually see the something
• 17:55
  because it's too faint. You can see the
• 17:57
  light of the star. And you might think
• 18:00
  there's something passing in front of a
• 18:01
  star, it would dim the light of the
• 18:04
  star. But actually, if the geometry is
• 18:07
  right, in other words, if the if there's
• 18:08
  something that passes between you and
• 18:10
  the star is far enough away from the
• 18:12
  star, you get the opposite effect. the
• 18:15
  um distortion of the space around the
• 18:17
  invisible object uh actually acts as a
• 18:20
  magnifying glass and so you get a
• 18:23
  brightening of the light of the distant
• 18:25
  star. Uh and this is a phenomenon known
• 18:28
  as gravitational microlensing. It's well
• 18:30
  established, well observed. Uh there's a
• 18:32
  team in New Zealand which um is very
• 18:35
  very adept at these microlensing
• 18:38
  observations. Uh so um what we see when
• 18:43
  that happens is a rise in the brightness
• 18:45
  of the star and then a fall in the
• 18:48
  brightness of the background star uh
• 18:51
  which you we call a excuse me we call a
• 18:54
  light curve. It's the way the light
• 18:56
  changes over time. You can plot it out
• 18:58
  as a graph and it's got a very
• 19:00
  characteristic shape. It's a bit like a
• 19:02
  a rather elongated volcano. It's got a
• 19:05
  steady rise to a peak and then a rapid
• 19:09
  fall that falls away very like the
• 19:11
  flanks of a a volcano. So that's the
• 19:14
  sort of shape. So this uh was the event
• 19:17
  that was observed on the 18th of
• 19:20
  December.
• 19:21
  Can't remember which telescope it was
• 19:23
  used. Uh but we have a group of
• 19:27
  Australians who are directly involved
• 19:30
  with this. Uh so they the question is
• 19:35
  what was the object that passed in front
• 19:38
  of the star?
• 19:39
  >> Guess
• 19:41
  >> maybe a primordial black hole.
• 19:44
  >> Well that's that's the perhaps the most
• 19:47
  um provocative explanation. Uh they've
• 19:52
  given it a name this thing. They've
• 19:53
  called it Phoebe which is I think a
• 19:55
  lovely name actually. Um but uh the
• 19:59
  issue is it is kind of too small to be
• 20:05
  anything normal if you put it that way.
• 20:10
  >> Um so what are the possibilities? One is
• 20:15
  a what we sometimes call a rogue planet
• 20:18
  or a an orphan planet. Better known
• 20:21
  perhaps as a free floating planet. In
• 20:23
  other words, a planetary sized object.
• 20:26
  maybe something that's been ejected from
• 20:28
  its solar system or something that never
• 20:31
  gained enough mass to become a star and
• 20:33
  it's just sort of wandering uh through
• 20:36
  the galaxy. Uh there we know there are
• 20:38
  many of these things. Uh so that could
• 20:41
  be one of the uh one of the explanations
• 20:44
  for it. But uh the the issue is this
• 20:48
  thing has basically got a very very
• 20:53
  small mass. Uh it's only about three
• 20:56
  times the mass of the moon.
• 20:58
  >> Oh.
• 20:58
  >> Uh and that's kind of small for a
• 21:01
  planet. Uh so it suggests it's an object
• 21:06
  that is, you know, not a dwarf planet or
• 21:10
  sorry, a rogue planet or an orphan
• 21:12
  planet. Um and it points towards this
• 21:15
  much more exotic notion of a primordial
• 21:19
  black hole. Uh which you've kind of, you
• 21:22
  know, you've already flagged. Uh, and
• 21:24
  that's where it gets really exciting.
• 21:26
  So, primordial black holes, we've talked
• 21:29
  about them before. They were predicted
• 21:32
  by Steven Hawking. Um, they were
• 21:36
  predicted by him to have been a
• 21:38
  byproduct of the big bang. In other
• 21:41
  words, these are things that don't form
• 21:44
  from collapsing stars like the stellar
• 21:46
  mass black holes that we see, but from
• 21:50
  um well, basically um fluctuations in
• 21:54
  the density uh in the first few
• 21:58
  milliseconds after the big bang, the
• 22:01
  density of that hot medium. Uh, in other
• 22:03
  words, you know, if you could get these
• 22:05
  little spots that collapse
• 22:07
  instantaneously to become a black hole,
• 22:10
  what you'll produce in the big bang is
• 22:12
  not just time and space, but you litter
• 22:15
  it with these primordial black holes.
