Oct. 14, 2024

#460: Gravity Reimagined, Quantum Field Fables & Black Hole Mysteries

Space Nuts #460 Q&A Edition
Join Andrew Dunkley and Professor Fred Watson in this thought-provoking Q&A episode of Space Nuts, where they delve into the mysteries of the cosmos. From the curious nature of gravity and quantum fields to the...

Show Notes
Transcript

Space Nuts #460 Q&A Edition
Join Andrew Dunkley and Professor Fred Watson in this thought-provoking Q&A episode of Space Nuts, where they delve into the mysteries of the cosmos. From the curious nature of gravity and quantum fields to the potential of ultra-massive black holes, this episode is filled with insightful discussions and cosmic wonders.
Episode Highlights:
- Gravity Reimagined: Carrick from Wengari, New Zealand, poses a fascinating question about gravity. Could it be pushing us away rather than pulling us in? Fred Watson Watson explores the implications of this intriguing perspective on one of the universe's fundamental forces.
- Quantum Field Interactions: Rennie from California inquires about the behaviour of quantum fields and their interactions, such as between magnetic fields and the Higgs field. Discover the complexities of quantum theory and the nature of these subatomic interactions.
- Gravitational Lensing: Rusty from Donnybrook asks whether an ultra-massive black hole could be revealed by its gravitational lensing effects. Fred Watson Watson explains the principles of gravitational lensing and the challenges of detecting such cosmic phenomena.
- Telescopic Limitations: David wonders why we can't use telescopes like the James Webb to see fine details on the moon. Learn about the limitations of angular resolution and the future of telescopic technology.
- Star Wars Trivia: Martin Berman Gorvine from Maryland shares a humorous piece of Star Wars trivia, leaving listeners with a clever play on words.
00:00 - Andrew Dunkley answers your questions on this week's Space Nuts
01:38 - Fred: We understand gravity as a force that pulls us into objects with mass
07:06 - How do quantum fields behave? Do they interact with each other
10:12 - Andrew Dunkley with Professor Fred Watson on gravitational lensing questions
13:13 - David Haven: The sensitivity to detail depends on the diameter of the telescope
19:28 - Martin Berman Gorvine says the James Webb telescope will be worse than previous telescopes
23:16 - If you've got a question for Space Nuts, send it in
For more Space Nuts, including our continually updating newsfeed and to listen to all our episodes, visit our website. Follow us on social media at SpaceNutsPod on facebook, X, YouTube Music, Instagram, and TikTok. We love engaging with our community, so be sure to drop us a message or comment on your favourite platform.
For more Space and Astronomy News Podcasts, visit our HQ at www.bitesz.com.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/space-nuts/support.
Stay curious, keep looking up, and join us next time for more stellar insights and cosmic wonders. Until then, clear skies and happy stargazing.

WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.200 --> 00:00:02.279
Hi there, thanks for joining us on a Q and

2
00:00:02.319 --> 00:00:06.040
A edition of Space Nuts. My name is Andrew Dunkley.

3
00:00:06.120 --> 00:00:10.000
Coming up, we will be looking at gravity. Is it

4
00:00:10.080 --> 00:00:14.119
working backwards and we don't know it? We'll answer that question,

5
00:00:14.320 --> 00:00:18.920
quantum fields, ultra massive black holes, getting up close and

6
00:00:18.960 --> 00:00:20.160
personal with telescopes.

7
00:00:20.239 --> 00:00:23.039
Is it possible? And a very.

8
00:00:22.600 --> 00:00:25.719
Interesting surprise at the end from one of our regular

9
00:00:25.839 --> 00:00:29.359
sender in aurs, who's well, I'll preempt it by saying

10
00:00:29.519 --> 00:00:30.480
I think it's a joke.

11
00:00:31.839 --> 00:00:33.159
You figure it out for yourself.

12
00:00:33.159 --> 00:00:36.840
That's all coming up on this episode of Space Nuts.

13
00:00:36.840 --> 00:00:44.200
Fifteen seconds in Channel ten nine ignition Figunch Space Nuts

14
00:00:45.119 --> 00:00:48.880
or three two.

15
00:00:48.880 --> 00:00:50.280
One Space Notes.

