Latest / Space News Today / Black Hole Temperatures, Cosmic Mapping & the Mystery of Dark Matter| Q&A | Space Nuts:...

Transcript

Black Hole Temperatures, Cosmic Mapping & the Mystery of Dark Matter| Q&A | Space Nuts:... · Space News Today

• 0:00
  Hi there. Thanks for joining us again.
• 0:02
  This is a Q&A uh edition of Space Nuts,
• 0:05
  where we uh take audience questions and
• 0:08
  we pretend that we know what we're
• 0:10
  talking about in attempting to answer
• 0:12
  them or we get it right sometimes, too.
• 0:15
  Uh today we're going to be answering a
• 0:18
  question about uh the temperature of
• 0:20
  black holes. Uh I I'm not sure we've
• 0:23
  been there before. It may have come up,
• 0:25
  but um I can't remember when. uh and a
• 0:28
  question uh asking with the James Webb
• 0:30
  Space Telescope and the Vera Rubin
• 0:33
  telescope how much of the universe has
• 0:35
  been mapped. I can tell you this much uh
• 0:39
  and the emptiness of space is being
• 0:42
  questioned and what difference will it
• 0:45
  make to humanity uh if we find dark
• 0:48
  matter and dark energy? Um that's a
• 0:52
  really interesting question and Fred
• 0:54
  knows the answer. We'll ask him shortly
• 0:55
  on this edition of Space Nuts.
• 0:58
  >> 15 seconds. Guidance is internal. 10 9
• 1:03
  Ignition sequence start.
• 1:04
  >> Space nuts.
• 1:05
  >> 5 4 3 2
• 1:08
  >> 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1
• 1:10
  >> Space Nuts.
• 1:11
  >> Astronauts report. It feels good.
• 1:14
  >> And he's back. And he has all the
• 1:16
  answers to all the questions of life,
• 1:18
  the universe, and everything. Professor
• 1:19
  Fred Watson, astronomer at large. Hello,
• 1:21
  Fred.
• 1:24
  No pressure there, Andrew.
• 1:25
  >> None at all. None at all.
• 1:27
  >> No pressure. That's right.
• 1:28
  >> Uh let's get straight into it, shall we?
• 1:30
  Um uh one of our regular contributors is
• 1:34
  Casey, who has a very interesting
• 1:36
  question about a subject we never
• 1:38
  discuss, black holes.
• 1:40
  >> Hi guys, this is Casey from Colorado and
• 1:43
  I was thinking about the temperature of
• 1:44
  black holes. I know that the accretion
• 1:47
  disc would be very hot, but I was
• 1:49
  wondering once you get past the event
• 1:51
  horizon if it would be hot or cold. Why
• 1:54
  do we think this? Thanks for the podcast
• 1:57
  and I hope you're both well. Thanks.
• 2:00
  >> Thank you, Casey. She's got me thinking
• 2:01
  about the temperature in Colorado
• 2:03
  because like we're facing some horrific
• 2:06
  temperatures around here at the moment,
• 2:07
  but I' i'd imagine it'd be quite the
• 2:09
  opposite in Colorado this time of the
• 2:11
  year.
• 2:13
  Yeah, I think that's that's absolutely
• 2:15
  right. Yes. But part of the world in
• 2:18
  winter.
• 2:19
  >> Absolutely. Um, now temperature of black
• 2:23
  holes. This this one's interesting
• 2:24
  because I suppose it varies on several
• 2:27
  factors. Um, where you are, what you're
• 2:30
  doing.
• 2:32
  I don't know what
• 2:34
  I would like. It's not like the not like
• 2:36
  the temperature of the sun, is it?
• 2:39
  >> No. No, it's not. Um, it's it's a re I'm
• 2:43
  I'm so glad Casey asked this question
• 2:46
  because it sent me down a rabbit hole I
• 2:48
  haven't been down before.
• 2:49
  >> Oh, wow.
• 2:50
  >> Uh, in and it leads you straight to
• 2:52
  quantum theory. Uh, uh, and um, it's,
• 2:57
  you know, it's a it really in a sense
• 3:00
  it's quite unexpected
• 3:02
  uh, what's what's happening. Uh so um
• 3:06
  the bottom line is whilst as Casey
• 3:10
  exactly as Casey says the accretion disc
• 3:13
  of the black hole is extremely hot uh
• 3:16
  and you know we're talking millions of
• 3:17
  degrees there because this that's where
• 3:20
  you get X-ray radiation from. It's the
• 3:22
  the stuff charging around the accretion
• 3:24
  disc uh that's uh swirling around the
• 3:26
  the black hole itself. But the black
• 3:29
  hole itself
• 3:32
  is the opposite. It's really really
• 3:35
  cold. Um, and basically, uh, it's
• 3:41
  because the the amount of radiation
• 3:45
  that they, uh, that they release is at a
• 3:50
  level uh, which means its temperature is
• 3:55
  measured in gazillionth of a degree.
