00:00:00 --> 00:00:02 Andrew Dunkley: Hi there. Thanks for joining us again. This
00:00:02 --> 00:00:05 is a Q and A, uh, edition of Space
00:00:05 --> 00:00:07 Nuts, where we, uh, take audience questions
00:00:07 --> 00:00:10 and we pretend that we know what we're
00:00:10 --> 00:00:12 talking about in attempting to answer them.
00:00:13 --> 00:00:15 Or we get it right sometimes, too. Uh,
00:00:15 --> 00:00:18 today we're going to be answering a
00:00:18 --> 00:00:20 question about, uh, the temperature of black
00:00:20 --> 00:00:23 holes. I'm not sure we've been
00:00:23 --> 00:00:26 there before. It may have come up, but, um, I
00:00:26 --> 00:00:28 can't remember when. Uh, and a question,
00:00:28 --> 00:00:31 uh, asking with the James Webb Space Text
00:00:31 --> 00:00:34 Telescope and the Vera Rubin Telescope, how
00:00:34 --> 00:00:36 much of the universe has been mapped?
00:00:36 --> 00:00:38 I can tell you this much.
00:00:39 --> 00:00:42 Uh, and the emptiness of space is being
00:00:42 --> 00:00:45 questioned. And what difference will it
00:00:45 --> 00:00:47 make to humanity, uh, if we
00:00:47 --> 00:00:49 find dark matter and dark energy?
00:00:51 --> 00:00:53 That's, um, a really interesting question.
00:00:53 --> 00:00:55 And Fred knows the answer. We'll ask him
00:00:55 --> 00:00:57 shortly on this edition of SpaceNuts.
00:00:57 --> 00:01:00 Voice Over Guy: 15 seconds. Guidance is internal.
00:01:00 --> 00:01:03 10, 9. Ignition.
00:01:03 --> 00:01:06 Sequence time. Um, space nuts. 5, 4, 3,
00:01:06 --> 00:01:09 2. 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4,
00:01:09 --> 00:01:11 3, 2, 1. Space nuts.
00:01:11 --> 00:01:13 Astronauts report. It feels good.
00:01:14 --> 00:01:15 Professor Fred Watson: And he's back.
00:01:15 --> 00:01:17 Andrew Dunkley: And he has all the answers to all the
00:01:17 --> 00:01:19 questions of life, the universe, and
00:01:19 --> 00:01:21 everything. Professor Fred Watson, astronomer
00:01:21 --> 00:01:22 at large. Hello, Fred.
00:01:23 --> 00:01:25 Professor Fred Watson: No pressure there, Andrew.
00:01:25 --> 00:01:27 Andrew Dunkley: None at all. None at all.
00:01:27 --> 00:01:28 Professor Fred Watson: That's right.
00:01:28 --> 00:01:30 Andrew Dunkley: Uh, let's get straight into it, shall we?
00:01:30 --> 00:01:33 Um, uh, one of our regular contributors
00:01:33 --> 00:01:36 is Casey, who has a very interesting
00:01:36 --> 00:01:38 question about a subject we never discuss,
00:01:38 --> 00:01:39 black holes.
00:01:40 --> 00:01:43 Professor Fred Watson: Hi, guys, this is Casey from Colorado, and I
00:01:43 --> 00:01:44 was thinking about the temperature of black
00:01:44 --> 00:01:47 holes. I know that the accretion disk would
00:01:47 --> 00:01:50 be very hot, but I was wondering, once you
00:01:50 --> 00:01:52 get past the event horizon, if it would
00:01:52 --> 00:01:55 be hot or, uh, cold. Why do we think this.
00:01:56 --> 00:01:58 Thanks for the podcast, and I hope you're
00:01:58 --> 00:01:59 both well. Thanks.
00:02:00 --> 00:02:01 Andrew Dunkley: Thank you, Casey. She's got me thinking about
00:02:01 --> 00:02:04 the temperature in Colorado because, like,
00:02:04 --> 00:02:06 we're facing some horrific temperatures
00:02:06 --> 00:02:08 around here at the moment, but I'd imagine
00:02:08 --> 00:02:10 it'd be quite the opposite in Colorado this
00:02:10 --> 00:02:11 time of the year.
00:02:13 --> 00:02:15 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, I think that's. That's absolutely
00:02:15 --> 00:02:17 right, yes. Chilly part of the world in
00:02:17 --> 00:02:18 winter.
00:02:19 --> 00:02:21 Andrew Dunkley: Absolutely. Um, now,
00:02:21 --> 00:02:24 temperature of black holes. This, this
00:02:24 --> 00:02:26 one's interesting because I suppose it varies
00:02:26 --> 00:02:28 on several factors. Um,
00:02:28 --> 00:02:30 where you are, what you're doing.
00:02:32 --> 00:02:35 I don't know what I would
00:02:35 --> 00:02:37 like. It's not like the temperature of the
00:02:37 --> 00:02:38 sun, is it?
00:02:39 --> 00:02:41 Professor Fred Watson: No, it's not. Um,
00:02:43 --> 00:02:45 I'm so glad Casey asked this
00:02:45 --> 00:02:47 question because it sent me down a rabbit
00:02:47 --> 00:02:49 hole that I haven't been down before. Oh,
00:02:49 --> 00:02:52 wow. And it leads you straight to quantum
00:02:52 --> 00:02:55 theory. Uh, uh, and
00:02:55 --> 00:02:58 um, it's, you know, it's a
00:02:58 --> 00:03:01 really, uh, in a sense it's quite
00:03:01 --> 00:03:03 unexpected, uh, what's
00:03:03 --> 00:03:05 happening. Uh, so
00:03:06 --> 00:03:09 the bottom line is, whilst
00:03:09 --> 00:03:12 as Cayce, exactly as Cayce says, the
00:03:12 --> 00:03:14 accretion disk of the black hole is extremely
00:03:14 --> 00:03:17 hot, uh, and you know, we're talking millions
00:03:17 --> 00:03:20 of degrees there because that's where you get
00:03:20 --> 00:03:23 X ray radiation from. It's the stuff
00:03:23 --> 00:03:24 charging around the accretion disk, uh,
00:03:24 --> 00:03:27 that's uh, swirl whirling around the black
00:03:27 --> 00:03:29 hole itself. But the black hole
00:03:30 --> 00:03:33 itself is the
00:03:33 --> 00:03:36 opposite. It's really, really cold.
