Latest / Space News Today / Black Hole Dilemmas, Pulsar Planets & Bennu’s Chemical Secrets | Q&A | Space Nuts: Astronomy...

Transcript

Black Hole Dilemmas, Pulsar Planets & Bennu’s Chemical Secrets | Q&A | Space Nuts: Astronomy... · Space News Today

0:00
Hi there. Thanks for joining us again.
0:01
This is Space Nuts. It's a Q&A edition.
0:04
My name is Andrew Dunley. Great to have
0:06
your company. Questions today about
0:08
falling into a black hole and how can
0:11
black holes get super massive? Have they
0:13
got enough time? It doesn't make sense.
0:15
We'll see if we can explain that.
0:17
Planets orbiting pulsars. That's a
0:19
question that's been raised. And
0:22
somebody wants an update on the asteroid
0:24
Bennu and what's going on with
0:27
neutrinos. We'll try and answer all of
0:29
that on this episode of Space Nuts.
0:31
>> 15 seconds. Guidance is internal. 10 9
0:36
Ignition sequence start.
0:37
>> Space Nuts.
0:38
>> 5 4 3 2
0:41
>> 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1
0:43
>> Space Nuts.
0:44
>> Astronauts report. It feels good.
0:47
>> And to furnish us with his vast amount
0:50
of knowledge because the brain the size
0:52
of a planet he has, Professor Fred
0:54
Watson, astronomer at large. Hello,
0:56
Fred.
0:58
>> I've forgotten the name of the robot
1:00
whose brain was the size of a planet.
1:02
>> Marvin the paranoid android.
1:03
>> Marvin. That's right. Yes, it was
1:05
Marvin.
1:06
>> Yes, Marvin.
1:09
>> And he looked like this. He didn't have
1:12
>> He would have been really terrible on
1:14
radio.
1:16
>> No color, no inflection,
1:18
>> just nothing.
1:19
>> And yeah, everything was just the end of
1:22
the world for him.
1:25
or the end of the universe, which is
1:26
actually what the whole thing was about.
1:28
>> Yes, it was. That's true. Yeah.
1:31
>> Um, let's do some questions, Fred, if
1:35
you um are ready and willing and able.
1:38
It doesn't matter if you're able,
1:39
adequacy is enough. Uh, let's go to our
1:42
first question. Longtime listener, first
1:44
time caller, uh, I've been rereading the
1:46
threebody problem trilogy without
1:49
spoilers. There's a moment where an
1:51
image of someone who fell into a small
1:53
man-made black hole is still visible.
1:57
That got me thinking about time dilation
1:59
at the event horizon. Given the that
2:02
extreme gravitational time dilation
2:04
occurs there, how are black holes able
2:06
to accrete enough matter to grow to
2:09
super massive scales within cosmological
2:12
time scales? Uh, thanks for all the time
2:15
and effort you both put into the
2:16
podcast. Nick from the UK. Milton Kees,
2:21
I think is the name of his locality.
2:24
>> It is.
2:24
>> So, um, yeah, you'd know that area. I
2:27
imagine you'd know just about every
2:29
square foot of the UK, wouldn't you?
2:31
>> I do. I certainly know that bit quite
2:33
well because my brother used to live in
2:35
Newport Pagnel, which is right next door
2:37
to Milton Kees.
2:38
>> Um, Newport Pagnel is a charming sort of
2:41
old country village. Milton Kees is a
2:45
new town. Uh, and so they're quite
2:47
different, but they both had their
2:48
pluses, and I'm sure they both had their
2:50
minuses. He doesn't live there anymore,
2:52
but that's another story which we won't
2:54
go into on space.
2:56
>> So, what was the question?