• 22:18
  And I think it's from Hawking's work
• 22:22
  that we assume that they can be any size
• 22:24
  you like. Um they can be you know
• 22:27
  perhaps uh super massive black holes
• 22:30
  which we know are the centers of
• 22:31
  galaxies uh or smaller than stellar mass
• 22:36
  black holes. And so by a stellar mass
• 22:38
  black hole we mean one that has a mass
• 22:40
  of about not too different from a star.
• 22:43
  In fact typically about five times the
• 22:45
  mass of the sun. Um and they are thought
• 22:48
  to have been caused by a star exploding
• 22:50
  at the end of its life. The core
• 22:52
  collapses. uh nothing will stop the
• 22:54
  collapse and it goes into becoming a
• 22:55
  black hole. But for a star to behave
• 22:58
  like that, it's got to be massive. It's
• 23:01
  got to be at least well five to 10 times
• 23:03
  the mass of the sun. Um so that does not
• 23:06
  account for things that are three times
• 23:09
  the mass of the moon. Uh but if you can
• 23:13
  have um if you can have primordial black
• 23:16
  holes of any mass then that makes Phoebe
• 23:21
  a very distinct candidate for a a
• 23:26
  primordial black hole. Um I might
• 23:28
  mention that the researchers who've done
• 23:31
  this uh work are at Swimburn University
• 23:34
  in Melbourne uh an university very
• 23:37
  active in its studies of actually most
• 23:40
  phenomena to do with our galaxy. Uh
• 23:43
  they've got some extremely talented
• 23:45
  scientists there some of whom I know
• 23:46
  quite well.
• 23:47
  >> Um so uh it's it's definitely a
• 23:51
  microlensing event. Something has caused
• 23:53
  this phenomenon. Uh the question is what
• 23:56
  is it?
• 23:58
  So let me um
• 24:01
  segue if I may to one of the talks at
• 24:05
  the conference that I was at in Germany.
• 24:07
  >> Yeah.
• 24:08
  >> Uh given by people who are well in this
• 24:11
  case it was a black hole specialist
• 24:13
  >> and he was saying that the the evidence
• 24:18
  for primordial black holes is growing.
• 24:24
  Uh and this is just one more example of
• 24:26
  it. this the the example of Phoebe here.
• 24:29
  Uh but he also said he thought this was
• 24:32
  the next big thing in black hole science
• 24:36
  uh to actually determine the reality of
• 24:40
  primordial black holes whether they are
• 24:42
  there or whether they're just a a wild
• 24:44
  prediction of of Professor Hawking. Um
• 24:48
  but he also made the comment the comment
• 24:51
  sorry not the comet he made the comment
• 24:54
  that uh it was his belief that the next
• 24:58
  Nobel Prize in astronomy or physics is
• 25:00
  is the way it goes would be the
• 25:03
  discovery of a primordial black hole. In
• 25:07
  other words
• 25:08
  finding absolutely rocksolid evidence
• 25:11
  that primordial black holes exist. Now,
• 25:13
  Phoebe is not that rockolid evidence
• 25:16
  because we've got multiple theories.
• 25:18
  >> Uh, yeah, multiple theories. It could
• 25:20
  even be uh, you know, a a lost satellite
• 25:24
  of a planet that's been chucked out of
• 25:26
  its solar system.
• 25:28
  >> So, it could be an object like the moon
• 25:30
  or Mercury or something like that.
• 25:32
  >> But that seems unlikely. Um, but and in
• 25:35
  fact, the um the, you know, the the
• 25:38
  primordial mass black hole idea I think
• 25:40
  is much more interesting. It's one that
• 25:43
  I'm sure will be looked at in detail.
• 25:46
  The problem with these gravitational
• 25:48
  micro lenting events, Andrew, is you
• 25:50
  only get one shot at it. You never see
• 25:52
  the object again. So Phoebe's basically
• 25:55
  never going to be seen again. All we've
• 25:57
  seen is the effect of it passing in
• 25:59
  front of a star.