00:03:37 --> 00:03:39 Um, and basically, uh,
00:03:40 --> 00:03:42 it's because the
00:03:42 --> 00:03:44 amount of radiation,
00:03:46 --> 00:03:49 uh, that they release is
00:03:50 --> 00:03:53 at a level, uh, which means its
00:03:53 --> 00:03:55 temperature is measured in
00:03:55 --> 00:03:58 gazillionths of a degree. It's
00:03:58 --> 00:04:01 virtually absolute zero. Um,
00:04:02 --> 00:04:03 they, they
00:04:04 --> 00:04:07 basically, they're, it says,
00:04:07 --> 00:04:10 quite a nice way of putting it, um,
00:04:10 --> 00:04:12 which, which I've summarized, uh,
00:04:13 --> 00:04:16 uh, I think this comes from Wikipedia.
00:04:16 --> 00:04:19 It may come from AI actually. Uh, but the
00:04:19 --> 00:04:21 bottom line is even though black holes pull
00:04:21 --> 00:04:24 in matter and energy, their temperature is
00:04:24 --> 00:04:27 incredibly low because their large mass
00:04:28 --> 00:04:30 makes their event horizons
00:04:30 --> 00:04:33 effectively cold thermal emitters
00:04:33 --> 00:04:36 absorbing energy faster than they radiate it
00:04:36 --> 00:04:39 at these scales. So that's the key to
00:04:39 --> 00:04:42 what's happening that like everything
00:04:42 --> 00:04:45 else, black holes sucks stuff. It sucks stuff
00:04:45 --> 00:04:48 in, uh, and that stuff
00:04:48 --> 00:04:50 is matter, which is equivalent to energy.
00:04:51 --> 00:04:53 Uh, and because it's stuff that's going in
00:04:53 --> 00:04:56 and not radiating outwards, uh,
00:04:56 --> 00:04:58 even though there is what we call Hawking
00:04:58 --> 00:05:01 radiation, which I'll get to in a second. But
00:05:01 --> 00:05:03 that, um, uh, you know,
00:05:04 --> 00:05:06 what it means is that the fact that there's
00:05:06 --> 00:05:09 an energy input into the black hole,
00:05:09 --> 00:05:12 it means that to the outside observer they
00:05:12 --> 00:05:15 look cold. They look very, very cold.
00:05:16 --> 00:05:19 There is a relationship, as you said, uh,
00:05:19 --> 00:05:22 it might vary with some things. And what it
00:05:22 --> 00:05:25 varies with, uh, is actually the mass of the
00:05:25 --> 00:05:27 black hole. Uh, it's
00:05:27 --> 00:05:29 roughly, uh, an inverse
00:05:29 --> 00:05:32 proportionality proportionality. The
00:05:32 --> 00:05:35 temperature is inversely proportional
00:05:35 --> 00:05:38 to the mass. Um, and what that
00:05:38 --> 00:05:40 means is for supermassive black holes, they
00:05:40 --> 00:05:43 are extremely cold. And
00:05:43 --> 00:05:45 that sort of figures because they're sucking
00:05:45 --> 00:05:48 in more energy. And so the surface to an
00:05:48 --> 00:05:50 outside observer would look colder. Uh,
00:05:50 --> 00:05:53 they're talking about 10 to the minus 14
00:05:53 --> 00:05:55 degrees kelvin. Um,
00:05:55 --> 00:05:57 something with the mass of the sun,
00:05:58 --> 00:06:01 um, is a
00:06:01 --> 00:06:03 balmy 10 to the minus 7 degrees
00:06:03 --> 00:06:06 Kelvin. It's still virtually zero,
00:06:06 --> 00:06:09 but it's more, uh, more than the
00:06:09 --> 00:06:11 supermassive black holes. So something the
00:06:11 --> 00:06:13 mass of the sun, so it's inversely
00:06:13 --> 00:06:16 proportional to the mass, uh, that inverse
00:06:16 --> 00:06:18 relationship. Uh, and
00:06:19 --> 00:06:22 so that's kind of what.
00:06:23 --> 00:06:25 It's the Hawking radiation that
00:06:25 --> 00:06:28 gives the black hole
00:06:29 --> 00:06:31 a temperature. Essentially it's because
00:06:32 --> 00:06:35 it's emitting radiation. Um, and
00:06:35 --> 00:06:37 we've talked about Hawking radiation before.
00:06:37 --> 00:06:39 Even though everything gets sucked into a
00:06:39 --> 00:06:41 black hole, there's this quantum situation
00:06:41 --> 00:06:44 where you can get, um, two
00:06:44 --> 00:06:46 virtual particles being created from nothing
00:06:46 --> 00:06:49 in empty space. One gets trapped by the black
00:06:49 --> 00:06:51 hole, the other doesn't. And so we see that
00:06:51 --> 00:06:52 as Hawking radiation, uh,
00:06:53 --> 00:06:56 suggested by Stephen hawking in the 1970s.
00:06:56 --> 00:06:58 Now very well established. But
00:06:58 --> 00:07:00 yeah, to summarize, the bottom line is
00:07:00 --> 00:07:03 Cayce's, uh, question is a good one. Uh,
00:07:03 --> 00:07:05 because it turns out that black holes are
00:07:05 --> 00:07:08 very, very cold indeed, despite the intense
00:07:08 --> 00:07:11 heat of the accretion disk. Work that one
00:07:11 --> 00:07:13 out. It's a really hard thing to put your
00:07:13 --> 00:07:14 imagination around.
00:07:14 --> 00:07:17 Andrew Dunkley: I suppose you compare it to the heat on the.
00:07:18 --> 00:07:19 It's got nothing to do with it at all. But,
00:07:19 --> 00:07:22 uh, by example, the heat on the, uh, sunward
00:07:22 --> 00:07:25 side of Mercury versus the cool on the
00:07:25 --> 00:07:27 shadow side. They're so extreme.
00:07:28 --> 00:07:30 Professor Fred Watson: Um. Yes. Yeah, that's right.
00:07:30 --> 00:07:32 Andrew Dunkley: The reason for the m. Same reason.
00:07:34 --> 00:07:36 Professor Fred Watson: Well, it's similar because the dark side of
00:07:36 --> 00:07:39 Mercury is cold, uh, because it's
00:07:39 --> 00:07:41 radiating energy into space.
00:07:42 --> 00:07:45 Um, uh, whereas, uh.