2:58
>> Well, well, he he made a reference to
3:00
threebody problem where someone fell
3:02
into a man-made black hole and they were
3:04
still visible. I must say, um, Nick,
3:07
that I I read the first book and I found
3:10
it pretty heavy going, so I I haven't
3:12
actually tried to read the rest, but I
3:14
might get around to it. They're still
3:16
making the TV series, but there's
3:18
there's a bit of a um like the first
3:21
season was out a couple of years ago as
3:23
it turns out now, but um they initially
3:26
announced that they weren't going to
3:27
keep going. Then they said, "Yes, we
3:29
are. We're going to make two more
3:31
seasons and and align them both with the
3:34
two more books." Now, they're starting
3:37
to think, "No, we'll make one more
3:38
season and combine the two books." So,
3:41
we don't quite know where it's at, but
3:43
uh great series if you haven't had a
3:45
look at it, The Threebody Problem. Um uh
3:48
the first season, I'm going to watch it
3:50
again cuz it's so so very good. His
3:53
question, um he's thinking about time
3:56
dilation at the event horizon. Given
3:58
that extreme gravitational time dilation
4:00
occurs there, how are black holes able
4:02
to accrete enough matter to grow to
4:04
super massive scales within cosmological
4:07
timelines? I love that question. It's
4:10
great, isn't it? And it's a good
4:12
question, too. But, um, the the crucial
4:15
point here, it's all dependent on your
4:18
on the observer's frame of rest. In
4:21
other words, where you are and what
4:23
you're doing. So, um, the person
4:27
splattered on the event horizon of a of
4:30
a a black hole for whom time appears to
4:32
have stopped to an outside observer,
4:35
that person's already long gone. They've
4:37
been sucked into the black hole. uh it's
4:39
only their time dilated image that we
4:42
are seeing. The outside observer sees
4:45
the time dilation. The person going
4:47
through doesn't they just basically
4:50
expect experience time ticking away in
4:52
the normal way. Uh and as they get
4:54
spaghettified, they probably wish they
4:56
weren't there. Uh so it's it's all about
4:59
your kind of your vantage point. Uh but
5:02
we would call it the the frame of
5:04
reference. So yes, it is possible for uh
5:07
black holes to accrete and become super
5:10
massive black holes. And um you and I I
5:13
think Andrew spoke recently about um the
5:17
idea that black holes uh can become
5:20
super massive much more quickly than we
5:22
thought. Uh and I can't remember the
5:26
mechanism by which that happened. Uh we
5:29
we did cover it. It's a story we
5:30
covered. Uh and there was there was a
5:33
sort of trick to it. uh that if you do
5:35
this uh then your black hole can gather
5:39
uh material so quickly that you find
5:42
yourself in the situation that we find
5:44
when we observe the early universe with
5:46
the James Webb telescope. We find super
5:48
massive black holes that are much more
5:50
massive than we thought they should be.
5:52
We thought the accretion of material
5:54
onto these black holes would be
5:56
relatively gentle and a long process
5:59
taking most of the age of the universe
6:00
but it's not. It all happens within the
6:03
first few hundred million years.
6:05
>> Uh yeah, it's called the uh it exceeds
6:08
the Edington limit apparently. Um this
6:12
this faster growth.
6:14
>> Um these objects often reaching billions
6:17
of solar masses, matured only 900
6:19
million years after the Big Bang,
6:20
implying they formed extremely early and
6:22
grew unexpectedly fast or had massive
6:24
initial um seeds. It says
6:29
>> um I'd have to do a lot more reading to
6:31
um find out
6:33
>> but but they refer to a feeding frenzy.
6:36
Abundant gas fueled a feed feeding
6:38
frenzy.
6:39
>> Feeding frenzy. Uh that was it. It's to
6:42
do with the properties of the gas cloud
6:44
in which it's sitting. That was right.
6:47
>> You've reminded me. You see there's a
6:48
few neurons in there that are still
6:51
remembering
6:51
>> firing. Yeah.
6:54
>> So um so it's not so unusual. It's not
6:57
so unusual is basically what um the
7:00
answer is to Nick's question. This is
7:02
this is um yeah, it's the time scale
7:04
isn't really the issue. It's it's what
7:07
they've got to eat.
7:09
>> That's right. In terms of uh Yes, in
7:11
terms of how how fast these things can
7:13
accrete. But, you know, the the basic
7:16
premise of Nick's question is answered
7:17
by the fact that you're talking about
7:19
two different reference frames. We
7:21
observing the black hole from the
7:22
outside see somebody falling into it.
7:24
Their time seems to go slower and slower
7:26
and it's stationary on the event
7:27
horizon. But for the person themselves,
7:29
they're just whizzing down through the
7:31
event horizon and straight into the
7:33
black hole in very long strings.
7:36
I Okay, so let's just say we observe
7:40
somebody who's obviously been sucked
7:42
into a black hole and we can see their
7:44
image there. How long would that image
7:46
last? Would they they'd have to
7:48
disappear eventually, wouldn't they? I
7:50
think so. Well, probably by covered up
7:52
by whatever else falls into the black
7:54
hole because there's lots of stuff going
7:57
going in. Uh yeah, it's something I've
7:59
tried to um envisage as well. And I'm
8:02
not really sure of what the you know
8:04
what the answer is, but I think it I
8:06
suppose if you think of it like um
8:08
raindrops on a dry pavement or something
8:11
uh where one raindrop hits and you see
8:14
it, you know, sort of sitting there and
8:16
another one covers it up and then
8:18
another one covers it up. Don't know.
