Latest / Space Nuts: Astronomy Insights & Cosmic Discoveries / Full Moon Myths, Space Curvature & The Simulation Debate

Transcript

Full Moon Myths, Space Curvature & The Simulation Debate · Space Nuts: Astronomy Insights & Cosmic Discoveries

0:00
Professor Fred Watson: Hi there.
0:00
Andrew Dunkley: Thanks for joining us on Space Nuts, a Q and
0:02
A edition. This is where the audience sends
0:05
questions in. Sometimes they send us
0:07
homework, sometimes they send us in a
0:09
request. We've got a bit of all that today
0:12
and we're going to, uh, hear about the full
0:15
moon effects, or not. Uh,
0:18
curved space, light speed, uh,
0:21
in terms of detecting somebody who's in
0:24
a spacecraft doing light speed. Can we do
0:26
that? Could we?
0:27
Andrew Dunkley: And are we living in a simulation of the
0:30
universe? Those questions will be answered
0:33
possibly today on this edition of
0:36
space nuts.
0:37
Voice Over Guy: 15 seconds. Guidance is internal.
0:39
10, 9. Ignition
0:42
sequence start. Space nuts. 5, 4, 3,
0:45
2. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4,
0:48
3, 2, 1. Space nuts. Astronauts
0:51
report. It feels good.
0:53
Andrew Dunkley: And, uh, joining us to sort all of that
0:56
out, maybe, maybe not, it's Professor
0:58
Fred Watson Watson, Astronomer at large. Hi,
1:00
Fred.
1:00
Professor Fred Watson: Hello, Andrew. Here I am back again.
1:03
Andrew Dunkley: Good to see you. Good to see you. Yes,
1:06
yes, indeed.
1:07
Uh, I suppose we should start with, uh,
1:10
not so much a question, but a request for
1:13
clarification on something that was, uh,
1:16
spoken about in an earlier episode.
1:18
Uh, and this comes from Peter and he's, uh,
1:20
in the Adelaide Hills, uh, down in South
1:23
Australia. Hi, Space Nuts. Love your show,
1:25
but I'm afraid I have to call out some pseudo
1:27
science that Heidi propagated in the most
1:30
recent episode about the full moon. With,
1:32
surprisingly, no pushback from Fred Watson.
1:35
You're both in trouble, both of you. Uh,
1:38
uh, some animals are affected by the cycles
1:40
of the moon and there is huge anecdotal
1:42
evidence by police, nurses, et cetera, about
1:45
increased activity during a full moon. But
1:48
science relies on data, not anecdotes. And
1:51
several large studies and meta analyses
1:54
have shown that the full moon effect is not
1:56
real. The data of these organisations shows
1:59
no increased activity during a full moon. I
2:02
think this should be corrected on air so as
2:04
not to mislead your. Well, he says viewers,
2:07
listeners, both. We've got both. There are
2:09
already enough mythical, um, beliefs out
2:12
there. Thanks. Path Peter from Adelaide
2:14
Hills. Before you respond to that,
2:16
Fred Watson, I might say, and this is
2:18
anecdotal, that, uh, when I started
2:21
in radio, I did five years of midnight to
2:24
dawns, uh, working from midnight till 5,
2:27
midnight till 6, 1 till 5, all sorts of
2:30
weird overnight hours. And I can tell
2:33
you without, without a shadow of a doubt
2:36
if there was a full moon. It
2:39
got really weird. I got the
2:41
strangest phone calls from the strangest
2:44
people and it happened without fail.
2:47
And, uh, I mean, it didn't just happen on
2:50
full moons, but it happened a lot more
2:53
whenever there was Going to be a full moon
2:55
and I was on air, I'd go, oh, no, no,
2:58
not tonight, please. But it's
3:01
true. I don't know why, but it just,
3:04
um. And it's not me perceiving that because
3:06
never think about it any other night, but it
3:09
just happened much more
3:12
significantly, I suppose, with strange, uh,
3:14
phone calls and, and weirdisms. But it's
3:17
anecdotal. Yes, that bit.