00:07:45 --> 00:07:48 And that. That energy loss reduces the
00:07:48 --> 00:07:49 temperature. Whereas with a black hole, it's
00:07:49 --> 00:07:51 the other way around. The thing is, the thing
00:07:51 --> 00:07:54 is sucking energy in at a greater rate than
00:07:54 --> 00:07:56 it's emitting energy. Uh,
00:07:57 --> 00:08:00 so Mercury would. Mercury's dark side would
00:08:00 --> 00:08:03 lose heat by infrared radiation. Um,
00:08:03 --> 00:08:05 that radiation, in the case of a black hole
00:08:05 --> 00:08:08 is, Is much smaller than the radiation that
00:08:08 --> 00:08:09 it's sucking in, which is why it looks
00:08:09 --> 00:08:12 extremely cold. So I'm trying to. I'm
00:08:12 --> 00:08:14 trying. Sense of the parallel that you drew.
00:08:14 --> 00:08:16 And I think it's. I think it holds water,
00:08:16 --> 00:08:18 Andrew. I think. I think it's a good, good
00:08:18 --> 00:08:19 answer. Actually.
00:08:19 --> 00:08:21 Andrew Dunkley: The water probably evaporate or freeze. But
00:08:21 --> 00:08:23 anyway, freezing.
00:08:25 --> 00:08:27 I just thought of a question. Um, so if a
00:08:27 --> 00:08:29 black hole sort of,
00:08:30 --> 00:08:33 you know, runs out of food, would that
00:08:33 --> 00:08:35 cause an alteration in its temperature?
00:08:38 --> 00:08:40 Professor Fred Watson: Um, I don't think so, because I think
00:08:40 --> 00:08:43 once the. I get what you're saying,
00:08:43 --> 00:08:45 and certainly in the argument that we've just
00:08:46 --> 00:08:49 been talking about, you'd think that if
00:08:49 --> 00:08:51 it's not sucking in energy anymore, uh,
00:08:52 --> 00:08:55 or sucking in matter anymore, uh, it
00:08:55 --> 00:08:57 would actually, uh, change its temperature.
00:08:58 --> 00:09:00 Um, the reason why I think that might not
00:09:00 --> 00:09:03 happen is because the only thing that,
00:09:03 --> 00:09:06 uh, the temperature seems to be related to is
00:09:06 --> 00:09:09 the Mass itself. So, um, there must be
00:09:09 --> 00:09:11 a mechanism, and I'm sorry, it's eluding me
00:09:11 --> 00:09:14 at the moment, uh, but there must be a
00:09:14 --> 00:09:16 mechanism that sort of locks. Once you've,
00:09:16 --> 00:09:18 once you've got a black hole of
00:09:18 --> 00:09:21 sufficient mass, um, then, uh,
00:09:21 --> 00:09:24 its temperature is sort of locked in.
00:09:24 --> 00:09:27 Uh, it must still be taking in
00:09:27 --> 00:09:30 energy in the form of radiation. So perhaps
00:09:30 --> 00:09:32 that's what's happening. You know,
00:09:32 --> 00:09:34 light certainly gets sucked into a black
00:09:34 --> 00:09:37 hole, even if it's not got an
00:09:37 --> 00:09:40 accretion disk of stuff to feed on.
00:09:40 --> 00:09:42 Uh, the light's certainly going in and
00:09:42 --> 00:09:44 perhaps that's uh, enough to keep the
00:09:44 --> 00:09:46 temperature as low as we've described.
00:09:47 --> 00:09:47 Andrew Dunkley: Indeed.
00:09:48 --> 00:09:49 Professor Fred Watson: All right, thanks.
00:09:49 --> 00:09:50 Andrew Dunkley: Uh, Casey, lovely to hear from you. Hope
00:09:50 --> 00:09:53 you're coping with the, uh, minus 10 to the
00:09:53 --> 00:09:55 15 degrees kelvin in Colorado.
00:09:56 --> 00:09:59 Uh, our next question comes from
00:09:59 --> 00:09:59 Eli.
00:09:59 --> 00:10:02 Hello spacefarers. I'm writing from the
00:10:02 --> 00:10:05 Coachella Valley Desert here in Southern
00:10:05 --> 00:10:08 California. Uh, I've often thought, thought
00:10:08 --> 00:10:10 some of the Google Earth like software would
00:10:10 --> 00:10:13 be amazing to take into other galaxies
00:10:13 --> 00:10:16 throughout the universe. Intriguingly, I
00:10:16 --> 00:10:18 imagine you could take them back in time
00:10:18 --> 00:10:20 according to estimates of cosmic inflation,
00:10:20 --> 00:10:23 etc, all the way to the Big Bang in theory.
00:10:24 --> 00:10:26 Um, to his question with James Webb and the
00:10:26 --> 00:10:29 Vera Rubin coming online. How much of the
00:10:30 --> 00:10:32 visible universe have we basically
00:10:32 --> 00:10:35 mapped and how much are we projected to map
00:10:36 --> 00:10:39 in say, the next decade? I think we've
00:10:39 --> 00:10:41 actually talked about how much that they're
00:10:41 --> 00:10:44 going to look at and how long it's going to
00:10:44 --> 00:10:46 take. And I think Eli's going to be quite
00:10:46 --> 00:10:47 surprised by the answer.
00:10:50 --> 00:10:52 Professor Fred Watson: Uh, well, yes, that's right. I mean the key
00:10:53 --> 00:10:55 words here are, uh, the Vera Rubin
00:10:55 --> 00:10:58 Observatory, uh, because that will
00:10:58 --> 00:11:01 map the entire sky down
00:11:01 --> 00:11:04 to quite a significant depth. Not as
00:11:04 --> 00:11:06 deep as the web will. Um,
00:11:08 --> 00:11:10 although it is an eight meter telescope, the
00:11:10 --> 00:11:12 web is only six and a half meters, so it's
00:11:12 --> 00:11:15 probably not far short of it. Uh, the web, of
00:11:15 --> 00:11:17 course, looking in infrared and the Vera
00:11:17 --> 00:11:20 Rubin Telescope looking invisible light. But
00:11:20 --> 00:11:22 it's going to photograph the whole sky,
00:11:23 --> 00:11:25 Southern sky, uh, in,
00:11:26 --> 00:11:28 uh, every three, three nights or so.