• 3:57
  It's virtually absolute zero.
• 4:01
  um they they
• 4:04
  basically they're
• 4:07
  it's quite a a nice way of putting it um
• 4:10
  which which I've uh summarized uh I
• 4:14
  think this comes from Wikipedia. It may
• 4:17
  come from AI actually. But the bottom
• 4:19
  line is even though black holes pull in
• 4:22
  matter and energy, their temperature is
• 4:24
  incredibly low because their large mass
• 4:28
  makes their event horizons effectively
• 4:31
  cold thermal emitters, absorbing energy
• 4:34
  faster than they radiate it at these
• 4:37
  scales. So that's the key to what's
• 4:39
  happening that like everything else,
• 4:42
  black holes suck stuff. it sucks stuff
• 4:45
  in uh and that stuff is matter which is
• 4:49
  equivalent to energy uh and because it's
• 4:52
  stuff that's going in and not radiating
• 4:54
  outwards uh even though there is what we
• 4:57
  call Hawking radiation which I'll get to
• 4:59
  in a second but that that um you know
• 5:03
  the uh what it means is that the the
• 5:05
  fact that there there's an energy input
• 5:08
  into the black hole it means that to the
• 5:11
  outside observer they look cold. They
• 5:14
  look very very cold. There is a
• 5:16
  relationship as you said uh we it might
• 5:20
  vary with some things and what it varies
• 5:22
  with uh is actually the mass of the
• 5:25
  black hole. Uh it's it's roughly uh an
• 5:29
  inverse proportionality proportionality
• 5:32
  the the temperature is inversely
• 5:34
  proportional to the mass. Um, and what
• 5:38
  that means is for super massive black
• 5:40
  holes, they are extremely cold. Uh, and
• 5:43
  that sort of figures because they're
• 5:45
  sucking in more energy and so the
• 5:47
  surface to an outside observer would
• 5:49
  look colder. Uh, they're talking about
• 5:51
  10 the minus14° Kelvin. U something with
• 5:56
  the mass of the sun um is a barmy 10us
• 6:02
  7° Kelvin. It's still virtually zero,
• 6:07
  but it's more uh more than the super
• 6:10
  massive black holes. So something the
• 6:11
  mass of the sun. So it's inversely
• 6:13
  proportional to the mass uh that inverse
• 6:16
  relationship. Uh and so so that's that's
• 6:21
  kind of what it's the Hawking radiation
• 6:25
  that gives the black hole a temperature
• 6:30
  essentially. It's because it's it's
• 6:33
  emitting radiation. Um, and we've talked
• 6:36
  about Hawking radiation before. Even
• 6:37
  though everything gets sucked into a
• 6:39
  black hole, there's this quantum
• 6:40
  situation where you can get um two
• 6:44
  virtual particles being created from
• 6:46
  nothing in empty space. One gets trapped
• 6:48
  by the black hole, the other doesn't.
• 6:50
  And so we see that as Hawking radiation
• 6:52
  uh suggested by Steven Hawking in the
• 6:55
  1970s now very well established. Uh but
• 6:58
  yeah to summarize the bottom line is
• 7:00
  Casey's uh question is a good one uh
• 7:03
  because it turns out that black holes
• 7:05
  are very very cold indeed despite the
• 7:08
  intense heat of the accretion disc. Work
• 7:11
  that one out. It's a really hard thing
• 7:12
  to to put your imagination around.
• 7:15
  >> I suppose you'd compare it to the heat
• 7:17
  on the It's got nothing to do with it at
• 7:19
  all, but by example the heat on the sun
• 7:22
  side of Mercury versus the cool on the
• 7:25
  shadow side. They're so extreme.
• 7:28
  >> Um.
• 7:29
  >> Yes. Yeah, that's right.
• 7:31
  >> For the same reason.
• 7:34
  >> Well, similar because the dark side of
• 7:36
  Mercury is cold uh because it's
• 7:39
  radiating energy into space.