3:19
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, that's right. And Peter's right,
3:21
absolutely right, that, um, the statistics
3:23
don't bear it out. Uh, the reason that
3:26
didn't crop up in the particular show was, if
3:29
I remember rightly, it was right at the end,
3:31
uh, and Heidi was sort of finishing
3:34
on a high note. It might even have been at
3:35
the end of Heidi's last show. And I
3:38
didn't really want to say, well, you're wrong
3:40
there. Because, uh,
3:43
not that I'd ever say that of course, but
3:45
yes, I know, I know that the statistics don't
3:47
bear it out. I suspect, um,
3:50
what increases perhaps the
3:53
visibility of things like that is just the
3:55
fact that you can see more. Yeah, the fact
3:58
that the sky is bright during full moon. And
4:00
so we do get this impression that
4:03
all hell breaks loose. I know you talk to
4:04
nurses, they always say the same thing. Uh,
4:07
and um, yeah, teachers say that kids are
4:10
all strappy at full moon. That might be
4:12
because they don't sleep as well. And maybe
4:14
that's part of the problem that people, if
4:16
they sleep with their curtains open or they
4:19
don't have proper blockout curtains, they're
4:21
going to get a poor night's sleep because
4:22
it's so bright out there, the full moon.
4:24
Andrew Dunkley: It could be as simple as that, Fred Watson.
4:25
Could absolutely be as simple as that. Having
4:28
experienced. And you have done this too, um,
4:31
24 hour daylight.
4:33
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
4:33
Andrew Dunkley: I can understand how it would interfere with
4:36
your normal sleep patterns. In fact, uh,
4:38
while we were on the, on the ship recently up
4:40
in the Arctic Circle in, in the northern
4:42
summer, people did complain about poor
4:45
sleep simply because they had window
4:48
cabins. And it was bright
4:51
all the time, 24 hours a day, not, not
4:54
glowingly bright. I mean, it got
4:57
down to sort of twilight levels at some
4:59
stages, but it was never dark
5:02
and that. Yeah, a few of us
5:05
who weren't used to it
5:07
certainly felt the, felt the effect. Uh, we
5:10
had an interior cabin by, by choice because
5:12
we knew we, we'd be up there for this. So,
5:15
um, we, we didn't have any trouble sleeping
5:18
because we blacked out. But, um, um,
5:21
but yeah, if you had a window cabin or a
5:23
Balcony cabin or something. Yeah, it was, it
5:26
was a different story. Um, um. But yeah, I,
5:29
and I. And I also wonder if it's
5:31
just, um, you know, in my experience with
5:34
overnight radio and the weird phone calls I
5:37
used to get on full moons, if it was an
5:38
effect of people just thinking, oh, it's a
5:41
full moon, let's just be
5:44
galoots and carry on like pork chops,
5:46
you know, maybe let's
5:49
pretend.
5:50
Professor Fred Watson: Let's pretend that we're all going lunatics.
5:52
Andrew Dunkley: Dark ravens.
5:52
Professor Fred Watson: That's where the word comes from.
5:54
Andrew Dunkley: That's true, yes.
5:55
Professor Fred Watson: Yes.
5:56
Andrew Dunkley: Uh, although that, that suggests that this is
5:59
not a new phenomenon either.
6:00
Professor Fred Watson: Exactly. That's right.
6:03
Andrew Dunkley: So, um, yes, you'd
6:06
need a lot of evidence to back up claims that
6:08
the moon does cause certain
6:11
ill effects in the, in the human psyche.
6:13
But, um, studies prove otherwise.
6:16
But yeah, he's right about the animals. I
6:18
mean, they live. Just about everything
6:21
on Earth's affected by the, um, by the moon
6:23
in some way or another.
6:25
Professor Fred Watson: Humans are too. Um, not denying that there's
6:28
monthly cycles in human physiology.
6:31
So.
6:32
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, absolutely. So, yes, um,
6:34
debunked, Peter.
6:36
Professor Fred Watson: So well spotted though, Peter. Um,
6:38
it's good to have an opportunity to talk
6:40
about it again, for sure.
6:43
Andrew Dunkley: Thanks, Peter. Hope you're well.
6:44
Um. When we were in Adelaide Hills, uh, which
6:47
would have been in June, a couple of weeks
6:50
after we got on board the ship, the weather
6:51
was dreadful. And,
6:54
uh, we went up to Matt Lofty to see the
6:57
beautiful view. We saw a fence and then you
7:00
couldn't see anything beyond it because it
7:01
was so cloudy and windy and wet.