00:11:29 --> 00:11:32 So that will build up over the years a
00:11:32 --> 00:11:34 map of the things that don't change. I mean,
00:11:34 --> 00:11:35 what it's looking for is things that do
00:11:35 --> 00:11:37 change. But, um, as you
00:11:38 --> 00:11:41 integrate for all that time, and by that I
00:11:41 --> 00:11:43 mean you, you know, expose the detector to
00:11:43 --> 00:11:46 the sky so that you build up the image, uh,
00:11:46 --> 00:11:48 and you can add all those images together,
00:11:48 --> 00:11:51 we'll have, we'll have a, almost a
00:11:51 --> 00:11:54 complete map of the universe in the
00:11:54 --> 00:11:56 Southern hemisphere. Because, uh, all the
00:11:56 --> 00:11:58 visible galaxies will show up.
00:11:58 --> 00:11:59 Andrew Dunkley: Uh.
00:12:01 --> 00:12:03 Professor Fred Watson: We won't see the first galaxies. I don't
00:12:03 --> 00:12:06 think it's going to be powerful enough to see
00:12:06 --> 00:12:09 those. Uh, and we're not sure even that
00:12:09 --> 00:12:12 the Webb has seen the first galaxies. Uh,
00:12:12 --> 00:12:13 it's certainly seen some galaxies that we
00:12:13 --> 00:12:15 think are uh, very early in the history of
00:12:15 --> 00:12:18 the universe. And I think the Vera C.
00:12:18 --> 00:12:20 Rubin Observatory will do the same thing.
00:12:20 --> 00:12:23 Uh, but, um, you know, so we're not in
00:12:23 --> 00:12:26 any sense getting a complete sense
00:12:26 --> 00:12:29 of the consensus, sorry, a
00:12:29 --> 00:12:32 complete census of the universe. Uh,
00:12:32 --> 00:12:34 but it's not going to be far off.
00:12:35 --> 00:12:37 Uh, and that's quite astonishing when you
00:12:37 --> 00:12:40 think of where we were, you know, well, just
00:12:40 --> 00:12:42 a few years ago. Certainly when I was a young
00:12:42 --> 00:12:45 working astronomer in the 1970s, I would have
00:12:46 --> 00:12:48 had somebody, it would have blown my mind to
00:12:48 --> 00:12:51 think that we could map all the galaxies
00:12:51 --> 00:12:54 uh, in one hemisphere of the
00:12:54 --> 00:12:56 universe. Yeah.
00:12:56 --> 00:12:58 Andrew Dunkley: Uh, what about the Northern Hemisphere? Is
00:12:58 --> 00:13:00 there any work?
00:13:00 --> 00:13:03 Professor Fred Watson: There's no equivalent. Uh,
00:13:03 --> 00:13:06 the, the, there is. Uh, I mean the Nancy
00:13:06 --> 00:13:09 Roman Space Telescope will look,
00:13:09 --> 00:13:11 it's also a wide angle telescope like the
00:13:11 --> 00:13:14 Vera Rubin Observatory instrument is.
00:13:15 --> 00:13:18 But um, it's not as big.
00:13:18 --> 00:13:21 Um, it is a 2.3 meter telescope.
00:13:21 --> 00:13:24 It's basically a Hubble telescope but with a
00:13:24 --> 00:13:27 wide field of view. Uh, so we'll
00:13:27 --> 00:13:29 certainly see uh, pretty deep into the
00:13:29 --> 00:13:31 Northern Hemisphere. Whether it will go as
00:13:31 --> 00:13:33 deep as the Rubin Observatory, it's a
00:13:33 --> 00:13:34 different matter. I don't think it will
00:13:34 --> 00:13:36 because it's a much smaller telescope, but it
00:13:36 --> 00:13:39 is in space and that gives it, excuse me,
00:13:39 --> 00:13:41 that gives it advantages. There's no
00:13:41 --> 00:13:43 atmosphere to, to get in the way. So
00:13:43 --> 00:13:46 that's perhaps the best bet. Um,
00:13:47 --> 00:13:49 the, excuse me, the other
00:13:51 --> 00:13:52 big uh, instruments. I mean there's a number
00:13:52 --> 00:13:54 of things going on. Um,
00:13:55 --> 00:13:58 in terms of the two Keck telescopes which are
00:13:58 --> 00:14:00 in the Northern hemisphere In Hawaii, they're
00:14:00 --> 00:14:02 8 meter class telescopes, but they're not
00:14:02 --> 00:14:04 wide angle. These are telescopes that are
00:14:04 --> 00:14:06 built to uh, home in, in detail on um,
00:14:07 --> 00:14:10 individual objects rather than to do wide
00:14:10 --> 00:14:13 angle surveys. You need a specially designed
00:14:13 --> 00:14:15 telescope for that. And Rubin is exactly
00:14:15 --> 00:14:18 that. Um, there
00:14:18 --> 00:14:21 isn't really an equivalent. Uh,
00:14:21 --> 00:14:23 there is a wide angle telescope in La
00:14:23 --> 00:14:26 Palma which is um, basically the same
00:14:26 --> 00:14:28 as our UK Schmidt telescope here in
00:14:28 --> 00:14:30 Australia. It's called the Ocean Schmidt
00:14:30 --> 00:14:32 telescope. It's much older than our Schmidt.
00:14:32 --> 00:14:34 In fact our Schmidt was modeled on it. And
00:14:34 --> 00:14:35 that's a wide angle telescope that's
00:14:35 --> 00:14:38 surveying the sky, but that's looking for
00:14:38 --> 00:14:39 things like near Earth asteroids and things
00:14:39 --> 00:14:42 of that sort, rather than penetrating deep
00:14:42 --> 00:14:44 into the universe because it's only got a 1.2
00:14:44 --> 00:14:47 meter aperture diameter, much, uh,
00:14:47 --> 00:14:49 smaller than the 8 meters that the Rubin
00:14:49 --> 00:14:50 telescope will have.
00:14:51 --> 00:14:53 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. Still,
00:14:53 --> 00:14:56 um, what we'll know in 10 years time
00:14:56 --> 00:14:58 will be extraordinary, uh,
00:14:59 --> 00:15:01 through these two telescopes alone. James
00:15:01 --> 00:15:04 Webb and Vera Rubin. Um, yeah,
00:15:04 --> 00:15:07 who knows what they're going to un. Unveil.