16
00:00:50.520 --> 00:00:52.520
As an I report it neils good.

17
00:00:53.520 --> 00:00:57.320
And it's always good to have the presence of Professor

18
00:00:57.520 --> 00:00:59.280
Fred Watson, Astronomer at Large.

19
00:00:59.280 --> 00:01:01.439
Hello Fred, Hello Andrew.

20
00:01:01.600 --> 00:01:03.759
Yes, it's good to have your presence too, because without

21
00:01:03.799 --> 00:01:04.879
that I'd be sunk.

22
00:01:05.439 --> 00:01:08.000
Yeah, well, I'd be twiddling my thumbs and you'd be

23
00:01:08.120 --> 00:01:10.640
talking to yourself.

24
00:01:10.640 --> 00:01:14.840
All yeah.

25
00:01:14.959 --> 00:01:18.840
Let's get straight into some questions, and we've got a

26
00:01:18.840 --> 00:01:22.319
whole bunch. But and some of this might sound familiar

27
00:01:22.319 --> 00:01:25.280
because people keep coming back to topics we've discussed and

28
00:01:25.879 --> 00:01:29.480
asking questions about questions that we've answered, and that's fine.

29
00:01:29.560 --> 00:01:34.000
I mean, it keeps the conversation going, and obviously, you know,

30
00:01:34.799 --> 00:01:37.840
people are very interested in a lot of these topics.

31
00:01:38.799 --> 00:01:42.840
This first question comes from Carrick, Hello, Space Nuts, sending

32
00:01:42.879 --> 00:01:46.439
this question from Wungari, New Zealand. I hope I pronounced

33
00:01:46.439 --> 00:01:50.439
that correctly. I was pondering gravity and dark matter recently

34
00:01:50.480 --> 00:01:53.560
and had a thought. We understand gravity as a force

35
00:01:53.640 --> 00:01:58.280
that pulls us into objects with mass. However, is it

36
00:01:58.359 --> 00:02:01.280
not possible that this attraction force is not there at

37
00:02:01.319 --> 00:02:04.599
all and is replaced by a force that is rather

38
00:02:04.840 --> 00:02:06.359
pushing us away.

39
00:02:06.159 --> 00:02:07.959
Into objects with mass.

40
00:02:08.520 --> 00:02:11.479
My thinking behind this started from the fact that our

41
00:02:11.560 --> 00:02:15.319
known universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, and the

42
00:02:15.319 --> 00:02:20.280
cause behind this unknown energy or force is dark energy.

43
00:02:21.159 --> 00:02:23.879
Even as we experience this on Earth, rather than being

44
00:02:23.919 --> 00:02:28.080
attracted towards the center of our Earth, are we rather

45
00:02:28.360 --> 00:02:32.879
repelled by the forces towards Earth. Thanks for taking the

46
00:02:32.919 --> 00:02:37.759
time to read this, Carrick. Thanks Carrick. That turns the

47
00:02:37.800 --> 00:02:39.520
whole gravity theory upside down.

48
00:02:39.560 --> 00:02:46.520
Fred, Yeah, it's so. I mean, in a way, it's

49
00:02:46.560 --> 00:02:52.360
a legitimate way of looking at gravity. It goes to

50
00:02:52.919 --> 00:02:56.159
something we were talking about in the last episode. If

51
00:02:56.240 --> 00:03:01.159
you look at Einstein's relativity, which is probably the best, well,

52
00:03:01.199 --> 00:03:04.080
it is the best theory of gravity we have, uh,

53
00:03:04.520 --> 00:03:12.280
and imagine what a massive body does were we can

54
00:03:12.319 --> 00:03:14.759
only illustrate it in two dimensions because we haven't got

55
00:03:14.840 --> 00:03:17.759
three dimensional cartoons for this sort of thing. But it's

56
00:03:17.800 --> 00:03:22.039
always the picture of something solid like a planet sitting

57
00:03:22.080 --> 00:03:27.479
on a basically a trampoline sheet which it's bending and

58
00:03:27.520 --> 00:03:30.400
pulling down to the middle, so that what you've got

59
00:03:30.520 --> 00:03:33.759
is a representative, a representation there of the shape of space,

60
00:03:35.000 --> 00:03:40.120
and it's the massive object that is causing the distortion

61
00:03:40.280 --> 00:03:46.080
of space, and that puts a slope, puts an incline

62
00:03:46.120 --> 00:03:50.680
onto the shape of space. So from our experience here

63
00:03:51.240 --> 00:03:54.479
on Earth, if we're standing on the planet's surface, the

64
00:03:54.520 --> 00:03:57.840
shape of space is slightly different at our head from

65
00:03:57.879 --> 00:03:58.879
what it is at our feet.