7:04
Actually, I should point out when we got back
7:06
on the ship, we couldn't leave that night
7:08
because the seas were so bad. So they kept us
7:11
in Adelaide overnight and we left the next
7:14
morning and the seas were pretty rough.
7:17
Uh, just trying to get up around the west
7:20
Australian coast from Adelaide. And as we
7:22
were about to make the turn north,
7:25
we got hit by a massive squall.
7:28
And Judy and I were at lunch and it hit the
7:31
ship. Like something hit the ship
7:33
and knocked us over on a seven degree
7:36
tilt.
7:37
Professor Fred Watson: Wow.
7:38
Andrew Dunkley: And we couldn't straighten up. Took a few
7:40
hours to straighten the ship up. They
7:41
couldn't get the ballast right. And, yeah,
7:44
things went flying everywhere. We were were
7:47
having lunch and glasses and cutlery and
7:49
plates and food and wine and, uh. Oh, the
7:52
beer, the beer went everywhere. Um, and it
7:55
happened over the entire ship. I don't know
7:56
how much stuff they lost that got smashed,
7:59
but, um, yeah, it was a heck of a bang.
8:02
So, um.
8:03
Professor Fred Watson: Yes.
8:04
Andrew Dunkley: I'm going to have to go back to Adelaide and
8:05
see it in nice weather. Point I was trying to
8:08
make. Thanks, Peter.
8:10
Uh, let's go to our next question. Hey,
8:11
Andrew and Fred Watson love the show. Been
8:13
listening for years. Uh, I've had this idea
8:16
bouncing around for a while about how space
8:18
is curved and what that might mean. I
8:21
haven't found much that explains why it's a
8:23
bad idea. So I figured I'd ask you,
8:27
uh, if matter curves spacetime in a negative
8:29
way and the universe is overall flat,
8:32
wouldn't that mean the voids have to curve
8:35
space time in a positive way to balance it
8:37
out? And if that's true, could the curvature
8:40
of void space act like a, uh, kind of
8:43
pressure that helps hold galaxies together,
8:45
maybe even removing the need for dark matter?
8:48
Also, if time flows differently in the
8:51
void because of the curvature, could that
8:53
help explain things like the Hubble tension?
8:56
Curious to hear why this doesn't work. Uh,
8:59
Rob from the central coast. Uh, I'm assuming
9:02
central coast, New South Wales, because
9:03
there's a central coast in Queensland as
9:05
well. Um, my only
9:09
question about his question is he talks about
9:11
the, uh, universe being flat. I would
9:14
have suggested it's actually a sphere.
9:16
Wouldn't. Wouldn't you say so?
9:19
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, flat. Flatness is,
9:21
um, it is a misleading
9:24
term because, uh, it refers
9:26
to, uh, the fact that
9:29
Euclidean geometry works. In other words, you
9:32
know, angles of a triangle add up to 180
9:35
degrees and all of that stuff. Parallel lines
9:37
never meet. Yeah, um, that's, uh,
9:40
what the term flat means. Uh, and curvature
9:43
is. Yes, the
9:46
opposite of flatness, um, on
9:50
large scales, but yes. Uh, exactly as it's
9:52
Rob, isn't it? Exactly as Rob says.
9:55
The universe is thought to be very
9:57
nearly flat. And so,
10:00
um, there is curvature that's put into it
10:03
by matter, exactly as he says. But it kind
10:06
of, it does sort of even out. And, um,
10:09
his comment about if, if there's
10:11
positive gravity in the voids,
10:15
uh, could that explain the
10:17
phenomenon of dark matter clumping around
10:20
galaxies? Um, the trouble is there aren't
10:23
really any galaxies in the voids, which is
10:25
why they're called voids, because there
10:29
no galaxies there. They're pretty empty.
10:31
Um, um, but I don't think even if
10:34
you stuck a galaxy in one of these voids,
10:37
I don't think the curvature of the
10:40
space will be enough to mimic the
10:43
phenomena of dark matter. I think it will be
10:46
too, too weak.
10:47
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. And lots of people are trying to
10:50
disprove dark matter, aren't they?
10:52
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. I mean it's great that
10:54
they are, uh, one. One of them's a
10:58
space nuts listener. Peter Verwein, I don't
11:01
know. They're still doing his PhD on um,
11:02
Mond, um, modified Newtonian dynamics.