8:19
That's my That's how the the Watson
8:22
brain might do it.
8:23
>> Yeah, that's that's a good example.
8:24
Yeah.
8:26
>> No, that that covers it. I understand.
8:27
If I understand, everyone's got it.
8:31
>> Hey, I should be on radio, shouldn't I?
8:33
>> You should. Yeah, I think you are a lot.
8:36
>> A lot more than I am these days, I must
8:37
say.
8:39
>> Yeah. All right. Thanks, Nick. Great
8:41
question. Very thoughtprovoking. And uh
8:44
thanks for sending it in. And don't uh
8:46
don't make it your last time seeing it's
8:48
your first time. Uh next question comes
8:51
from Hazel. I have in my studies just
8:53
come across something completely new to
8:55
me but uh sort of makes sense. We've
8:58
found evidence of what look like planets
9:00
orbiting pulsars. This would mean
9:03
somehow these orbiting bodies survive
9:05
massive stars that went supernova. Also,
9:08
the sweeping beams of seriously strong
9:10
electromagnetic radiation would, I
9:13
assume, have some fascinating effects on
9:16
these planets. As always, love the show
9:18
and keep up the great work. All the best
9:20
from uh cloudy skyed Scotland. Well, it
9:24
wasn't cloudy skyed when I was there
9:25
because the sky was falling. It was
9:27
raining cats and dogs,
9:30
but um I'm sure that's not uncommon, but
9:33
um yes, thanks for the question, Hazel.
9:36
All right, Fred, over to you.
9:39
Uh, yes. Uh, in fact, the first planet
9:43
that was discovered beyond the solar
9:45
system was exactly what Hazel has just
9:48
described. It's a planet around a pulsar
9:51
and it won its discoverers, the Nobel
9:53
Prize. Uh, this was I think it was 1978
9:58
when that was discovered. Uh and the
10:00
first planet orbiting a normal star was
10:02
discovered in 1995
10:05
uh by Mayor Mayor and Quos were the two
10:08
scientists who discovered that. Um, but
10:11
the one orbiting a pulsar uh was uh it's
10:16
partly because pulsars are very very
10:19
accurate clocks and you can use their
10:22
accuracy of their clocks to time
10:24
basically how they're rotating and
10:26
whether there's anything gravitational
10:28
going on in their environment and that's
10:29
how the planet was discovered. Uh the
10:32
first planet known to exist beyond the
10:34
solar system. Quite a big quite a big
10:36
discovery. Uh so there are others like
10:38
that now others known to be in the same
10:40
situation and I think the question Hazel
10:44
postulates is still an active question.
10:46
How does a planet survive that kind of
10:49
scenario? Um did it form after the
10:53
supernova explosion uh form in the
10:56
debris of what happened or did it
10:58
survive the supernova explosion? And I'm
11:00
not sure what the current thinking of my
11:03
learned colleagues is on that but I
11:05
might ask them. uh because uh I um I
11:08
think it's it's a valid question. Uh for
11:10
a long time we we it was a puzzle. How
11:13
how does a how does a star um that goes
11:16
supernova? How does it still have a
11:17
planet in its retinue?
11:20
>> But but we're assuming that it would
11:22
destroy the planet, but it it might mess
11:25
it up a bit, but the the rocket still be
11:27
there, wouldn't it?
11:29
Um well, when you think of the energy
11:31
that goes into a supernova, a supernova
11:33
when it's at its peak is brighter
11:35
usually than the rest of its host
11:37
galaxy. So there's huge amounts of
11:40
energy there and a lot of that's optical
11:44
energy, visible light energy, but uh
11:46
there are shock waves that we see. Shock
11:48
waves will be disastrous for a for a
11:51
planet. So my my guess is it's still not
11:55
well understood how a planet can survive
11:57
something like that.
11:59
>> Yeah. Um what effect would those those
12:03
I don't know what what do you call them
12:05
with the the um that come out of a puls
12:08
>> neutron star
12:10
>> or the or the the be um the uh the beams
12:14
of radiation you mean caused by the
12:16
magnetic fields.
12:18
>> So that that in itself would be just
12:20
>> Yep. Yeah. Horrific.