00:15:07 --> 00:15:10 Uh, and what, what about, you
00:15:10 --> 00:15:12 know, Vera Rubin's first photograph was a
00:15:12 --> 00:15:15 revelation. Uh, and what James
00:15:15 --> 00:15:18 Webb is, um, is shelling
00:15:18 --> 00:15:20 out is, is extraordinary. It,
00:15:21 --> 00:15:24 it's, it's like, um, I don't know, Taylor
00:15:24 --> 00:15:26 Swift. It's a hit record. Every time that,
00:15:26 --> 00:15:29 every time they release a picture that's,
00:15:29 --> 00:15:32 uh, it's incredible. So, Eli, the next
00:15:32 --> 00:15:34 decade will be extraordinary. Um, so
00:15:34 --> 00:15:37 just, you know, keep an eye on it would be
00:15:37 --> 00:15:40 my advice. And thanks for the question. This
00:15:40 --> 00:15:42 is Space Nuts with Andrew Dunkley
00:15:43 --> 00:15:44 and Professor Fred Watson.
00:15:47 --> 00:15:49 Three, two, one.
00:15:50 --> 00:15:53 Space Nuts. I think we have
00:15:53 --> 00:15:55 an audio question now. This one comes from
00:15:55 --> 00:15:57 one of our regulars as well.
00:15:57 --> 00:16:00 Professor Fred Watson: Hello, uh, Fred, Andrew, Jonti and Heidi,
00:16:00 --> 00:16:01 this is Robert from the Netherlands.
00:16:03 --> 00:16:06 I have a question for you guys about the
00:16:06 --> 00:16:09 emptiness of space. Now,
00:16:09 --> 00:16:12 every is always saying that space
00:16:12 --> 00:16:14 is totally empty, right? One proton per
00:16:14 --> 00:16:17 square meter, something like that.
00:16:18 --> 00:16:20 However, not that long ago,
00:16:20 --> 00:16:23 scientists did discover the Higgs boson
00:16:23 --> 00:16:26 particle, the God particle, if you will.
00:16:28 --> 00:16:31 So apparently everything is on this
00:16:31 --> 00:16:34 grid of Higgs bosons, but
00:16:35 --> 00:16:37 I'm not exactly an expert here. I'm just
00:16:37 --> 00:16:39 curious if you guys could shed some lights on
00:16:39 --> 00:16:42 this concept for me. So is it
00:16:42 --> 00:16:45 just an enormous field of these very
00:16:45 --> 00:16:47 regular Higbotons everywhere, and that's what
00:16:47 --> 00:16:50 space is, or are they more numerous or
00:16:50 --> 00:16:53 less dense in certain parts? Is
00:16:53 --> 00:16:56 the void between galaxies actually a void,
00:16:57 --> 00:16:59 or is it an empty field of God
00:16:59 --> 00:17:02 particles? I really hope you can
00:17:02 --> 00:17:05 shed some light. Thank you guys so much for
00:17:05 --> 00:17:05 answering.
00:17:06 --> 00:17:09 Andrew Dunkley: Thank you, Robert. Good to hear from you. Uh,
00:17:09 --> 00:17:11 the emptiness of space.
00:17:12 --> 00:17:15 So he said one proton per square meter.
00:17:15 --> 00:17:17 Is that a, um, reasonable?
00:17:18 --> 00:17:21 Professor Fred Watson: Uh, yeah, it's per cubic meter, something
00:17:21 --> 00:17:24 like that. Um, yeah. Um,
00:17:25 --> 00:17:27 uh, it's of that order, I think, in
00:17:28 --> 00:17:30 intergalactic space. Um,
00:17:31 --> 00:17:34 uh, but, uh, Robert's
00:17:34 --> 00:17:36 right in the sense that
00:17:37 --> 00:17:39 the Higgs field,
00:17:40 --> 00:17:43 which is the other way of looking at
00:17:43 --> 00:17:45 the Higgs boson, uh,
00:17:46 --> 00:17:48 permeates, basically permeates
00:17:48 --> 00:17:50 empty space. Um,
00:17:52 --> 00:17:54 so, uh, this is
00:17:54 --> 00:17:57 all about the duality of particles,
00:17:58 --> 00:18:01 uh, with waves and with
00:18:01 --> 00:18:04 what we call fields. Um, and we, I
00:18:04 --> 00:18:06 mean, we imagine fields when we think of
00:18:06 --> 00:18:09 gravitation because we think of a
00:18:09 --> 00:18:11 Gravitational field as a. As a,
00:18:12 --> 00:18:15 um. Um, sort of a.
00:18:15 --> 00:18:17 Well, if I can put it that way, in a. In a
00:18:17 --> 00:18:20 trampoline. Uh, the trampoline is the field.
00:18:20 --> 00:18:22 You put something in it and it distorts it.
00:18:23 --> 00:18:25 Uh, so with the Higgs,
00:18:26 --> 00:18:29 uh, boson, the Higgs field, uh, is
00:18:29 --> 00:18:32 this sort of invisible. It's been
00:18:32 --> 00:18:34 described as a. Something like molasses or
00:18:34 --> 00:18:37 syrup, uh, that
00:18:37 --> 00:18:40 what, actually give particles their mass
00:18:40 --> 00:18:42 because, um, they move slowly through it
00:18:42 --> 00:18:45 because they get sticky. Uh, that's one way
00:18:45 --> 00:18:48 of looking at it. Um, but, uh, the Higgs
00:18:48 --> 00:18:51 boson is essentially, ah, um,
00:18:51 --> 00:18:54 in a sense, a, uh, ripple in
00:18:54 --> 00:18:57 the Higgs field. The Higgs field fills
00:18:57 --> 00:19:00 space, and the Higgs bosons, uh,
00:19:00 --> 00:19:03 are ripples in it. That's one way to look
00:19:03 --> 00:19:06 at it. Um, it's.
00:19:06 --> 00:19:09 It's, um. The. The.
00:19:09 --> 00:19:12 The. I think what Robert's interested in is
00:19:12 --> 00:19:14 the density of these
00:19:14 --> 00:19:17 bosons, uh, whether
00:19:17 --> 00:19:19 they are uniformly, uh,
00:19:19 --> 00:19:22 distributed through space or whether
00:19:22 --> 00:19:24 we're talking about, um,
00:19:25 --> 00:19:28 you know, uh, bosons, uh,
00:19:28 --> 00:19:29 that are, uh,
00:19:32 --> 00:19:34 more dense in some places than others.
00:19:35 --> 00:19:38 Uh, and I guess the.