• 7:42
  >> Um uh whereas uh and that that energy
• 7:47
  loss reduces the temperature. Whereas
• 7:49
  with a black hole, it's the other way
• 7:50
  around. The thing is the thing is
• 7:52
  sucking energy in at a greater rate than
• 7:54
  it's emitting energy. Uh so Mercury
• 7:59
  would Mercury's dark side would lose
• 8:00
  heat by infrared radiation. Um that
• 8:03
  radiation in the case of a black hole is
• 8:06
  is much smaller than the radiation that
• 8:08
  it's sucking in which is why it looks
• 8:09
  extremely cold. Uh so I'm trying to I'm
• 8:12
  trying to make sense of the parallel
• 8:14
  that you drew and I think it's I think
• 8:16
  it holds water Andrew. I think I think
• 8:18
  it's a good good answer.
• 8:19
  >> Well, actually the water will probably
• 8:20
  evaporate or freeze but anyway um
• 8:22
  >> freeze it.
• 8:24
  >> Uh I just thought of a question. Um so
• 8:27
  if a black hole sort of,
• 8:30
  you know, runs out of food, would that
• 8:33
  cause an alteration in its temperature?
• 8:38
  Um,
• 8:39
  I don't think so because I think once
• 8:41
  the I I get what you're saying and
• 8:44
  certainly in the argument that we've
• 8:45
  just been talking about, you'd think
• 8:48
  that if it's not sucking in energy
• 8:50
  anymore,
• 8:51
  >> uh, it it or sucking in matter anymore,
• 8:54
  it it would uh it would actually change
• 8:56
  its uh change its temperature. Um the
• 8:59
  reason why I think that might not happen
• 9:01
  is because the only thing that uh the
• 9:04
  temperature seems to be related to is
• 9:06
  the mass itself. So um there must be a
• 9:09
  mechanism and I'm sorry it's eluding me
• 9:12
  at the moment. Uh but there must be a
• 9:14
  mechanism that sort of locks once you've
• 9:16
  once you've got a a a black hole of
• 9:18
  sufficient mass um then uh its
• 9:22
  temperature is sort of locked in. Uh it
• 9:25
  must still be taking in energy in the
• 9:28
  form of radiation. So perhaps that's
• 9:31
  what's what's happening. you know, light
• 9:32
  light certainly gets sucked into a black
• 9:34
  hole that even even if it's not got an
• 9:37
  accretion disc of stuff to to feed on,
• 9:40
  uh the light certainly going in and
• 9:42
  perhaps that's enough to keep the
• 9:44
  temperature as low as we've described.
• 9:47
  Indeed. All right. Uh thanks Casey.
• 9:49
  Lovely to hear from you. Hope you're
• 9:51
  coping with the uh - 10^ the 15° Kelvin
• 9:54
  in Colorado. Uh our next question comes
• 9:58
  from Eli. Hello space fairers. I'm
• 10:01
  writing from the Coachella Valley desert
• 10:04
  here in Southern California. Uh, I've
• 10:07
  often thought some of the Google
• 10:09
  Earthlike software would be amazing to
• 10:11
  take into other galaxies throughout the
• 10:13
  universe. Intriguingly, I imagine you
• 10:17
  could take them back in time according
• 10:18
  to estimates of cosmic inflation, etc.
• 10:21
  all the way to the big bang in theory.
• 10:24
  um to his question with James Webb and
• 10:26
  the Vera Rubin coming online how much of
• 10:29
  the visible visible universe have we
• 10:32
  basically mapped and how much are we
• 10:34
  projected to map in say the next decade
• 10:38
  I think we've actually talked about how
• 10:41
  much that they're going to look at and
• 10:43
  how long it's going to take and I I I
• 10:45
  think Eli's going to be quite surprised
• 10:47
  by the answer
• 10:50
  well yes that's right I mean the the key
• 10:53
  words here are the Vera Vera Rubin
• 10:55
  Observatory uh because that will map the
• 10:59
  entire sky down to quite a significant
• 11:03
  depth not as deep as the web will um
• 11:08
  although it is an 8 m telescope the web
• 11:10
  is only 6 and a half mters so it's
• 11:12
  probably not far short of it uh the web
• 11:15
  of course looking in infrared and the
• 11:17
  Vera Rubin telescope looking in visible
• 11:19
  light but it's going to it's going to
• 11:21
  photograph the whole sky southern sky uh
• 11:25
  in uh every three three nights or so. So
• 11:30
  that will build up over the years a map
• 11:32
  of the things that don't change. I mean
• 11:34
  what it's looking for is things that do
• 11:35
  change but um as you integrate for all
• 11:39
  that time and by that I mean you you you
• 11:42
  know expose the detector to the sky so
• 11:44
  that you build up the image uh and you
• 11:46
  can add all those images together. We'll
• 11:48
  have we'll have a almost a complete map
• 11:52
  of the universe in the southern
• 11:54
  hemisphere because uh all the visible
• 11:57
  galaxies will show up. Uh the they we
• 12:01
  won't see the first galaxies. I don't
• 12:03
  think it's going to be powerful enough
• 12:05
  to see those. But uh and we're not sure
• 12:09
  even that the web has seen the first
• 12:10
  galaxies. Uh it's certainly seen some
• 12:13
  galaxies that we think are very early in
• 12:15
  the history of the universe. And I think
• 12:16
  the Verus Cy Rubin observatory will do
• 12:19
  the same thing. Uh but um you know so
• 12:22
  we're not in any sense getting a
• 12:26
  complete sense of the consens sorry a
• 12:29
  complete census of the universe. Uh but
• 12:33
  it's not going to be far off. Uh, and
• 12:35
  that's quite astonishing when you think
• 12:38
  of where we were, you know, well, just a
• 12:40
  few years ago, certainly when I was a a
• 12:42
  young working astronomer in the 1970s, I
• 12:45
  would have had my somebody It would have
• 12:48
  blown my mind to think that we could map
• 12:50
  all the galaxies uh in one hemisphere of
• 12:54
  the universe.