66
00:03:59.159 --> 00:04:00.479
Could could would.

67
00:04:00.400 --> 00:04:03.360
That be demonstrated? And this is just my brain thinking

68
00:04:03.919 --> 00:04:08.520
the same way a ship displaces water, is that.

69
00:04:08.599 --> 00:04:09.960
The same kind of effect?

70
00:04:12.120 --> 00:04:15.840
So well that if you if you've got a ship

71
00:04:15.840 --> 00:04:20.879
displacing water, basically put the ship in the water and

72
00:04:20.920 --> 00:04:25.920
the water moves away, And so that's a sort of

73
00:04:25.959 --> 00:04:29.839
static thing. With gravity, what you've got is a bending

74
00:04:29.920 --> 00:04:33.800
of the surface. Now, shipping water doesn't bend.

75
00:04:34.199 --> 00:04:37.639
It does for a bit, right, I say, But with

76
00:04:37.639 --> 00:04:41.360
with with the space itself, that bending stays, stays there.

77
00:04:41.600 --> 00:04:46.839
Space bends in response to matter, no matter what it is.

78
00:04:47.360 --> 00:04:50.759
And you could so you know, what Charac says is correct,

79
00:04:50.800 --> 00:04:55.839
You could equally well, given that scenario of the planet

80
00:04:55.879 --> 00:04:59.399
sitting on a trampoline and distorting the surface, you could

81
00:04:59.399 --> 00:05:02.120
equally well think of that as being something that's pushing,

82
00:05:02.439 --> 00:05:07.959
that's pushing you from the outside, because it's effectively the

83
00:05:07.959 --> 00:05:10.399
same thing that. The bottom line is that space is

84
00:05:10.439 --> 00:05:15.319
being distorted by gravity, and we feel that as a pool.

85
00:05:15.639 --> 00:05:18.519
But equivalently, we could call it a push from the

86
00:05:18.519 --> 00:05:23.800
outside because it has the same effect. So relativity that's

87
00:05:24.120 --> 00:05:29.040
sort of in some ways leading to that effect. The

88
00:05:29.360 --> 00:05:32.319
bottom line though, and I guess the focus of you know,

89
00:05:32.399 --> 00:05:37.160
the thought trail that Carrick was pursuing there is that, yes,

90
00:05:37.240 --> 00:05:40.240
we understand all that, and that all works, but dark

91
00:05:40.279 --> 00:05:42.720
matter and dark energy are both things on top of

92
00:05:42.759 --> 00:05:47.759
that that actually affect They do affect the shape of

93
00:05:47.839 --> 00:05:51.560
space in their own different way, but it's not the

94
00:05:51.600 --> 00:05:54.759
same as just normal gravity, which is very predictable and

95
00:05:54.879 --> 00:05:55.800
very understandable.

96
00:05:55.920 --> 00:05:58.000
So I don't think we could use that notion.

97
00:05:58.319 --> 00:06:03.040
As any kind of vehic four illuminating what dark master

98
00:06:03.079 --> 00:06:05.480
and dark energy are. That's got to come from the

99
00:06:05.519 --> 00:06:07.000
work that's already aging.

100
00:06:07.199 --> 00:06:10.040
I think so physics, of course.

101
00:06:11.199 --> 00:06:14.800
But his idea does hold a little bit of water

102
00:06:14.920 --> 00:06:18.959
in terms of the Earth. Is you know, sitting on

103
00:06:19.000 --> 00:06:21.680
the trampoline and the trampoline's pushing back.

104
00:06:24.040 --> 00:06:26.480
Yes, that's right in a way. That's that's correct. So

105
00:06:26.560 --> 00:06:30.040
that you know, anything coming from from the outside edge

106
00:06:30.040 --> 00:06:32.319
of the trampoline, you're all a marble down it or something.