00:19:38 --> 00:19:40 The bottom line is that you would expect
00:19:40 --> 00:19:42 there to be more bosons where there is
00:19:43 --> 00:19:45 more, uh, more,
00:19:46 --> 00:19:48 uh, what you might call normal matter, the.
00:19:48 --> 00:19:51 The quarks and normal particles. Uh, but
00:19:51 --> 00:19:53 that might not be the case. Uh, I need to
00:19:53 --> 00:19:55 look at that a little bit more carefully,
00:19:55 --> 00:19:58 Andrew, as you can probably tell, uh, to find
00:19:58 --> 00:20:00 out what the distribution of Higgs bosons,
00:20:00 --> 00:20:03 uh, are. If you assume the field is uniform
00:20:03 --> 00:20:05 throughout space, which I think it might be.
00:20:06 --> 00:20:08 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, I suppose so. I mean, it's a
00:20:08 --> 00:20:09 complicated area. You're talking about
00:20:09 --> 00:20:11 particle physics, aren't you?
00:20:11 --> 00:20:11 Professor Fred Watson: Really?
00:20:11 --> 00:20:13 Andrew Dunkley: It's, um. Not.
00:20:13 --> 00:20:14 Professor Fred Watson: I believe so, yes.
00:20:15 --> 00:20:17 Andrew Dunkley: It's not basic maths, so,
00:20:17 --> 00:20:18 um.
00:20:18 --> 00:20:19 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, it's particle physics we're talking
00:20:19 --> 00:20:22 about. And, um, as I've said before, the
00:20:22 --> 00:20:24 disclaimer is I'm not a particle physicist.
00:20:24 --> 00:20:27 I've been to. Been to CERN a
00:20:27 --> 00:20:30 few times and had my mind blown by what they
00:20:30 --> 00:20:32 do there at the Large Hadron Collider. Uh, in
00:20:32 --> 00:20:34 fact, I've been underground in the Large
00:20:34 --> 00:20:36 Hadron Collider. Collider, but I'm still not
00:20:36 --> 00:20:38 a physicist. A particle physicist. I,
00:20:38 --> 00:20:41 uh, learn what the. They tell me
00:20:41 --> 00:20:43 and kind of hope for the best.
00:20:43 --> 00:20:45 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. Aren't they making a larger hadron
00:20:45 --> 00:20:46 collider?
00:20:48 --> 00:20:51 Professor Fred Watson: They are planning, ah, one,
00:20:51 --> 00:20:52 um, something called.
00:20:55 --> 00:20:57 I can't remember. It's something like the
00:20:57 --> 00:21:00 large, you know, the future Large Collider, I
00:21:00 --> 00:21:02 think something like that, uh, which wears
00:21:02 --> 00:21:05 the large Hadron Collider has a diameter or a
00:21:05 --> 00:21:08 circumference of 27 kilometers. This is
00:21:08 --> 00:21:11 100 kilometers. Um, if they
00:21:11 --> 00:21:13 ever get the money for it, they are planning
00:21:13 --> 00:21:15 an opening ceremony for it in
00:21:15 --> 00:21:16 2017.
00:21:18 --> 00:21:20 Andrew Dunkley: It's called the, uh, Future Circular
00:21:20 --> 00:21:21 Collider.
00:21:21 --> 00:21:22 Professor Fred Watson: Future Circular Collider. That's it.
00:21:22 --> 00:21:25 Andrew Dunkley: Um, 91 centimeter ring, successor to the
00:21:25 --> 00:21:28 Large Hadron Collider. And
00:21:28 --> 00:21:31 they expect it to be Approved
00:21:33 --> 00:21:36 in the 2728 financial year, by the look
00:21:36 --> 00:21:37 of it. Construction starting in the 2000 and
00:21:37 --> 00:21:38 30s.
00:21:38 --> 00:21:40 Professor Fred Watson: So it's a little way off completion
00:21:40 --> 00:21:42 in 2070.
00:21:42 --> 00:21:43 Andrew Dunkley: 2070.
00:21:44 --> 00:21:47 Professor Fred Watson: Yep. That's way. Well,
00:21:47 --> 00:21:50 the last. Let's not hold out bread is what I
00:21:50 --> 00:21:52 saw. Yeah. So I don't think,
00:21:52 --> 00:21:55 um, you know, even with the best will in the
00:21:55 --> 00:21:57 world, space nuts will probably have
00:21:57 --> 00:22:00 dwindled to an audience measured in single
00:22:00 --> 00:22:01 digits by then, so.
00:22:01 --> 00:22:04 Andrew Dunkley: Possibly, possibly m. So. Yes,
00:22:04 --> 00:22:06 well, we could pick up new listeners along
00:22:06 --> 00:22:07 the way, but we won't know about it.
00:22:08 --> 00:22:10 But, um, I suppose the other side to this
00:22:10 --> 00:22:12 question, though, is that we do see
00:22:12 --> 00:22:14 concentrations of
00:22:15 --> 00:22:18 particles in some parts of the universe. Uh,
00:22:18 --> 00:22:20 like dark matter seems to concentrate around
00:22:21 --> 00:22:23 galaxies kind of thing.
00:22:23 --> 00:22:24 Professor Fred Watson: Is that. Yeah.
00:22:24 --> 00:22:26 Andrew Dunkley: That a different kettle of fish?
00:22:27 --> 00:22:29 Professor Fred Watson: I think so. Because we're talking about
00:22:29 --> 00:22:32 something that is, um, a property of the
00:22:32 --> 00:22:35 universe itself, almost, um,
00:22:37 --> 00:22:39 so that the Higgs field is everywhere.
00:22:41 --> 00:22:44 Andrew Dunkley: Okay, gotcha. I understand. No, I get it. I
00:22:44 --> 00:22:44 get it. Yeah.
00:22:44 --> 00:22:45 Professor Fred Watson: All right. Yeah.
00:22:46 --> 00:22:48 Andrew Dunkley: So, Robert, the answer is maybe, um,
00:22:49 --> 00:22:51 possibly could be we, uh, need to do a bit
00:22:51 --> 00:22:54 more homework. By the sound of it, we might
00:22:54 --> 00:22:55 be able to get back to you on that.
00:22:57 --> 00:22:59 Just Fred's writing a note so he doesn't
00:22:59 --> 00:23:01 forget. Except you'll forget where the note
00:23:01 --> 00:23:01 is.
00:23:01 --> 00:23:04 Professor Fred Watson: Shh. All right. It's
00:23:04 --> 00:23:05 in this book.