12:22
>> Yeah, that's right. You'd think so
12:25
because they're very powerful. That's
12:27
what we see when we see a pul pulsar.
12:29
See the flash flashlight beams of uh of
12:32
energy. Yeah. Not somewhere you want to
12:35
be really.
12:36
>> No, it's hard to imagine that there
12:38
might be life on some of these pulsar
12:41
planets.
12:42
>> Yeah. Do do we know how how many planets
12:45
we've discovered that have sort of
12:47
managed to survive in this environment?
12:49
Wouldn't
12:50
>> I'm sure we do. Uh I'd have to check it
12:52
out. I don't know the number off hand,
12:54
but I'm sure with your adept fingering,
12:58
you could very quickly tell me how many
13:00
planets are in orbit around pulsars.
13:04
>> Yes, I'm going to do that now.
13:08
>> Meanwhile, I'll wax.
13:10
>> And the answer is um the answer isn't
13:12
big. As early as this year, between six
13:15
and eight planets have been confirmed
13:17
orbiting pulsars. That sounds
13:19
>> that that suggests the survival rate is
13:22
pretty pretty low.
13:24
>> Yes, it it does.
13:26
>> It does. On the other hand, you know,
13:28
stars that um that go supernova and
13:31
create
13:32
>> a pulsar have got very short lives.
13:36
Their lives times are measured in tens
13:38
of millions of years rather than
13:41
tens of billions of years like our our
13:43
son is at probably 10 billion years
13:45
total lifetime. So um that's you know
13:50
for a planet to have time to coales
13:52
properly and form uh and do all the
13:54
things that planets do in their infancy
13:57
uh it's not very long if you've got a
13:59
looming explosion on your doorstep.
14:02
>> Absolutely. Yes. Um thankfully we don't
14:05
live in that kind of environment.
14:06
>> We don't. No, that's right. Although
14:08
although um yeah that that famous old
14:11
story keeps popping up and I saw it
14:13
again the other day about uh the the
14:15
impending explosion of Beetlejuice
14:18
>> and you know we don't want to be in the
14:20
way of that.
14:22
>> We don't know it's um it's about 700
14:24
light years away so it's survivable. Uh
14:27
but
14:27
>> yeah good
14:29
>> yeah we don't really want to be on the
14:31
on the Beetlejuice side of the earth
14:33
when it goes off because of all the
14:35
radiation.
14:36
>> Exactly. M but um you know uh if you
14:40
read the popular press it's going to
14:41
happen next week but uh it could be you
14:45
know tens or maybe 100 thousand years or
14:49
something like that couldn't it
14:51
>> it's certainly people are talking about
14:54
thousands of years that's correct
14:55
>> yeah okay thank you Hazel hopefully that
14:58
uh sorted out your question thanks for
15:01
sending it in and please send us another
15:04
one when it pops into your head this is
15:06
Space Nuts. Andrew Dunley here with
15:08
Professor Fred Watson.
15:12
>> We choose to go to the moon in this
15:14
decade and do the other things. Not
15:17
because they are easy, but because they
15:19
are hard.
15:20
>> These nuts.
15:22
>> Okay, Fred, we have uh an audio
15:25
question. Let's hear from David.
15:28
>> Good day. David here from the Sunshine
15:30
Coast. Longtime listener. Uh fairly
15:32
short question today. I see that you
15:34
were looking for phone in questions. Um,
15:37
just wondering what we've learned uh
15:39
with regard to the material that came
15:42
back from Benu. Um, I haven't heard a
15:44
lot in the mainstream media at all. It's
15:46
been quite some time and I know they had
15:48
trouble uh dealing with the sample when
15:49
it first came back. Uh, just wondering
15:51
if you could fill us in. Thanks very
15:53
much. Keep up with the great show.
15:55
>> See you later.
15:56
>> Thank you very much and we'll see you
15:57
later too, David. Um,
16:00
yeah, Benu, it's funny that the question
16:02
should turn up when it does because, uh,
16:04
I think Beno's just got back into the
16:06
news, has it not?
16:07
>> Yes, that's right. There's a really
16:09
interesting story which came out this
16:11
week in the proceedings
16:14
of the National Academy of Science in
16:16
the United States. Um, and because this
16:19
is a press release, it means I can read
16:21
from it with impunity. Uh, and so it
16:24
introduces the issue very well.