• 12:55
  >> Yeah. Uh, what about the northern
• 12:57
  hemisphere? Is there any
• 13:00
  >> work equivalent? uh the the there is I
• 13:06
  mean the Nancy Roman space telescope
• 13:08
  will look it's also a wide angle
• 13:10
  telescope like the the Ruben Observatory
• 13:13
  instrument is but um it's not as big
• 13:18
  it's a um it is a 2.3 meter telescope
• 13:22
  basically a Hubble Hubble telescope but
• 13:24
  with a wide field of view. Uh so we'll
• 13:26
  we'll certainly see uh pretty deep into
• 13:29
  the northern hemisphere. Whether it will
• 13:30
  go as deep as the Reuben Observatory,
• 13:32
  it's a different matter. I don't think
• 13:34
  it will because it's a much smaller
• 13:35
  telescope, but it is in space and that
• 13:37
  gives it excuse me that gives it
• 13:40
  advantages. There's no atmosphere to to
• 13:42
  get in the way. So that's perhaps the
• 13:45
  best bet. Um the excuse me, the other uh
• 13:51
  big instruments, I mean, there's a
• 13:52
  number of things going on. Um, in terms
• 13:56
  of the two kek telescopes which are in
• 13:58
  the northern hemisphere in Hawaii,
• 14:00
  they're 8 mclass telescopes, but they're
• 14:02
  not wide angle. These are telescopes
• 14:04
  that are built to home in in detail on
• 14:07
  individual objects rather than to do
• 14:10
  wide angle surveys. You need a specially
• 14:12
  designed telescope for that and the
• 14:14
  Reuben is exactly that. Um,
• 14:17
  there isn't really an equivalent. Uh
• 14:21
  there is a wide-angle telescope in La
• 14:24
  Palma which is um the basically the same
• 14:26
  as our UK Schmidt telescope here in
• 14:28
  Australia. It's called the Ocean Schmidt
• 14:30
  telescope. It's much older than our
• 14:32
  Schmidt. In fact, our Schmidt was
• 14:33
  modeled on it and that's a wide angle
• 14:35
  telescope that's surveying the sky, but
• 14:37
  that's looking for things like nearear
• 14:39
  asteroids and things of that sort rather
• 14:40
  than penetrating deep into the universe
• 14:43
  because it's only got a 1.2 2 meter
• 14:45
  aperture diameter much smaller than the
• 14:48
  eight meters that the Rubid telescope
• 14:50
  will have.
• 14:51
  >> Yeah.
• 14:53
  still um what we'll know in 10 years
• 14:55
  time will be extraordinary uh through
• 14:59
  through these two telescopes alone the
• 15:01
  James Webb and Vera Rubin um yeah who
• 15:05
  knows what they're going to un unveil uh
• 15:08
  and and what what have you know Vera
• 15:11
  Rubin's first photograph was a
• 15:12
  revelation uh and what James Webb is um
• 15:17
  is is shelling out is is extraordinary
• 15:20
  it It's It's like um I don't know,
• 15:23
  Taylor Swift. It's a hit record every
• 15:25
  time that every time they release a
• 15:27
  picture.
• 15:29
  >> It's uh it's incredible. So, Eli, the
• 15:32
  next decade will be extraordinary. Um
• 15:34
  so, just, you know, keep an eye on it
• 15:37
  would be my advice. And thanks for the
• 15:39
  question. This is Space Nuts with Andrew
• 15:42
  Dunley and Professor Fred Watson.
• 15:46
  Let's take a break from the show to tell
• 15:47
  you about our sponsor, NordVPN.