• 26:00
  >> Yeah. Um, so, uh, what we've got to look
• 26:04
  for is other perhaps other similar
• 26:07
  phenomena, uh, or something that is an
• 26:10
  unequivocally a black hole but has a
• 26:12
  mass less than the sun. And we did talk
• 26:14
  about a candidate object uh, before we
• 26:18
  both went on our various surn. Uh, we
• 26:20
  did talk about an object like that. I'd
• 26:22
  need to look it up to find out what it
• 26:24
  was. But if, you know, if we can nail
• 26:26
  one of these things and say that is
• 26:28
  definitely what it is. Um, in fact, the
• 26:31
  object we talked about was the result of
• 26:33
  a, I think, a collision that was
• 26:35
  measured with gravitational waves. So,
• 26:37
  all this is perhaps pointing to the idea
• 26:40
  of primordial mass black holes. Somebody
• 26:42
  will nail it before too long and they'll
• 26:44
  probably get the Nobel Prize. Well, I
• 26:47
  suppose we shouldn't be surprised
• 26:49
  because in the past we've had theories
• 26:52
  about things existing and voila,
• 26:54
  suddenly we find an exoplanet and now we
• 26:57
  found thousands and thousands of them.
• 26:59
  So, it stands to reason that this is
• 27:01
  just another progression in that regard.
• 27:02
  We're
• 27:04
  >> the evidence is stacking up. We haven't
• 27:06
  confirmed one yet, but it sounds like
• 27:09
  it's going to happen. Yeah, I think
• 27:12
  that's right. I think we're on the track
• 27:14
  of uh a whole new regime of physics. And
• 27:20
  of course, uh primordial black holes are
• 27:23
  one potential candidate for dark matter.
• 27:26
  Mhm.
• 27:27
  >> Um, which was ruled out in the 1990s,
• 27:33
  maybe prematurely. It was ruled out
• 27:35
  because we didn't see a whole lot of
• 27:38
  these microlending events, which you'd
• 27:40
  expect to see if there was a lot of
• 27:42
  primordial mass black holes. Maybe it's
• 27:45
  just that we weren't looking hard enough
• 27:46
  that we missed them.
• 27:48
  >> Maybe.
• 27:48
  >> Um, yeah,
• 27:49
  >> I never look hard enough for anything.
• 27:51
  No.
• 27:51
  >> Well, well, that's cuz you're a you're a
• 27:54
  male. Yeah, you're a bloke and we don't
• 27:57
  we we look at something and we just
• 27:59
  don't see it.
• 28:00
  >> No. No.
• 28:03
  >> Which is, you know, not real good for
• 28:06
  human history because weren't we the
• 28:07
  hunters? Like we were supposed to be
• 28:09
  able to see stuff that quite
• 28:12
  >> Oh dear. Uh it's a a really fascinating
• 28:15
  story and I venture to say there'll be
• 28:18
  more on this in the not too distant
• 28:20
  future, but you can read about it uh
• 28:21
  great article about it on the
• 28:23
  universetoday.com
• 28:25
  website. You're listening to and
• 28:28
  possibly viewing space nuts with Andrew
• 28:30
  Dunley and Professor Fred Watson.
• 28:35
  >> Roger. Also,
• 28:37
  >> Space Nuts. Now, final story, Fred,
• 28:39
  intrigues me for one very good reason.
• 28:42
  It's one of the pet topics of our
• 28:44
  audience. We get a lot of questions
• 28:45
  about dark energy. But this s story pers
• 28:50
  the question, did we actually invent
• 28:53
  dark energy for nothing? Why are they
• 28:55
  suggesting that?
• 28:58
  >> Um,
• 28:59
  yeah, it's all mathematics.
• 29:03
  And I'd like just to refer uh listeners
• 29:06
  and viewers uh at the outset to a very
• 29:09
  nice article uh on this uh from um our
• 29:14
  much admired Universe Today uh website
• 29:17
  that's kind of an old friend of of um of
• 29:21
  Space Nuts, an article written by Mark
• 29:23
  Thompson uh which really very eloquently
• 29:27
  puts this story into perspective. And
• 29:30
  I'm I'm going to quote Mark. I hope he
• 29:32
  won't mind me doing that. Um it because
• 29:34
  he he introduces this uh this article by
• 29:37
  saying stand a pencil on its end and
• 29:40
  mathematically speaking it's perfectly
• 29:43
  balanced. Every force is accounted for
• 29:44
  and the equations are satisfied. And yet
• 29:47
  you already know what happens next, the
• 29:49
  slightest disturbance and it topples. A
• 29:51
  solution that exists on paper but can
• 29:54
  never survive contact with reality. In
• 29:58
  other words, um something that's stable
• 30:01
  but only stable briefly. Uh I think I'm
• 30:05
  paraphrasing what he's getting at with
• 30:07
  that. Yeah. Uh but just to read a little
• 30:09
  bit further uh from Mark's article,
• 30:11
  that's the image Blake Temple, a
• 30:13
  mathematician at the University of
• 30:14
  California, Davis, uses to describe our
• 30:17
  best model of the universe. And it's a
• 30:19
  deeply uncomfortable one. And so I think
• 30:22
  the way this story evolves is that yes
• 30:26
  we've uh for 30 years almost 30 years
• 30:28
  it's 1998
• 30:30
  when the accelerated expansion of the
• 30:33
  universe was discovered.