16:26
Scientists studying samples from the
16:28
asteroid Bennu have uncovered a
16:30
surprisingly complex chemical landscape
16:33
at the tiniest scales. A new study shows
16:36
that at an extremely small scale,
16:38
organic material and minerals inside the
16:41
asteroid asteroid Bennu are organized
16:44
into three clearly different chemical
16:46
groupings. These patterns provide
16:48
important clues about how liquid water
16:51
once altered the atmosph
16:57
relatively close to the Earth. It formed
16:59
from fragments left behind after its
17:01
original parent body broke apart because
17:03
the samples returned from Bennu have not
17:06
been exposed to Earth's atmosphere or
17:08
whether they offer a rare untouched
17:10
record of how water, minerals, and
17:13
organic compounds interacted in the
17:15
early solar system. So, it's a great
17:17
story. Um, and um, it comes from
17:20
scientists uh, I think in the US. I'm
17:24
not sure actually. That's a good
17:25
question. Where are these scientists
17:27
from? We might answer that during the
17:29
during the talk. But yes, remembering
17:32
Bennu, Benu is an asteroid visited by
17:35
the spacecraft Osiris Rex uh which had
17:38
um a marvelous mechanism on board called
17:41
Tag SAM, the touchandgo sample
17:44
acquisition mechanism uh which basically
17:47
sank the spacecraft onto the asteroid
17:49
surface uh and let it grab some of the
17:52
soil. Bennu is a rubble pile. It's
17:54
shaped very much like two cones end to
17:57
end. A typical shape for a rubble pile
17:59
asteroid. So what they grabbed was quite
18:01
a lot of uh material. Uh I think it was
18:04
uh if I remember rightly 60 grams comes
18:07
into mind. That might not be the number
18:08
but it's something like that. A
18:10
significant amount. So asteroid Bennu is
18:14
very much in the headlines. A lot of
18:16
interesting stuff. Um the um the paper
18:20
that uh re reveals these results is
18:24
called nanocale infrared spectroscopy
18:27
reveals complex organic mineral
18:29
assemblages in asteroid Bennu. So that
18:32
seems to be the crucial aspect of this.
18:34
Not the minerals and organic or carbon
18:37
containing molecules uh that are there
18:40
but the fact that they're organized in
18:42
such a way that they have been subjected
18:45
to water related processes and that
18:48
means basically liquid water.
18:52
>> It's quite extraordinary. Uh once again
18:54
reading from the press release, these
18:56
uneven nanocale structures indicate that
18:59
water did not affect Bennu in a single
19:02
uniform way. Instead, water interacted
19:04
differently in separate areas, producing
19:06
a patchwork of chemical environments
19:08
across the asteroid. It's almost poetic,
19:11
isn't it?
19:12
>> It is. It is. Uh from my research, uh
19:16
the sample return was 121.6 g of
19:20
material.
19:21
>> There you go.
19:22
>> 4.29. half right
19:25
>> 4.29 O and
19:27
>> you're right they um the the the authors
19:30
are from the United States um places
19:33
like uh the department of geosciences
19:37
um Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
19:41
etc. So yes, definitely a USbased
19:44
uh based study that uh has has been
19:47
released on on the latest from uh
19:50
asteroid Bennu. Um I'm just trying to
19:53
remember where that sample landed. Was
19:55
that the one that landed in Australia or
19:57
was that another one?
19:58
>> That was
19:59
>> No, that was a Japanese mission, wasn't
20:01
it?
20:02
>> So Benu's sample Sirius Rex is the
20:04
spacecraft which I think is on its way
20:07
might be on its way to Apous. It's been
20:09
redirected. I can't remember where it's
20:10
going though. What it did was dropped a
20:12
capsule which has the uh which has the
20:16
um uh samples in it and they landed in
20:19
Utah. That's where the landing site was.
20:22
Uh our samples that came to Australia
20:24
are from the two Hayabusa missions, the
20:25
two Japanese asteroid sample return
20:28
missions.
20:29
>> Yeah. And you're right. It's headed for
20:31
Apous.
20:32
>> Good. I thought it was
20:34
>> they refer to it as a mission extension
20:36
to study um a near-Earth asteroid. and
20:39
it should arrive in April of 2029.
20:43
So, they're extraordinarily long
20:45
missions, aren't they? When you when
20:47
you're out there in the
20:49
>> in the nether regions of the solar
20:50
system.
20:52
>> That's right. It's um you know, that's
20:54
just the way space works. You kind of
20:57
tied tied up with gravity and time and
21:00
you can't really do much about either of
21:01
those two things.