00:23:06 --> 00:23:07 Andrew Dunkley: Thanks, Robert.
00:23:10 --> 00:23:12 Okay, we checked all four systems,
00:23:12 --> 00:23:15 space nets. And our final question
00:23:15 --> 00:23:18 comes from Rennie. Um,
00:23:19 --> 00:23:20 this is a really interesting question because
00:23:20 --> 00:23:23 he says, I'm going to play devil's advocate
00:23:23 --> 00:23:26 with this question. How will finding
00:23:26 --> 00:23:29 out what dark matter and dark energy really
00:23:29 --> 00:23:31 are, uh, help the Earth and all,
00:23:32 --> 00:23:34 uh, of its life now and in the future?
00:23:35 --> 00:23:37 Rennie from California. We've had a few US
00:23:38 --> 00:23:40 Questions this week. That's nice. Two from
00:23:40 --> 00:23:43 Kelly. Uh, so, yeah, what difference will it
00:23:43 --> 00:23:45 make if we find this stuff to Earth and
00:23:45 --> 00:23:48 life as it is now and in the future?
00:23:51 --> 00:23:54 Professor Fred Watson: Um, so, um, yeah, if we magically
00:23:54 --> 00:23:57 did find the answer to these things, and
00:23:57 --> 00:24:00 we will eventually, uh, over a
00:24:00 --> 00:24:03 period of time, I hope it's not. I Hope it's
00:24:03 --> 00:24:05 before 2070, because I want to know, um,
00:24:07 --> 00:24:09 what it will do will be complete our
00:24:09 --> 00:24:12 understanding of the universe in a way
00:24:12 --> 00:24:15 that is not the case at the moment.
00:24:16 --> 00:24:18 So, um, it
00:24:18 --> 00:24:21 basically refines our, uh, understanding,
00:24:22 --> 00:24:25 uh, if I can put it this way, in a way
00:24:25 --> 00:24:27 that's similar to the way
00:24:28 --> 00:24:31 general relativity refined
00:24:31 --> 00:24:33 it back in 1915.
00:24:35 --> 00:24:38 Um, so the fact that we
00:24:38 --> 00:24:40 suddenly understood gravity, the way
00:24:40 --> 00:24:43 gravity works in a new light,
00:24:43 --> 00:24:46 which is what general relativity did,
00:24:46 --> 00:24:49 um, meant that, uh,
00:24:50 --> 00:24:52 yes, the physicists could go away
00:24:52 --> 00:24:55 happy because they solved a problem.
00:24:55 --> 00:24:57 Uh, there were a number of problems that
00:24:57 --> 00:25:00 Newtonian gravity couldn't, Couldn't help
00:25:00 --> 00:25:03 with, which was solved by, uh,
00:25:03 --> 00:25:05 Einsteinian gravity. So,
00:25:06 --> 00:25:08 um, but that didn't seem to offer
00:25:08 --> 00:25:10 any future benefits for
00:25:11 --> 00:25:14 humankind. But here we are rather
00:25:14 --> 00:25:16 more than 100 years later, 110 years later,
00:25:17 --> 00:25:19 and we have, um,
00:25:20 --> 00:25:22 tools which rely
00:25:22 --> 00:25:25 absolutely on general relativity. And the one
00:25:25 --> 00:25:28 I'm thinking of most commonly is, uh,
00:25:28 --> 00:25:30 gps, uh, because our
00:25:30 --> 00:25:33 position finding software, um,
00:25:34 --> 00:25:36 simply would not work without general
00:25:36 --> 00:25:38 relativity. You'd have errors in the region
00:25:38 --> 00:25:41 of 10 kilometers, which is not kind of what
00:25:41 --> 00:25:44 you want with GPS, but that took
00:25:44 --> 00:25:47 100 years. And so Rennie, uh,
00:25:47 --> 00:25:50 that's the sort of timescale, I think, on
00:25:50 --> 00:25:52 which you have to be optimistic about the way
00:25:52 --> 00:25:55 it might help humankind or life on Earth
00:25:55 --> 00:25:57 generally. Because if we become
00:25:57 --> 00:26:00 responsible, um, a responsible species
00:26:00 --> 00:26:02 on our planet, we're going to help the whole
00:26:02 --> 00:26:05 planet if we, if we live sustainably and
00:26:06 --> 00:26:08 live, um, alongside, uh, all our
00:26:08 --> 00:26:10 companion organisms on this
00:26:10 --> 00:26:13 planet. So, uh, yeah, so I think,
00:26:13 --> 00:26:16 um, what you can't say is that it won't help
00:26:16 --> 00:26:19 them. That's the thing. You can't say that it
00:26:19 --> 00:26:22 will either. Uh, but there's a good
00:26:22 --> 00:26:24 chance that in the same way that, um,
00:26:24 --> 00:26:27 something as abstruse as general
00:26:27 --> 00:26:30 relativity actually comes into everybody's
00:26:30 --> 00:26:32 everyday life odd years later.
00:26:33 --> 00:26:35 I think that's the model. And it's one reason
00:26:35 --> 00:26:38 why deep research
00:26:38 --> 00:26:40 like this is funded. It's why fundamental
00:26:40 --> 00:26:43 research that is just knowledge for its own m
00:26:43 --> 00:26:45 sake at the moment, why it's funded. Because
00:26:45 --> 00:26:47 you never know what the spinoffs might be.
00:26:48 --> 00:26:50 Andrew Dunkley: Absolutely. Uh, and you can look back in
00:26:50 --> 00:26:52 history at some of the great discoveries and
00:26:52 --> 00:26:55 how they've changed things
00:26:55 --> 00:26:58 on Earth and have changed human life.
00:26:58 --> 00:27:00 Um, I'm just trying to think of one.
00:27:01 --> 00:27:04 Professor Fred Watson: Well, electricity for a start. Well, they.
00:27:04 --> 00:27:06 Yeah, you know, it was just, um, physicists
00:27:06 --> 00:27:09 playing around in the early 19th century. Oh,
00:27:09 --> 00:27:11 this is really interesting. Um, nobody ever
00:27:11 --> 00:27:14 thought we'd use it like we do today.