107
00:06:32.560 --> 00:06:34.600
You could equally well say, well that that it's the

108
00:06:34.600 --> 00:06:39.240
outside that's pushing the marble in rather than the gravitational

109
00:06:39.319 --> 00:06:42.439
musk that's pulling it in. And it's because relativity tells

110
00:06:42.480 --> 00:06:45.040
us that it's the shape of space that has changed.

111
00:06:45.480 --> 00:06:48.120
There you go, all right, there you go, Carrick. You

112
00:06:48.120 --> 00:06:49.480
you weren't far off the mark.

113
00:06:49.560 --> 00:06:52.720
Can't wait to read the scientific paper you're now going

114
00:06:52.720 --> 00:06:58.639
to write for us? Yes, okay, we'll move on and

115
00:06:59.639 --> 00:07:02.480
hello where everyone in New Zealand, beautiful country? Been there

116
00:07:02.519 --> 00:07:05.519
a couple of times? Would go back tomorrow, but not

117
00:07:05.560 --> 00:07:06.399
to watch rugby.

118
00:07:07.120 --> 00:07:07.399
Now.

119
00:07:08.079 --> 00:07:11.519
Next question comes from any in California or any writes

120
00:07:11.560 --> 00:07:15.680
to us fairly regularly. How do quantum fields behave Do

121
00:07:15.759 --> 00:07:19.160
they interact with each other in any way? Take, for instance,

122
00:07:19.319 --> 00:07:23.079
makenetic field with the Higgs field. You might need to

123
00:07:23.120 --> 00:07:24.399
elaborate on that a bit for it.

124
00:07:25.680 --> 00:07:30.480
Yeah, So quantum fields are the equivalent of sub atomic particles.

125
00:07:31.800 --> 00:07:35.720
And this is where you know quantum theory gets a

126
00:07:35.759 --> 00:07:38.959
bit weird because you can think of a sub atomic

127
00:07:39.000 --> 00:07:42.639
particle in two different ways, in fact three different ways actually,

128
00:07:43.480 --> 00:07:45.480
because you can think of it as a particle, you know,

129
00:07:45.600 --> 00:07:48.040
something like a golf ball, just to draw an analogue

130
00:07:48.040 --> 00:07:49.240
that would be familiar.

131
00:07:48.879 --> 00:07:49.519
To you, Andrew.

132
00:07:50.759 --> 00:07:54.040
Or you could think of it as a wave because

133
00:07:54.120 --> 00:07:56.879
particles and waves are equivalent. Or you can think of

134
00:07:56.879 --> 00:08:00.839
it as a field because of the field is equivalent.

135
00:08:00.879 --> 00:08:03.439
And by a field, I mean kind of what we're

136
00:08:03.480 --> 00:08:10.279
just talking about in terms of gravity. That bent, a

137
00:08:10.360 --> 00:08:13.519
distorted trampoline sheet.

138
00:08:13.920 --> 00:08:14.519
Is a field.

139
00:08:14.879 --> 00:08:18.199
If it's if it's a representation of space, then it's

140
00:08:18.199 --> 00:08:23.480
a field. It's a field caused by gravity. So Renny's

141
00:08:25.680 --> 00:08:30.600
question is how these fields interact and some of them,

142
00:08:31.079 --> 00:08:40.320
certainly do. But a magnetic field probably doesn't interact with

143
00:08:40.399 --> 00:08:44.759
a Higgs field. And look, I'm not a quantum field

144
00:08:44.799 --> 00:08:48.639
theorist by any means, as anybody who is listening to this.

145
00:08:48.960 --> 00:08:50.440
Will immediately realize.