11:05
But he certainly was last time we spoke.
11:08
Yeah.
11:10
Andrew Dunkley: Hopefully, um, they'll figure it out one day
11:11
because it is one of the great mysteries, uh,
11:14
dark matter, dark energy, um,
11:16
as we talked about in the last episode,
11:18
wormholes, multiple universe theory.
11:22
There's quite a few, um, big
11:25
issues if you like, uh, being debated
11:28
and theories being put forward, but uh, no
11:31
answers yet. Uh, although
11:34
the science seems to very heavily
11:36
favour the existence and effect of dark
11:38
matter.
11:39
Professor Fred Watson: It does. It's the simplest explanation. It's
11:42
Occam's razor. You apply the simplest
11:44
explanation to something. Um, and
11:47
yeah, dark matter fits that bill. And if you
11:50
get rid of it, uh, you know, if you build a
11:52
theory that says that Newtonian
11:54
dynamics doesn't work at very low
11:56
accelerations, which is what modified
11:58
Newtonian dynamics is about, then it upsets
12:01
other measurements that you can make. Yes. It
12:03
means you don't have to have something extra
12:05
to hold galaxies together, but you have
12:07
problems with clusters of galaxies and things
12:09
of that sort. So dark matter
12:12
seems to fit the bill. The annoying thing is
12:15
we've no idea what it is and we can't find
12:17
it.
12:18
Andrew Dunkley: Yes, um, in fact finding
12:20
anything of that nature is very, very
12:23
difficult. Um, a Large Hadron
12:25
Colliders had a few specks of success
12:29
but um, but.
12:30
Professor Fred Watson: Not nothing like what was hoped for.
12:33
The um, the upgrade to 14 tera electron
12:36
volts, which is what happened a decade
12:39
or so ago. More than a decade now.
12:40
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, yeah. Maybe they need to
12:43
put some new batteries in it or something.
12:46
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, there are plans for something like new
12:48
batteries, but it's a bit more,
12:51
um, a little bit more far reaching than that.
12:54
So the Large Hadron Collider is a 27
12:55
kilometre underground tunnel, circular.
12:59
Uh, they want to increase the energy of it
13:02
in order to find these heavier particles
13:04
which might be what? Dark matter. Which might
13:06
include dark matter particles. But to do that
13:08
you've got to make the, the Large Hadron
13:11
Collider bigger. And so what they're talking
13:13
about now is the future circular collider
13:16
which has a tunnel length of 100
13:18
kilometres.
13:19
Andrew Dunkley: Whoa.
13:20
Professor Fred Watson: Not 27, but 100. Uh, and that's
13:23
not funded. It's still uh, you know, gleaming
13:25
people's eyes. But if it was funded today
13:29
and was going to be built, it would come
13:31
online in 2070,
13:34
uh, by which time space Nuts might actually
13:37
be defunct by then. I can imagine that.
13:40
Although Jonty might keep it going.
13:42
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. He may not. Nothing ever
13:45
gets taken off the Internet, so it'll be
13:48
there somewhere. Yes.
13:51
Okay, so, uh, the answer is probably not.
13:55
That's it.
13:55
Professor Fred Watson: That's the correct answer. Probably.
13:57
Andrew Dunkley: Probably not. All right, good thinking
13:59
though, Rob, thanks for getting in touch with
14:01
us. Great to hear from you. This is Space
14:03
Nuts Q and A edition with Andrew Dunkley and
14:06
Professor Fred Watson Watson.
14:11
Space Nuts.
14:13
Now, our next question is also a text
14:15
question and it comes from
14:17
Ian. Ian Anderson. Uh, my question is,
14:20
if beings have developed vessels that
14:23
travel at light speed, would we be able to
14:26
detect them with current technology, could
14:29
human eyes detect an object travelling at
14:31
light speed? Yeah. Ah, interesting question,
14:33
Ian.
14:35
Professor Fred Watson: Um, well, the only things that travel at
14:36
light speed are photons.
14:38
Andrew Dunkley: Yes.
14:39
Professor Fred Watson: Because it's impossible for anything else to
14:41
reach light speed. Uh,
14:44
yeah, because in a vacuum. Yes,
14:47
that was correct. Yeah.