00:27:14 --> 00:27:17 Andrew Dunkley: I suppose one of The. This is probably a
00:27:18 --> 00:27:21 fundamental example. Um, as we learn
00:27:21 --> 00:27:23 things, we learn things, so
00:27:24 --> 00:27:26 it expands our minds, expands our
00:27:26 --> 00:27:29 inquisitiveness, it expands our intelligence,
00:27:30 --> 00:27:32 enables humanity to understand
00:27:33 --> 00:27:36 more about itself and its place in the
00:27:36 --> 00:27:39 universe. You go back to 1543,
00:27:39 --> 00:27:42 when Copernicus found that the Earth was
00:27:42 --> 00:27:44 not the center of the universe.
00:27:45 --> 00:27:47 I think he got shouted down pretty heavily
00:27:47 --> 00:27:50 for that, but that's the truth. We know that
00:27:50 --> 00:27:53 now. Uh, I can't remember who it was, but,
00:27:53 --> 00:27:56 um, another thing that goes back quite a way,
00:27:56 --> 00:27:59 when, uh, the discovery was made that our
00:27:59 --> 00:28:01 sun is actually a star. I mean, for a long
00:28:01 --> 00:28:04 time we didn't know that. You know,
00:28:04 --> 00:28:06 it's. It's about knowledge as much as
00:28:06 --> 00:28:07 anything, I think.
00:28:07 --> 00:28:08 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. Yep.
00:28:09 --> 00:28:10 Andrew Dunkley: I love that one, though.
00:28:10 --> 00:28:11 Professor Fred Watson: That's right. Yeah.
00:28:11 --> 00:28:11 Andrew Dunkley: It's about.
00:28:11 --> 00:28:12 Professor Fred Watson: The sun's Great.
00:28:12 --> 00:28:15 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. I think you can look it up. It's online
00:28:15 --> 00:28:17 somewhere. I did it as a quiz question once
00:28:17 --> 00:28:19 on the radio, and, um, got a great response
00:28:19 --> 00:28:22 to that, because people just, in the modern
00:28:22 --> 00:28:24 era never thought that there would have been
00:28:24 --> 00:28:26 a time where people look at this, this hot
00:28:26 --> 00:28:28 ball in the sky and go,
00:28:29 --> 00:28:32 what is that? Um, and, you know, looking at
00:28:32 --> 00:28:34 all the other stars, not making the
00:28:34 --> 00:28:36 correlation. They just didn't know. It's, um.
00:28:37 --> 00:28:39 It was incredible. So I suppose, Rennie,
00:28:39 --> 00:28:42 it's, it's, it's about knowledge. It's about
00:28:42 --> 00:28:44 expanding our understanding of life, the
00:28:44 --> 00:28:47 universe and everything and not stopping at
00:28:47 --> 00:28:50 42. Um, that's the way
00:28:50 --> 00:28:50 I look at it.
00:28:52 --> 00:28:54 Professor Fred Watson: I think you're. And I think you're absolutely
00:28:54 --> 00:28:56 right. I think, um, you know, both. That's
00:28:56 --> 00:28:58 two sides of the same thing. We're, we're.
00:28:59 --> 00:29:01 But it's why we, why we do this sort of
00:29:01 --> 00:29:03 thing. It's why is. We're a curious species
00:29:03 --> 00:29:04 and.
00:29:04 --> 00:29:04 Andrew Dunkley: Absolutely.
00:29:04 --> 00:29:05 Professor Fred Watson: Knowledge is power.
00:29:05 --> 00:29:08 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's another thing. Yeah,
00:29:08 --> 00:29:10 absolutely true, Rennie. Great question. Good
00:29:10 --> 00:29:12 one for discussion and debate and keep, uh,
00:29:13 --> 00:29:15 them coming. If you'd like to send questions
00:29:15 --> 00:29:18 into us, um, you can do so through our
00:29:18 --> 00:29:20 website, spacenutspodcast.com
00:29:20 --> 00:29:23 spacenuts IO. They're the two URLs.
00:29:23 --> 00:29:25 And, uh, while you're there, have a look
00:29:25 --> 00:29:28 around. Uh, the AMA button at the top, Ask
00:29:28 --> 00:29:30 me Anything is where you send your questions.
00:29:30 --> 00:29:33 Ask me anything, text or audio. Don't forget
00:29:33 --> 00:29:35 to tell us who you are and where you're from.
00:29:35 --> 00:29:37 And, uh, you might want to click on the
00:29:37 --> 00:29:40 Support our podcast button, uh, and
00:29:41 --> 00:29:43 help us out if you so desire. Never,
00:29:43 --> 00:29:46 ever going to make it mandatory. But, uh,
00:29:46 --> 00:29:48 there are advantages to becoming
00:29:49 --> 00:29:51 a supporter, uh, of the podcast, so
00:29:52 --> 00:29:54 check that out as well and visit the shop
00:29:54 --> 00:29:56 while you're there. That also helps us buy a
00:29:56 --> 00:29:59 sticker, buy a cap, buy a shirt, buy
00:29:59 --> 00:30:02 whatever. We should have Space Nut sunscreen.
00:30:02 --> 00:30:05 You know, it would make sense. Anyway,
00:30:05 --> 00:30:07 uh, you can do it all on our website. Fred,
00:30:07 --> 00:30:09 thank you so much. Always a pleasure.
00:30:11 --> 00:30:13 Professor Fred Watson: Good to talk, Andrew. And, um, I'm sure we'll
00:30:13 --> 00:30:14 do it again soon.
00:30:14 --> 00:30:17 Andrew Dunkley: Yes, I'm sure we will. It, uh, could be a few
00:30:17 --> 00:30:19 minutes, could be a week, who knows? Uh, and
00:30:19 --> 00:30:21 Huw in the studio, thanks to him for doing
00:30:21 --> 00:30:23 everything he does. We don't know what that
00:30:23 --> 00:30:25 is, but we appreciate it. And from me, Andrew
00:30:25 --> 00:30:28 Dunkley, thanks for your company. See you on
00:30:28 --> 00:30:29 the next episode of Space Nuts.
00:30:29 --> 00:30:30 Professor Fred Watson: Bye. Bye.
00:30:31 --> 00:30:33 Voice Over Guy: You've been listening to the Space Nuts
00:30:33 --> 00:30:36 podcast, available at
00:30:36 --> 00:30:38 Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
00:30:38 --> 00:30:41 iHeartRadio, or your favorite podcast
00:30:41 --> 00:30:43 player. You can also stream on
00:30:43 --> 00:30:45 demand at bitesz.com This has been another
00:30:45 --> 00:30:47 quality podcast production from
00:30:47 --> 00:30:48 Bitesz.com