• 15:50
  Now, if you've ever felt like your
• 15:52
  online privacy is slipping through the
• 15:54
  cracks, then you're not alone. Hackers,
• 15:57
  scammers, harvesters, they're all out
• 15:59
  there trying to get your private info.
• 16:01
  Whether that's your passwords or your
• 16:03
  personal details to sell on the dark web
• 16:05
  or to use themselves to access your bank
• 16:08
  accounts, credit card details, and who
• 16:10
  knows what else. But you can protect
• 16:13
  yourself with NordVPN.
• 16:15
  You can take control at home or or more
• 16:18
  importantly when you're out in public.
• 16:20
  using free Wi-Fi right now. Uh using the
• 16:25
  exclusive Space Nuts offer, you can
• 16:27
  secure and receive four extra months for
• 16:30
  free on a NordVPN.com
• 16:34
  plan. That's over 2 years of top tier
• 16:37
  online protection. NordVPN encrypts your
• 16:41
  internet connection, hides your IP
• 16:43
  address, and offers access to over 7,700
• 16:46
  servers around the world. Plus, with
• 16:49
  features like threat protection pro,
• 16:52
  meshet,
• 16:53
  ultra fast speeds via Nord links, your
• 16:56
  digital life stays private and
• 16:59
  efficient. So, don't miss out. Visit
• 17:02
  nordvpn.com/spacenuts
• 17:06
  and enter the code spacenuts to claim
• 17:08
  this deal. Remember, there's a 30-day
• 17:11
  money back guarantee, so it's riskfree
• 17:13
  to try. Stay safe, stay private, and
• 17:16
  browse with confidence. That's
• 17:19
  nordvpn.com/spacenuts
• 17:22
  and use the code word spacen nuts.
• 17:25
  nordvpn.com/spacenuts.
• 17:30
  >> 3 2 1
• 17:33
  >> Spacenuts.
• 17:34
  I think we have an audio question now.
• 17:37
  This one comes from one of our regulars
• 17:39
  as well.
• 17:40
  >> Hello Fred, Andrew, Jonty, and Heidi.
• 17:42
  This is Robert from the Netherlands.
• 17:45
  I have a question for you guys about the
• 17:48
  emptiness of space.
• 17:51
  Now, everybody is always saying that
• 17:54
  space is totally empty, right? One
• 17:56
  proton per square breeder, something
• 17:59
  like that. However, not that long ago,
• 18:03
  scientists did discover the Higs Bzon
• 18:06
  particle, the God particle, if you will.
• 18:10
  So apparently everything is on this grid
• 18:14
  of hex boss, but I'm not exactly an
• 18:18
  expert here. I'm just curious if you
• 18:21
  guys could shed some lights on this
• 18:22
  concept for me. So is it just an
• 18:25
  enormous field of these very regular
• 18:28
  hobbons everywhere in desal spaces or
• 18:31
  are they more numerous or less dense in
• 18:34
  certain parts? Is the void between
• 18:37
  galaxies actually a void? or is it an
• 18:40
  empty field of God particles?
• 18:43
  I really hope you can shed some lights.
• 18:45
  Thank you guys so much for answering.
• 18:49
  Thank you, Robert. Good to hear from
• 18:51
  you. Uh the emptiness of space. So he
• 18:55
  said one proton per square meter. Is
• 18:58
  that um a reasonable
• 19:01
  >> uh yeah per cubic meter? something
• 19:04
  something like that. Um
• 19:06
  >> yeah um it's uh it's of that order I
• 19:10
  think in in intergalactic space. Um
• 19:14
  uh but uh Robert's right in the sense
• 19:18
  that the Higs field which is the other
• 19:24
  way of looking at the Higs Bzon
• 19:28
  permeates basically permeates empty
• 19:31
  space. Um so
• 19:36
  uh this is all about the duality of
• 19:39
  particles
• 19:41
  uh with waves and with what we call
• 19:44
  fields. Um and we I mean we imagine
• 19:48
  fields when we think of gravitation
• 19:50
  because we think of a a gravitational
• 19:52
  field as a as a as a a
• 19:55
  sort of a a well if I can put it that
• 19:59
  way in a in a trampoline. Uh the
• 20:01
  trampolines, the field, you put
• 20:03
  something in it and it it distorts it.
• 20:05
  >> Yeah.