• 30:35
  >> Yeah.
• 30:36
  >> Uh by uh my colleague um Bradmitt and
• 30:40
  his uh uh his actually competitors over
• 30:44
  over the Pacific Soul Pul Muta and his
• 30:47
  team. uh they they jointly won the Nobel
• 30:49
  Prize in 2011 for that discovery that
• 30:53
  the um the accelerate the expansion of
• 30:56
  the universe is accelerating and so um
• 30:59
  the issue was to try and explain that
• 31:02
  and that's why dark energy was
• 31:05
  introduced as a as a concept uh an
• 31:08
  invisible
• 31:10
  outward pressure um that is part of
• 31:13
  space uh just pushes space and
• 31:16
  everything in it apart. part. Um and so
• 31:20
  that's where we get our idea of dark
• 31:23
  energy from. But um this um
• 31:27
  mathematician uh Blake Temple has said
• 31:32
  okay maybe we're taking too simplistic a
• 31:36
  view of all this. Uh and uh I think it's
• 31:41
  a group of uh of mathematicians led by
• 31:44
  Dr. Temple. uh they've got a paper in
• 31:46
  the proceedings of the Royal Society.
• 31:48
  You don't get papers in there if they're
• 31:49
  rubbish. So, no.
• 31:51
  >> Uh there's something to think about
• 31:52
  there. And they've actually uh
• 31:55
  mathematically demonstrated
• 31:58
  that our u model of the expansion of the
• 32:03
  universe with dark energy in it is
• 32:07
  unstable. Uh it's something that can't
• 32:11
  survive.
• 32:12
  Um and that's
• 32:16
  almost uh means that you can rule it out
• 32:21
  uh in the world of physics. Uh if you've
• 32:24
  got a solution that's unstable uh then
• 32:27
  it shouldn't it shouldn't happen. And so
• 32:30
  um what u uh Dr. Temple and his
• 32:34
  associates are proposing is that we've
• 32:37
  got it wrong. uh and that uh the model
• 32:41
  of the universe that we that we have
• 32:45
  which assumes that matter is basically
• 32:49
  spread throughout the universe. You know
• 32:50
  that the universe isotropic. It's the
• 32:53
  same in all directions. Uh is suggesting
• 32:57
  that that is also unstable.
• 33:01
  um and that really we have to take into
• 33:04
  account the fact that the universe isn't
• 33:06
  the same everywhere. Um it's uh it's I
• 33:12
  can't really go in deeply to the
• 33:14
  mathematics because I'm actually looked
• 33:16
  at the the the original paper. Um and so
• 33:20
  I haven't followed the mathematical
• 33:23
  um steps in the process. And between you
• 33:26
  and me, Andrew, I probably couldn't
• 33:28
  anyway even if I looked at the paper.
• 33:31
  I do remember what some of the equations
• 33:34
  that uh that govern this sort of thing
• 33:36
  look like. And I do remember the
• 33:37
  emotional response that my my psyche
• 33:41
  gets to them. But basically um what
• 33:44
  they're saying is that uh
• 33:49
  that accelerated expansion
• 33:52
  um is actually part of what Einstein
• 33:57
  suggested in the first place um without
• 34:01
  the need to invoke dark energy. Uh and
• 34:05
  it it's it's it's I'm simplifying I
• 34:09
  guess uh what um Mark the the author of
• 34:13
  this this article has written. Uh but
• 34:15
  the bottom line is that um our our um
• 34:19
  view of the universe on its largest
• 34:22
  scale is probably naive. It's probably
• 34:26
  we've perhaps oversimplified it and as a
• 34:29
  result of that we've come out with the
• 34:31
  wrong answer. Um, I might just
• 34:34
  >> That's a really big call though, isn't
• 34:36
  it?
• 34:36
  >> It's a huge call. Absolutely huge call.
• 34:39
  Uh,
• 34:41
  I I Let me just wind up with the last
• 34:44
  paragraph that uh
• 34:45
  >> Yeah, I was just looking at that myself
• 34:48
  >> because that's the Yeah, that Mark
• 34:49
  Thompson's written. I think it really
• 34:51
  sums it up. Dark energy has never felt
• 34:54
  entirely comfortable to many scientists.