146
00:08:50.960 --> 00:08:56.399
But magnetism is well, it's the electromagnetic force, the electromagnetic field,

147
00:08:57.120 --> 00:09:02.360
and that electromagnetic field, when you turn it into a particle,

148
00:09:02.440 --> 00:09:05.360
it becomes it is a photon. The photon is the

149
00:09:05.720 --> 00:09:10.200
is the particle equivalent of the electromagnetic field. And a

150
00:09:10.279 --> 00:09:14.080
photon does not have a rest mass. It's got a

151
00:09:14.120 --> 00:09:17.200
mass but on it because of its energy as it moves,

152
00:09:17.559 --> 00:09:20.960
it doesn't have a rest mass. And the Higgs field

153
00:09:21.519 --> 00:09:25.440
is what imparts the rest mass to other particles. So

154
00:09:25.799 --> 00:09:28.240
my guess is, and it is just a guess here, Andrew,

155
00:09:28.679 --> 00:09:31.960
that the magnetism does not interact with the Higgs field.

156
00:09:32.200 --> 00:09:34.440
But I think some of the other particles would, do,

157
00:09:34.639 --> 00:09:38.919
you know, the the other fundamental particles would interact with

158
00:09:38.960 --> 00:09:40.559
one another because their fields do.

159
00:09:41.440 --> 00:09:43.200
Okay, right, thanks for that.

160
00:09:43.320 --> 00:09:44.600
Ready, Yeah, look he.

161
00:09:44.639 --> 00:09:48.679
Comes up with some real pearls questions questions. Yeah, you

162
00:09:48.759 --> 00:09:53.159
must you must have, you know, a very quick mind

163
00:09:53.200 --> 00:09:55.159
ready to come up with these questions. He puts a

164
00:09:55.200 --> 00:09:57.320
lot of thought into them, and you know, some of

165
00:09:57.360 --> 00:10:00.639
them are really clever, really clever.

166
00:10:01.279 --> 00:10:03.039
Good to hear from you, Rennie. Keep them coming.

167
00:10:03.080 --> 00:10:04.879
I know we've got a couple more in storage that

168
00:10:04.960 --> 00:10:08.960
we'll pluck out sooner or later an answer down the track,

169
00:10:09.519 --> 00:10:11.039
but yeah, good to hear from you.

170
00:10:11.120 --> 00:10:12.120
As always.

171
00:10:12.559 --> 00:10:14.919
This is space Nuts Andrew Unkley here.

172
00:10:14.759 --> 00:10:16.639
With Professor Fred Watson.

173
00:10:21.200 --> 00:10:22.799
Pace puts now.

174
00:10:22.879 --> 00:10:27.600
Fred another regular contributor, and we didn't hear from him

175
00:10:27.639 --> 00:10:31.320
too long ago, but he always seems to like Rennie,

176
00:10:31.320 --> 00:10:33.679
come up with a few curveballs for us.

177
00:10:33.799 --> 00:10:42.240
It's Rusty and Donnybrook. Rusty and Donnybrook wondering would an

178
00:10:42.360 --> 00:10:45.120
ultra massive black hole near the center of a large

179
00:10:45.200 --> 00:10:51.799
void be revealed by its gravitational lensing of more distant

180
00:10:52.279 --> 00:10:53.480
of distant galaxies.

181
00:10:55.679 --> 00:10:59.639
Kept it short and sweet. Okay, so did you catch

182
00:10:59.639 --> 00:10:59.879
that for it?

183
00:11:00.679 --> 00:11:02.759
I did, and I've got a short spe answer.

184
00:11:03.720 --> 00:11:09.519
Yes, kid will elaborate. Yeah.

185
00:11:09.639 --> 00:11:18.440
So, so everything acts as a gravitational lens no matter

186
00:11:18.480 --> 00:11:24.320
what it is, including the Earth. There have been ideas

187
00:11:24.320 --> 00:11:27.840
proposed of putting a spacecraft that the focus of the

188
00:11:27.879 --> 00:11:30.240
gravitational lens represented.

189
00:11:29.679 --> 00:11:30.279
By the Earth.

190
00:11:31.600 --> 00:11:33.519
I think I can't remember where it is a long way off.

191
00:11:33.639 --> 00:11:35.879
Yeah, I can imagine what points.

192
00:11:36.399 --> 00:11:42.440
But so so the you know it, any object will

193
00:11:42.639 --> 00:11:47.559
will distort things behind the sun. The classic example and

194
00:11:48.240 --> 00:11:52.600
the fact that when the eclipse of nineteen nineteen was observed,

195
00:11:53.159 --> 00:11:56.039
the stars of the Hyades, which happened to be behind

196
00:11:56.080 --> 00:11:59.240
the Sun at that time, were distorted in their positions

197
00:11:59.279 --> 00:12:01.600
by the potational effect of the Sun.