14:48
Um, yes. All right, let's clarify that
14:51
too. In a vacuum, that's good. 300,000
14:54
kilometres per second. Um, um,
14:57
relativity says that in order to
14:59
accelerate something, uh, with
15:02
mass to the speed of light, you need
15:05
to input infinite energy. And
15:08
that's a bit of a drawback really,
15:11
uh, to travel at light speed. So photons do
15:13
travel at light speed. We don't actually see
15:16
photons as they whiz by, but we see their
15:19
effect when they hit a surface. Uh, whether
15:21
it's the retina of an eye or the wall behind
15:23
the screen I'm looking at here now, the wall
15:25
behind me, uh, that's when you see the
15:27
photons because they're basically
15:30
radiate the light. Yeah. Back to
15:33
you. Um, so,
15:36
uh, if, I mean,
15:38
if you had some object
15:41
travelling at very nearly the speed of light,
15:43
invented by some alien
15:46
beings of superb intelligence, um,
15:50
you would be able to see it, but you'd have
15:52
to be in certain places, uh,
15:55
because the light would radiate out
15:58
from it in a kind of almost like a shockwave.
16:01
Uh, so you, you would only see it in
16:03
if you looked in certain directions. It's,
16:06
it's a phenomenon called aberration.
16:09
It's the way a beam of light changes
16:12
direction because of the velocity of the
16:15
moving object.
16:17
Andrew Dunkley: Sounds similar to when a fighter, ah, jet
16:19
hits the speed of sound. Um,
16:23
people, they've actually taken a few
16:24
photographs of aircraft at that precise
16:27
moment and actually causes condensation
16:30
in some cases around the aircraft, like
16:33
they're bursting out of a cloud. But they
16:35
actually created the cloud. Yeah, yeah. And
16:37
the Big Bang and the Big Bang. That created
16:40
the Big Bang as well. I grew up near
16:43
an RAF base.
16:45
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
16:45
Andrew Dunkley: And we quite often used to hear
16:48
sonic booms. Yeah, usually it was until they
16:51
banned it.
16:52
Professor Fred Watson: That's right, it was. They were double,
16:54
weren't they? Didn't you get two bangs?
16:56
Andrew Dunkley: Yes.
16:56
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, that's what I thought. Um,
16:59
yes, so, um, indeed. I used to live near an
17:02
RAF base when I was a student M. At St.
17:04
Andrews. There's ah, a. The Lucas Royal Air
17:07
Force Base right next door. They used to
17:08
scramble their jets nearly every day because
17:10
of Russian bombers intercepting uh.
17:12
Andrew Dunkley: Gosh.
17:13
Professor Fred Watson: Intercepting airspace. So not much has
17:15
changed, has it? In the world of, of
17:20
Russian aircraft probing the defences of the
17:22
Western Alliance.
17:23
Andrew Dunkley: Well, yeah, these days, um, around Australia
17:26
it's Chinese ships.
17:28
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
17:28
Andrew Dunkley: So, yeah, seen a few of those.
17:31
Um, but yeah, we used to see all sorts of
17:33
weird and wonderful planes, uh, flying over
17:35
the, the Mackie trainers. The
17:38
Mirage jets were in action when I was
17:40
a kid. Uh, we used to see the uh, Bell Huey
17:43
helicopters. Uh, they even had uh, wear
17:46
aways and windshields back then. The,
17:49
the old prop aircraft.
17:51
Professor Fred Watson: Right.
17:51
Andrew Dunkley: Um, yeah, this was at uh, Williamtown Air
17:54
Force Base, which was only 15 minutes drive
17:56
away from where we lived. So. But there were
17:59
jets up there all the time.
18:00
Professor Fred Watson: Always There would be. Still are actually.
18:02
William town's still pretty active.
18:04
Andrew Dunkley: Well, yeah, of course. Right next door to.
18:06
It's uh, Newcastle International Airport.
18:09
Professor Fred Watson: That's right.
18:09
Andrew Dunkley: So yeah, it's a pretty busy place these days.
18:13
Uh, did we finish with uh, Ian's question?
18:15
Uh, no, you probably wouldn't, would you? If
18:17
there was a spacecraft.
18:18
Professor Fred Watson: That's right.
18:19
Andrew Dunkley: Capable of light speed.
18:22
Professor Fred Watson: Yes. Well, you wouldn't if it was capable of
18:24
light speed. But if it was just under the
18:25
speed of light and you were looking in the
18:27
right direction, then you would see it. Yeah.