21:02
>> Oh, you can in a science fiction story.
21:05
Yes. Amazing what you can do in a
21:06
science fiction book.
21:07
>> Stories. Yes.
21:10
And I keep saying it, a lot of science
21:12
fiction has turned into reality over the
21:14
years. So,
21:16
um, you know, you never know. In fact, I
21:19
can't remember what the what the the
21:21
problem was, but they they did actually
21:24
not so long ago, um, get science fiction
21:27
writers together. I don't know if it was
21:30
NASA or someone else to try and solve a
21:32
problem that they couldn't get their
21:33
heads around to see if the science
21:35
fiction community could come up with an
21:37
answer for them. Can't remember any more
21:40
about it than that. And I wish I could
21:41
because I the story fascinated me. They
21:44
never called me Fred.
21:46
obviously sold anything
21:49
>> your
21:50
I would think being a best-selling
21:52
author of one or two copies that have
21:55
been sold over the years that I would be
21:57
the go-to guy.
22:01
>> Not the case.
22:02
>> Not the case. Um have we finished
22:04
answering that question?
22:06
>> Yes. Basically, there's a lot going on.
22:09
Um you know, I urge David just to check
22:11
it out on the web. this um quite a lot
22:14
of stuff on on Benu. It's u it's been
22:16
interesting. I've I've I've noticed over
22:18
the last few weeks things popping out
22:21
particularly about the minerals which
22:23
have been water affected which in itself
22:25
tells you something about where it's
22:26
come from somewhere where there was
22:28
liquid water.
22:29
>> That is fascinating.
22:31
>> Yeah. Um and yes uh that um paper was
22:35
published on sciencedaily.com
22:38
uh David if you want to check it out. Um
22:40
and it was published the paper was
22:42
published on the 31st of March. Uh an
22:46
auspicious day in history Fred I must
22:48
say. Yeah. Um yes
22:51
a certain non-successful science fiction
22:53
writer was born on that day.
22:57
>> So yes yesterday was
22:59
>> yesterday our time. Yeah. Yeah.
23:01
>> So that was your 64th. Is that right?
23:04
>> Yes. I can I can uh officially play that
23:06
Beatles song now.
23:07
>> Good on you. I was just about to say
23:09
that.
23:11
>> Yeah,
23:12
>> it's okay.
23:14
>> Good old Paul McCartney. He hit the nail
23:15
on the head.
23:16
>> Yeah, I watched his doco the other day.
23:18
They had they released a doco about him.
23:20
Gosh, it's amazing what I didn't know
23:23
about him.
23:25
>> That's that's come out now. It's um
23:27
yeah, quite incredible. But that's a
23:30
different story. Completely different
23:32
story. But uh yeah, 64. Can't believe
23:35
it. Um, anyway, when I told my
23:37
grandchildren I was 64, they looked at
23:39
me and said, "And you're still alive?"
23:41
No, they didn't.
23:44
I said, "Well, hang on a minute. You
23:45
should meet Fred." No, I didn't say that
23:47
either.
23:49
>> I remember 64 just about.
23:55
>> Oh dear. All right, let's move on. Uh,
23:57
thank you, David. Um, yeah, good news
23:59
about Benu and yeah, they've just
24:01
published that paper on my birthday. Uh,
24:03
our final question, uh, comes from
24:06
Keith. Hello, gentlemen. Oh, well, he
24:08
got that wrong straight away. Uh, this
24:09
is Keith from Washington State, USA.
24:12
This is my first time asking a question.
24:14
We've had a couple of newbies on the
24:15
show today. Uh, looking forward to your
24:17
explanation. From what I understand,
24:20
neutrinos travel vast distances through
24:22
space and even from our own sun. Uh,
24:26
they they pass through our bodies every
24:28
second and easily through the Earth. But
24:31
do they travel straight through a black
24:33
hole or are they captured by it?
24:36
Appreciate you guys and love the
24:38
podcast. Look forward to every episode.
24:40
Thank you, Keith. Hope all is well in
24:42
Washington State. That's on the
24:43
northwest corner of the United States.
24:46
Seattle's in Washington State. I love
24:48
Seattle. Bent went there a year bit over
24:50
or couple of years ago now. Um terrific
24:53
place. Terrific. Uh current Super Bowl
24:56
champions Seahawks.
25:00
I knew you'd be interested in that,
25:01
Fred.
25:02
>> Keep talking cuz I'm just googling this.