• 20:05
  >> Uh so with the Higs uh Bzon, the Higs
• 20:10
  field uh is this sort of invisible. It's
• 20:14
  been described as a something like
• 20:16
  molasses or syrup. Uh that what actually
• 20:21
  give particles their mass because um
• 20:23
  they move slowly through it because they
• 20:25
  get sticky. Uh that's one way of looking
• 20:28
  at it. Um but uh the Higs Bzon is
• 20:32
  essentially a um in in a in a sense uh a
• 20:36
  ripple in the Higs field. The Higs field
• 20:39
  fills space and the Higs Bzons uh are
• 20:43
  ripples in it. That's one way uh to look
• 20:46
  at it. Um it's it's uh
• 20:52
  the I think what Robert's interested in
• 20:54
  is the density of these Bzons.
• 20:58
  uh whether they are uniformly
• 21:02
  uh distributed through space or whether
• 21:05
  we're talking about um you know uh Bzons
• 21:10
  uh that are
• 21:14
  more dense in some places than than
• 21:16
  others. uh and I I guess the the bottom
• 21:21
  line is that you would expect there to
• 21:22
  be more Bzons where there is more uh
• 21:27
  more uh what you might call normal
• 21:30
  matter the the quarks and normal
• 21:32
  particles but that might not be the
• 21:34
  case. Uh I need to look at that a little
• 21:36
  bit more carefully Andrew as you can
• 21:38
  probably tell uh to to find out what the
• 21:41
  distribution of Higs Bzons are. If you
• 21:44
  assume the Higs field is uniform
• 21:46
  throughout space, which I think it might
• 21:47
  be.
• 21:48
  >> Yeah, I suppose so. I mean, it's a
• 21:50
  complicated area. You're talking about
• 21:52
  particle physics, aren't you? Really?
• 21:54
  It's um it's not
• 21:55
  >> I believe so. Yes.
• 21:57
  >> It's not it's not basic maths. So, um
• 22:00
  >> yeah, it's particle physics we're
• 22:02
  talking about. And um as as I've said
• 22:04
  before, the disclaimer is I'm not a
• 22:05
  particle physicist. I've been to been to
• 22:09
  CERN a few times and had my mind blown
• 22:12
  by what they do there at the Large
• 22:13
  Hadron Collider. In fact, I've been
• 22:15
  underground in the Ladron Collider, but
• 22:17
  I'm still not a physicist, a particle
• 22:19
  physicist. I uh learn what they they
• 22:23
  tell me and kind of hope for the best.
• 22:26
  >> Yeah. Aren't they making a larger Hedron
• 22:28
  collider?
• 22:30
  uh they are planning one um something
• 22:34
  called
• 22:36
  uh
• 22:38
  I can't remember it's something like the
• 22:40
  large you know the future large collider
• 22:42
  I think something like that uh which
• 22:44
  whereas the large hydron collider has a
• 22:46
  diameter or a circumference of 27
• 22:49
  kilometers this is 100 kilometers
• 22:52
  um if they ever get the money for it
• 22:55
  they are planning an opening ceremony
• 22:57
  for it in 2070
• 23:00
  It's called the uh future circular
• 23:03
  collider.
• 23:03
  >> Future circular collider. That's it.
• 23:05
  >> Um 91 km ring successor to the large
• 23:08
  hedron collider.
• 23:11
  >> And they expect it to be approved.
• 23:15
  Then the 2728 financial year by the look
• 23:18
  of it. Construction starting in the
• 23:19
  2030s. So it's a little way off.
• 23:22
  >> Completion 2070.
• 23:25
  >> 2070.
• 23:26
  Lime.
• 23:27
  >> Yeah.
• 23:28
  That's where the last let's not hold it
• 23:32
  is what I saw. Yeah. So I don't think um
• 23:35
  I I you know even with the best will in
• 23:37
  the world space will probably have
• 23:40
  dwindled to an audience measured in
• 23:42
  single digits by then. So
• 23:44
  >> possibly possibly so yes uh more could
• 23:47
  pick up new listeners along the way but
• 23:49
  we won't know about it. But um I I
• 23:52
  suppose the other side to this question
• 23:53
  though is that we do see concentrations
• 23:56
  of particles in some parts of the
• 23:59
  universe uh like dark matter seems to
• 24:02
  concentrate around galaxies
• 24:05
  kind of thing. Is that
• 24:06
  >> Yeah,
• 24:07
  >> that a different kettle of fish.
• 24:09
  >> I I think so because we're talking about
• 24:11
  something that is um a property of the
• 24:14
  universe itself almost. Um,
• 24:19
  so that the Higs field is everywhere.
• 24:24
  >> Okay. Gotcha. I understand. No, I get
• 24:26
  it. I get it. Yeah. All right.
• 24:27
  >> Yeah.
• 24:28
  >> So, Robert, the answer is um maybe
• 24:31
  possibly could be. Uh, we need to do a
• 24:33
  bit more homework by the sound of it.