18:29
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. Okay.
18:30
Professor Fred Watson: It will be very heavily blue shifted as well.
18:32
The radiation.
18:33
Andrew Dunkley: Ah, okay. There's a telltale sign.
18:35
Professor Fred Watson: There you go.
18:36
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, we'll keep an eye out for them.
18:38
Professor Fred Watson: Look for blue lights in the street and if you
18:40
see them, pull over quickly.
18:43
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, thanks Ian. Um, good to hear from
18:46
you. Our final questions and audio question
18:48
coming from
18:50
Martin.
18:52
Berman Gorvine: Hello, space nuts.
18:55
Martin Berman Gourvine here, writer
18:59
extraordinaire in many
19:02
genres with
19:06
a cosmic
19:08
philosophical question. But
19:11
first I want to say, Andrew, I
19:13
forgive you for not looking me up
19:17
when you were in the Washington D.C. area
19:20
because I realised that if
19:23
we had gotten together
19:26
the uh,
19:29
field of dad jokes would have
19:32
been so dense that nothing
19:35
could have escaped it. Not even
19:37
groans. So My
19:40
question for today is,
19:44
what if the universe
19:47
were indeed a simulation? Is
19:50
there any hard proof
19:53
we could have that such a thing were
19:56
true? And I have to say I don't believe
19:59
it for a moment.
20:02
I'm with, uh, Dr. Samuel Johnson
20:05
on this one, who
20:07
refuted Bishop
20:10
Barclay's idealism by
20:12
kicking a pebble.
20:15
And the only proof I could think of
20:18
that the universe
20:21
would be a simulation would be
20:24
if we discovered that the
20:27
redshift of an
20:30
extremely distant galaxy were the
20:32
square root of a negative number.
20:36
Get it? Then the
20:39
redshift would be
20:41
imaginary, and hence the
20:44
whole universe would be imaginary,
20:46
which makes about as much sense as
20:49
anything in this whole question.
20:54
Can't wait for the answer, Vermin.
20:58
Over and out.
21:00
Out.
21:02
Andrew Dunkley: I think he answered it himself, didn't he?
21:06
Professor Fred Watson: And.
21:06
Andrew Dunkley: And, um. Martin.
21:08
Professor Fred Watson: Yes.
21:08
Andrew Dunkley: Uh, I'm sorry we didn't get together, but,
21:10
uh, my time in Washington, um, was very,
21:13
very limited and we were on an organised tour
21:15
and we all had to be in certain places at
21:17
certain times. So
21:20
just. I. I didn't have a minute
21:23
up my sleeve. Uh, so that's.
21:26
But I did think of you while I was there. I
21:28
hope you detected that in our simulation
21:30
universe style of life.
21:33
Professor Fred Watson: Martin might have had 40 people turning up on
21:35
his doorstep if you came here too.
21:38
Andrew Dunkley: Um. Are we living in a simulation?
21:41
Look, I, uh, think there are those that
21:44
argue that, um, our universe is a
21:46
manifestation of our minds
21:50
that's been put forward. But,
21:53
um, then, yes, simulation theories,
21:55
that's sort of doing the rounds
21:58
fairly regularly these days too.
22:00
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, yeah, it is
22:03
an interesting one. Um, how you prove that
22:06
we're not in a simulation? The what? The
22:10
only line of argument that
22:12
I've heard, and, um, it's quite an old one,
22:15
is that if we discovered that
22:19
space time was quantized
22:22
so it was moved in jerks rather than
22:25
smoothly, um, that might suggest
22:28
that we're in a digital simulation. If
22:31
you've got space time being represented by
22:34
something that's, uh, you know, that's.
22:37
That's got discrete steps in it
22:39
rather than, um, being completely smooth. And
22:42
I'm thinking now about the way we
22:45
record music digitally, where you chop up the
22:47
waveform into these tiny digital
22:50
steps, uh, and
22:52
you wouldn't know that you were listening to
22:54
a digital sound, uh, made up of
22:57
little jumps, um, uh, in time.
23:01
Uh, so if the universe was discovered to
23:03
be like a digital waveform, then, yeah,
23:07
maybe it would be a simulation,
23:11
but it's still not. Still not definite proof.