• 34:56
  Einstein himself introduced something
• 34:58
  very like it, which he called his
• 34:59
  cosmological constant. then subsequently
• 35:02
  called it his biggest blunder. It was
• 35:04
  quietly resurrected in the 1990s when
• 35:06
  the data demanded it. That's when the
• 35:08
  accelerated expansion was discovered.
• 35:11
  Now the mathematics might be telling us
• 35:13
  it was never needed in the first place.
• 35:15
  The universe, it turns out, may be s
• 35:17
  stranger and simpler than we thought,
• 35:21
  only both at the same time. It's a great
• 35:23
  article. I encourage all our listeners
• 35:26
  to have a look at it. Yes, it's at the
• 35:28
  universitytoday.com
• 35:29
  website or you can read the paper at the
• 35:32
  proceedings of the Royal Society. But uh
• 35:34
  I dare say we haven't heard the last of
• 35:36
  this.
• 35:38
  >> Uh and what if what if we have got it
• 35:40
  wrong? What if dark energy is a fury? Um
• 35:43
  that that's the that's the big question.
• 35:45
  But uh they they seem to be
• 35:48
  >> ing towards the probability that it that
• 35:50
  it is in fact a fury.
• 35:52
  >> That that's right. Um, you know, uh,
• 35:57
  I suspect that, um, this theory, uh, if
• 36:02
  you, if you eliminate the need for dark
• 36:04
  energy, you might well eliminate the
• 36:06
  need for dark matter as well.
• 36:08
  >> Uh, or it might turn out to be
• 36:11
  primordial black holes. Look, we're
• 36:12
  we've covered two potential uh,
• 36:16
  solutions to the dark matter problem in
• 36:18
  this in this episode. Uh, nobody can
• 36:21
  accuse us of not addressing the big
• 36:23
  questions, Andrew.
• 36:24
  >> Absolutely. We just don't give them the
• 36:26
  big answers.
• 36:26
  >> We don't give them the answers. No,
• 36:28
  that's right.
• 36:28
  >> Leave that to somebody else
• 36:30
  >> because we don't know.
• 36:31
  >> No, we don't. No, we don't. But, uh, no,
• 36:33
  fascinating, fascinating story. Couple
• 36:35
  of fascinating stories. Uh, and it all
• 36:38
  started with a big bang called Blue
• 36:39
  Origin. Um,
• 36:40
  >> yes, it did. That's right. It was a huge
• 36:43
  bang.
• 36:43
  >> It was. Uh, that brings us to the end.
• 36:46
  Fred, thank you very much.
• 36:48
  >> It's a pleasure, Andrew. Always good to
• 36:50
  have a chat and uh bring to the
• 36:52
  forefront exactly what's happening in
• 36:54
  the deep depths of the universe.
• 36:56
  >> Indeed. And good to have you back too.
• 36:58
  Thank you. Professor Fred Watson,
• 37:00
  astronomer at large. Uh don't forget to
• 37:01
  visit us online at our website if you so
• 37:04
  desire. Uh spaceodcast.com.
• 37:06
  You can click on the AMA link at the top
• 37:09
  and ask us anything or ask u anybody
• 37:12
  anything really, but we always make
• 37:14
  comments. Uh you can sign up for the
• 37:16
  astron astronomy daily feed. Uh you can
• 37:19
  become a supporter if you so desire. And
• 37:20
  don't forget to leave uh reviews at your
• 37:23
  favorite podcasting platform. Wherever
• 37:25
  you listen to us, reviews are really
• 37:27
  useful, unless they're bad. But then
• 37:29
  again, there are some people who like
• 37:30
  bad because they want to see what all
• 37:32
  the fuss is about. Uh but don't do it.
• 37:34
  Don't you want to? I'm not going to tell
• 37:36
  you what to do. Um but anyway, that's
• 37:38
  it. And thanks to Hugh in the studio who
• 37:41
  couldn't be with us today because he's a
• 37:42
  fury. And from me, Andrew Dunley, thanks
• 37:44
  for your company on this edition. and
• 37:46
  we'll catch you on the next episode of
• 37:48
  Space Nuts. Bye-bye.
• 37:50
  >> Space Nuts.
• 37:51
  >> You've been listening to the Space Nuts
• 37:53
  podcast
• 37:56
  >> available at Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
• 37:59
  iHeart Radio, or your favorite podcast
• 38:01
  player. You can also stream on demand at
• 38:04
  bites.com. This has been another quality
• 38:06
  podcast production from byes.com.