• 24:36
  >> We might be able to get back to you on
• 24:37
  that.
• 24:39
  >> Just Fred's writing a note so he doesn't
• 24:41
  forget. Except he'll forget where the
• 24:44
  note is. Shh.
• 24:45
  >> All right.
• 24:47
  It's in this book.
• 24:49
  Thanks, Robert.
• 24:52
  >> Okay, we checked all four systems and
• 24:55
  >> Space Nets.
• 24:57
  >> And our final question comes from Renie.
• 25:00
  Uh, this is a really interesting
• 25:02
  question because he says, I'm going to
• 25:04
  play devil's advocate with this
• 25:06
  question. How will finding out what dark
• 25:09
  matter and dark energy really are help
• 25:12
  the earth and all uh of its life now and
• 25:16
  in the future? Renie from California.
• 25:19
  We've had a few US questions this week.
• 25:21
  That's nice. Two from Cali. Uh so yeah,
• 25:24
  what difference will it make if we find
• 25:26
  this stuff to Earth and life as it is
• 25:30
  now and in the future?
• 25:33
  Um so um yeah if if we magically did
• 25:37
  find the answer to these things and we
• 25:40
  will eventually uh over a period of time
• 25:43
  I hope it's not till not be I hope it's
• 25:45
  before 2070 because I want to know um it
• 25:49
  it what it will do will be complete our
• 25:52
  understanding of the universe in a way
• 25:54
  that it it's not the case at the moment.
• 25:58
  So um it it basically refineses our
• 26:03
  understanding
• 26:04
  uh in a if I can put it this way in a
• 26:07
  way that's similar to the way general
• 26:11
  relativity
• 26:13
  refined it back in 1915.
• 26:17
  Um, so the fact that we suddenly
• 26:21
  understood gravity, the way gravity
• 26:23
  works in a new light, which is what
• 26:26
  general relativity did um meant that uh
• 26:32
  yes, the physicists could go away happy
• 26:35
  because they solved a problem. There
• 26:38
  were a number of problems that Newtonian
• 26:41
  gravity couldn't couldn't help with
• 26:43
  which were solved by Einsteinian
• 26:46
  gravity.
• 26:47
  So um but that didn't seem to offer any
• 26:51
  future benefits for humankind. But here
• 26:55
  we are rather more than 100 years later,
• 26:57
  110 years later and we have um tools
• 27:03
  which rely absolutely on general
• 27:06
  relativity. And the one I'm thinking of
• 27:08
  most commonly is uh GPS
• 27:12
  uh because our position finding um
• 27:15
  software simply would not work without
• 27:18
  general relativity. you'd have errors in
• 27:20
  the region of 10 kilometers which is not
• 27:23
  kind of what you want with GPS but that
• 27:26
  took a 100 years and so Renie that's the
• 27:31
  sort of time scale I think on which you
• 27:33
  have to be optimistic about the way it
• 27:34
  might help humankind or life on earth
• 27:37
  generally because if we become
• 27:40
  responsible um a responsible species on
• 27:43
  our planet we're going to help the whole
• 27:44
  planet if we if we live sustainably and
• 27:48
  um live alongside inside uh all our
• 27:50
  companion organisms on on this planet.
• 27:54
  So uh yeah, so I I think um what you
• 27:56
  can't say is that it won't help them.
• 27:59
  That's the thing. You can't say that it
• 28:01
  will either. Uh but there's a good
• 28:04
  chance that in the same way that um
• 28:07
  something as obstruuse as general
• 28:09
  relativity actually comes into
• 28:11
  everybody's everyday lifeund odd years
• 28:14
  later. I think that's the the model and
• 28:17
  it's one reason why why deep research
• 28:21
  like this is funded. It's why
• 28:22
  fundamental research that is just
• 28:24
  knowledge for its own sake at the moment
• 28:27
  why it's funded because you never know
• 28:28
  what the spin-offs might be.
• 28:30
  >> Absolutely. Uh and you can look back in
• 28:33
  history at some of the great discoveries
• 28:34
  and how they've they've changed things
• 28:37
  on Earth and have changed human life. Um
• 28:42
  >> I'm just trying to think of one. Well,
• 28:44
  electricity for a start.
• 28:45
  >> Yeah. Well, they, you know, it was just
• 28:48
  physicists playing around in the early
• 28:50
  19th century. Oh, this is really
• 28:52
  interesting.
• 28:53
  >> Um, nobody ever thought we'd use it like
• 28:55
  we do today.