23:13
I think the only way we'd really know is if
23:16
this big face appeared in the sky and they
23:19
said, ah, you're being simulated, you're not
23:21
real, wouldn't feel good. It
23:24
wouldn't feel good. No, it would not be a
23:26
feel good moment.
23:27
Andrew Dunkley: I'd have a bit of a problem with that. But,
23:29
um, it's certainly something that's been
23:32
portrayed in various forms of sci
23:34
fi. The, the simulated universe.
23:36
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
23:37
Andrew Dunkley: Um, but yeah,
23:40
I just don't understand how it could have,
23:43
uh, exist. It's. There's just too much
23:46
going on. Like if it's a simulation, it's got
23:49
a damn good computer programme running it.
23:50
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, that's right. Um,
23:54
yeah, the uh.
23:55
I, um, I mean in
23:58
a sense there's an equivalent problem which
24:01
is being, I guess, looked at by
24:04
the world's great theoretical physicists
24:07
in into who ask
24:10
the question, is there a deeper underlying
24:13
reality that underpins
24:16
both quantum mechanics on one hand and
24:18
relativity on the other and sort of
24:21
essentially brings them together? Uh, and if
24:23
there is a deeper reality, what does it mean
24:26
for our existence? And you're quite right.
24:29
Um, you know, consciousness has been, has
24:32
been, uh, um. Just
24:34
excuse me one minute, I'll just call them
24:37
back. Consciousness, uh, has been,
24:40
um, uh, uh,
24:43
regarded as maybe a part and parcel of what
24:46
the universe does and the way it behaves. Uh,
24:48
so that's a, ah, very intriguing
24:51
puzzle. If you need consciousness in
24:54
order for the universe to exist. What kind of
24:56
a universe are we living in?
24:58
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, that's one of the things, um,
25:02
uh, I think has been talked about fairly
25:04
heavily in recent years. Um,
25:08
that, that one really is a mind blower
25:11
though, that, um, consciousness created the
25:13
universe.
25:14
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, yep.
25:15
Andrew Dunkley: Again, very hard to believe.
25:20
And, and it would, I don't know how it would
25:22
work.
25:25
Professor Fred Watson: No, uh, that's right. I mean, whose
25:27
consciousness are we talking about here?
25:29
Andrew Dunkley: Uh, well, that's right.
25:30
Professor Fred Watson: Gods or ours or.
25:32
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, or a collective.
25:34
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, collective, yeah. M. Interesting.
25:37
Andrew Dunkley: All very interesting and all very weird. But,
25:40
um, always good to talk about.
25:43
Uh, but thank you, Martin, for asking and
25:45
answering your own question and allowing us
25:47
to discuss it. It was um, it was a good one.
25:50
Keep them coming. Uh, if you've got some
25:52
questions for us, please send them in. We uh,
25:55
encourage you to do that. Don't forget to
25:56
tell us who you are and where you're from.
25:59
And you can do that through our website
26:01
spacenutspodcast.com or
26:03
spacenuts IO and you just
26:06
click on the little tab up the top that says
26:08
ama. We did, I think, look at getting that
26:11
change to, you know, voice
26:13
messages and things, but I don't think this
26:15
interface allows it. But yeah, you can fill
26:18
in the blanks there as well. If, uh, you've
26:20
got a device with a microphone, it's pretty
26:22
easy to send us a voice message or a voice
26:25
question. Fred Watson, we're all done. Thanks
26:27
for helping out today with all of that.
26:30
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, it's a pleasure. I'm, uh, glad to be of
26:32
assistance.
26:33
Andrew Dunkley: We'll see you next week.
26:34
Professor Fred Watson: Sounds like it. Yeah.
26:36
Andrew Dunkley: See you later this week, as the case may be.
26:39
Yes, thanks, Professor
26:42
Fred Watson Watson, astronomer at large. And
26:43
thanks to Huw in the studio, who couldn't be
26:46
with us today because he's a simulation.
26:50
Uh, and from me, Andrew Dunkley.
26:53
Catch uh you next time. Bye bye,
26:55
Voice Over Guy: Space Nuts. You've been listening to the
26:57
Space Nuts podcast, Mission Complete Houston,
27:00
available at Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
27:03
iHeartRadio or your favourite podcast
27:06
player. You can also stream on demand at
27:08
bitesz.com This has been another quality
27:11
podcast production from Bitesz.com