25:05
>> I kind of figured I needed to pad, but I
25:08
didn't pad long enough. Yeah. See, I'm
25:10
I'm out of practice.
25:12
>> I'm out of practice. I haven't been on
25:14
radio for two years now, so I don't need
25:17
to add lib like I used to. It used to be
25:19
really funny when something went
25:21
horribly wrong and you knew you had to
25:22
fix it while you were talking. And have
25:25
you ever tried to thread a tape on a
25:27
realtore recorder while you're talking
25:29
to an audience and making sense of what
25:33
you're saying and you don't even know
25:34
what you're Yeah. Gosh, it can be a fun
25:38
moment. I miss those days so much.
25:42
>> Are you Are you good now?
25:44
>> Yes.
25:46
I just I just you've conjured up an
25:49
entirely different picture in my head of
25:51
you threading a realtore recorder which
25:53
I used to remember
25:54
>> doing. The one the one piece of kit that
25:56
I'd like that I don't have is a realtore
25:59
machine.
25:59
>> I can steal one for you. I I know I know
26:02
a guy in town who's got one
26:04
>> and if I took it he wouldn't notice for
26:06
a few years.
26:07
>> No,
26:11
>> tell me more offline.
26:12
>> Yes, I will. Yes. Good morning, Richard.
26:15
Uh, hi Richard.
26:16
>> Um,
26:18
>> yeah, but look, what we're talking about
26:20
radio, I it's changed so much because
26:22
it's all digital now. So, you don't
26:25
really
26:26
>> all those those um what what do you call
26:30
them? Skills
26:31
>> that you developed in radio like like
26:33
like cut splicing tape and and and drop
26:37
editing and
26:38
>> all of those special talents, they're
26:40
gone. They're just gone. If you gave
26:43
someone a a realtore to real tape and
26:44
said, "Here, can you just um edit that
26:46
piece out for me? Here's a razor blade."
26:49
They'd go, "What?
26:53
>> Remember to to make the cut diagonally
26:55
so that it doesn't impair the sound
26:57
quality."
26:58
>> Exactly. Yeah, that's that's how it
27:00
works.
27:01
>> Yeah.
27:02
>> In fact, splicing block the splicing
27:04
block had the had the slots in it so you
27:06
could do the diagonal cut and and it was
27:09
made in a way so that the tape actually
27:11
just
27:12
sat in there without folding up or
27:14
rolling around or slipping was
27:17
brilliantly p made piece of kit as Fred
27:20
would say to to keep the tape still.
27:23
>> I bet look all this all this all these
27:26
memories. Gosh,
27:27
>> I think I've ped enough now, Fred.
27:30
>> Yeah, I'm sure
27:32
>> a tape splicing block. It's how do you
27:35
splice neutrinos? That's the question.
27:37
>> Well, why do they splice or can they
27:39
splice a black hole? That's the That's
27:41
the question.
27:43
>> That's the worst segue I think we've
27:45
ever made, but that will do. It's as
27:47
good as it gets. Adequacy is all we aim
27:50
for. Um, but neutrinos are indeed
27:53
affected by gravity, as you'd expect.
27:56
Um, because they're particles. They're
27:58
subatomic particles. And so once uh a
28:01
neutrino crosses the event horizon, then
28:03
it's doomed. It will be absorbed by the
28:06
black hole just like light basically. um
28:09
they they hardly interact with normal
28:11
matter uh exactly as Keith mentions. Uh
28:15
but they do h feel the force of gravity
28:18
or the the um what base of gravity and
28:22
they just get pulled in in the same way
28:24
as uh as a any other particle. So the
28:28
answer is yes. Um and it's
28:32
you know it's a really interesting
28:34
subatomic particle. We used to think for
28:36
a while that maybe nutrinos made up the
28:39
dark matter of the universe, but it
28:41
turns out from other studies that they
28:43
don't have enough mass to do that. Uh so
28:45
they're not the culprits, but there are
28:47
a lot of them.
28:49
>> I think uh um David mentioned, sorry,
28:52
Keith begg mentioned the um the nutr the
28:55
sun solar neutrinos and for a long time
28:59
that was there was a problem there. I
29:01
think it was that we didn't see enough
29:03
neutrinos coming from the sun to agree
29:07
with theory and that was called the
29:08
solar neutrino problem. I think that was
29:10
the way round it was. But I believe that
29:12
has now been basically solved by both
29:16
observational and theoretical
29:18
astronomers. I should um go down a
29:21
rabbit hole and chase all that because
29:22
um my knowledge of neutrinos is really
29:25
really a little bit sad.