• 28:57
  >> And I suppose one of the this is
• 28:59
  probably a a fundamental example. Uh, as
• 29:03
  we learn things, we learn things. So it
• 29:07
  expands our minds. It expands our
• 29:09
  inquisitiveness. It expands our
• 29:11
  intelligence. It it it it enables
• 29:13
  humanity to understand more about itself
• 29:17
  and its place in the universe. You know,
• 29:19
  you go back to 1543
• 29:22
  when Capernicus
• 29:24
  >> found that the earth was not the center
• 29:26
  of the universe. I think he got shouted
• 29:29
  down pretty heavily for that. But that's
• 29:31
  the truth. We know that now. Uh there
• 29:33
  was I can't remember who it was but um
• 29:36
  another thing that goes back quite a way
• 29:38
  when the discovery was made that our son
• 29:41
  is actually a star. I mean for a long
• 29:43
  time we didn't know that.
• 29:46
  >> You know it's it's about knowledge as
• 29:48
  much as anything. I think
• 29:50
  >> Yeah. Yep.
• 29:51
  >> I love that one though.
• 29:52
  >> That's right. Yeah.
• 29:54
  >> The sun.
• 29:54
  >> It's great.
• 29:55
  >> Yeah.
• 29:56
  >> I think
• 29:56
  >> you can look it up. It's online
• 29:57
  somewhere. I did it as a quiz question
• 29:59
  once on the radio and um got a great
• 30:02
  response to that cuz people just in the
• 30:04
  modern era never thought that there
• 30:06
  would have been a time where people look
• 30:08
  at this this hot ball in the sky and go
• 30:12
  what is that? Um and you know looking at
• 30:15
  all the other stars not making the
• 30:16
  correlation they just didn't know. It's
• 30:19
  um it was incredible. So I suppose Renie
• 30:22
  it's it's it's about knowledge. It's
• 30:24
  about expanding our understanding of
• 30:26
  life, the universe, and everything and
• 30:28
  not stopping at 42.
• 30:31
  Um, that's the way I look at it.
• 30:34
  I think you're and I think you're
• 30:36
  absolutely right. I think um, you know,
• 30:38
  both that's two sides of the same thing.
• 30:40
  We're we're we but it's why we why we do
• 30:43
  this sort of thing. It's why it's we're
• 30:45
  a curious species and
• 30:46
  >> absolutely
• 30:47
  >> knowledge is power. Yeah.
• 30:48
  >> Yeah. Yeah. That's another thing. Yeah.
• 30:50
  Absolutely true, Renie. Great question.
• 30:53
  good one for discussion and debate and
• 30:55
  keep them coming. If you'd like to send
• 30:57
  questions into us, um you can do so
• 31:00
  through our website,
• 31:01
  spacenutspodcast.com,
• 31:03
  spacenuts.io, they're the two URLs. And
• 31:06
  while you're there, have a look around.
• 31:08
  The AMA button at the top, ask me
• 31:10
  anything is where you send your
• 31:12
  questions. Ask me anything. Uh text or
• 31:15
  audio, don't forget to tell us who you
• 31:16
  are and where you're from. And uh you
• 31:19
  might want to click on the support our
• 31:21
  podcast button uh and and help us out if
• 31:24
  you if you so desire. Never ever going
• 31:26
  to make it mandatory, but uh there are
• 31:29
  advantages to becoming a a a supporter
• 31:32
  of uh of the podcast. So um check that
• 31:34
  out as well and visit the shop while
• 31:36
  you're there. That also helps us. Buy a
• 31:39
  sticker, buy a cap, buy a shirt, buy
• 31:42
  whatever. We should have space nut
• 31:44
  sunscreen, you know. It would make
• 31:46
  sense. Anyway, uh you can do it all on
• 31:49
  our website. Fred, thank you so much.
• 31:51
  Always a pleasure.
• 31:53
  >> Good to talk, Andrew. And um I'm sure
• 31:55
  we'll do it again soon.
• 31:57
  >> Yes, I'm sure we will. Uh could be a few
• 31:59
  minutes, could be a week, who knows. Uh
• 32:01
  and Hugh in the studio, thanks to him
• 32:03
  for doing everything he does. We don't
• 32:05
  know what that is, but we appreciate it.
• 32:07
  And from me, Andrew Dunley, thanks for
• 32:09
  your company. See you on the next
• 32:10
  episode of Space Nuts. Bye-bye.
• 32:13
  >> Space Nuts. You'll be listening to the
• 32:15
  Space Nuts podcast
• 32:18
  >> available at Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
• 32:21
  iHeart Radio, or your favorite podcast
• 32:24
  player. You can also stream on demand at
• 32:26
  byes.com. This has been another quality
• 32:29
  podcast production from byes.com.