29:28
Uh it's got uh it does have uh the one
29:32
joke that I remember about neutrinos uh
29:35
which is probably not worth relating.
29:38
>> Oh, now you've got to say it.
29:40
Well, it was when there was this idea
29:43
that the Large Hadron Collider had
29:45
generated a neutrino that turned up at a
29:48
detector in Grand Sasso in in um Italy
29:52
uh sooner than it would have done if it
29:54
had not been traveling at less than the
29:57
speed of light. And so it became known
29:59
as the faster than light neutrino. Um in
30:02
the end it was debunked. They found it
30:04
was due to a loose connection in the
30:07
detector. Uh which led to the director
30:09
of Grand Sasso resigning. Actually was
30:12
so ashamed of what his institution had
30:15
done.
30:15
>> I remember that now.
30:17
>> But the joke is uh the joke is I'm sorry
30:21
we don't allow faster than night light
30:23
nutrinos into our bar. A faster than
30:26
light neutrino walked into a bar. That's
30:28
the joke.
30:31
Okay.
30:33
That's pretty good though.
30:35
>> I think it's a good one, too. I wish it
30:36
was mine, but
30:37
>> that is pretty good. Yeah. But what I
30:40
find difficult to get my head around is
30:42
that these things pass through the
30:44
planet. I mean,
30:45
>> yes, they do. Oh, yeah. They don't
30:47
notice the planet at all.
30:49
>> Yeah. But there is a detector. There's
30:52
the ice cube detector down in
30:53
Antarctica. This is a cube of ice. It's
30:56
a 1 kilometer cube of ice which is got
30:59
it's um basically uh not festoned so
31:02
much as impre impregnated with many many
31:05
optical detectors that would sense the
31:08
flash of light. If a neutrino actually
31:12
did collide and interact with a a normal
31:15
particle uh then you'd get a flash of
31:17
light uh which it would be detectable in
31:20
ice cube and I think they've had
31:21
detections as well. Oh, interesting.
31:24
Fascinating even.
31:27
All right. Uh, Keith, I think we covered
31:29
it. Did we cover it?
31:32
>> We Well, we answered the question, but I
31:34
think that was a value added question,
31:36
Keith.
31:36
>> Yes, it was. It's got lots of bonus
31:38
material in there. Probably boring as
31:40
you know, or whatever, an old sock. But,
31:43
uh,
31:44
>> oh dear.
31:45
>> We got there in the end. Uh, thank you,
31:48
Keith. Thank you everybody who sent
31:49
questions in. If you do have questions
31:51
for us, please go to our website and
31:53
send them in on the ask me anything tab
31:55
at the top. Just click a the AMA letters
31:59
and there's an interface there where you
32:01
can send us text and audio questions.
32:04
Please remember to tell us who you are
32:05
and where you're from. And uh we'll do
32:07
our very best to answer them all. Uh and
32:11
again, we we're just yeah, we're on the
32:13
cusp of not quite having enough
32:14
questions. Got a lot of text questions,
32:16
but audio questions are few and far
32:18
between for some reason.
32:20
But um who knows uh get them into us.
32:22
We'd love to hear from you. We love all
32:24
these uh voices, all the different
32:26
people from around the world. It's it's
32:28
fantastic. Uh and thank you Fred as
32:31
always. It's been a great pleasure.
32:34
>> It has indeed. And good to talk to you
32:36
uh this week and hopefully we'll do it
32:38
again next week.
32:39
>> Yes indeed. And I'll get back to you on
32:41
that free realtore tape recorder. Fred.
32:45
>> Yeah. Nudge nudge wink wink. uh,
32:47
Professor Fred Watson, astronomer at
32:49
large, part of the team here, uh, on the
32:51
Space Nuts podcast. And, uh, thanks to
32:53
Hugh in the studio, who couldn't be with
32:56
us today. He's a bit slow. He's an old
32:58
Trino. And, um, yeah, he can't even get
33:02
through a door. And from me, Andrew
33:05
Dunley, thanks for your company. We'll
33:07
see see you on the next episode of Space
33:10
Nuts. Bye-bye.
33:11
>> Space Nuts.
33:12
>> You've been listening to the Space Nuts
33:14
podcast. radio
33:17
>> available at Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
33:20
iHeart Radio, or your favorite podcast
33:22
player. You can also stream on demand at
33:25
bytes.com. This has been another quality
33:28
podcast production from byes.com.