198
00:12:02.600 --> 00:12:03.120
And so.

199
00:12:04.519 --> 00:12:06.879
Gravitational lensing is a property.

200
00:12:06.440 --> 00:12:07.279
Of all objects.

201
00:12:07.879 --> 00:12:11.600
A human would do it if we're in space, so yeah,

202
00:12:11.639 --> 00:12:14.360
a supermassive black hole is going to do it. The

203
00:12:14.720 --> 00:12:18.120
issue might well be, though, if the black hole is

204
00:12:18.120 --> 00:12:21.240
an active one, that's to say, it's gobbling up stuff

205
00:12:21.240 --> 00:12:25.080
around it and radiating, it might be quite difficult to

206
00:12:25.120 --> 00:12:28.679
see the stuff behind it because we've got, you know,

207
00:12:28.679 --> 00:12:32.639
we'd have an accretion disc which is glowing, and as

208
00:12:32.639 --> 00:12:35.879
we know from the event horizon telescope, that will be radiating.

209
00:12:35.399 --> 00:12:37.080
And we're be able to see the accretion disc.

210
00:12:37.200 --> 00:12:40.879
So yeah, it's.

211
00:12:39.679 --> 00:12:42.399
Something that would happen, but might be very difficult to detect.

212
00:12:43.039 --> 00:12:48.600
Okay, all right, thank you Rusty as always, and I'm

213
00:12:48.600 --> 00:12:52.399
sure he'll send in more questions because he does he

214
00:12:52.559 --> 00:12:56.120
just does. But he's another one that probably spends a

215
00:12:56.120 --> 00:12:58.639
lot of time contemplating these things. We had Rusty on

216
00:12:58.679 --> 00:13:04.159
as a special guest some time ago and we got

217
00:13:04.200 --> 00:13:06.039
all these questions out of his system, but then he

218
00:13:06.120 --> 00:13:06.600
came back.

219
00:13:08.159 --> 00:13:09.480
Come out with plenty more.

220
00:13:10.720 --> 00:13:16.320
Next question comes from David. If the James Webb telescope

221
00:13:16.320 --> 00:13:19.759
can see so far into the past with such great detail,

222
00:13:20.320 --> 00:13:23.279
why can't we have a telescope where we can see

223
00:13:23.320 --> 00:13:26.320
every grain of sand on the moon or do we?

224
00:13:27.120 --> 00:13:27.440
Thank you?

225
00:13:27.519 --> 00:13:30.320
David, I must confess I've wondered the same thing.

226
00:13:31.879 --> 00:13:34.960
Good. Well, I'm here to tell you why.

227
00:13:36.360 --> 00:13:38.039
I'm guessing there's a reason why not.

228
00:13:39.200 --> 00:13:44.679
Yeah, there is, and it's all about so the ability

229
00:13:44.679 --> 00:13:48.440
of a telescope to see detail is something we call

230
00:13:48.639 --> 00:13:51.559
in the trade. We call it the angular resolution, and

231
00:13:51.759 --> 00:13:56.919
it's the angle on the sky that is the finest

232
00:13:57.000 --> 00:13:59.120
detail that the telescope can reveal.

233
00:14:01.200 --> 00:14:03.240
With the angle.

234
00:14:02.960 --> 00:14:07.679
Australian telescope here on in northwestern New South Wales a

235
00:14:07.679 --> 00:14:10.679
four meter angle Australian telescope three point nine meters. The

236
00:14:10.679 --> 00:14:13.559
one I was stronggering charge off for a while that

237
00:14:14.000 --> 00:14:17.480
if you put it in space would resolve detail on

238
00:14:17.559 --> 00:14:19.600
the scale of the thirtieth of an arcsecond. Now, an

239
00:14:19.639 --> 00:14:24.399
arcsecond is is the angle made by basically a dime

240
00:14:24.480 --> 00:14:26.799
or a one dollar coin at a distance of five

241
00:14:26.879 --> 00:14:32.440
kilometers about three miles. It's a tiny angle. The at

242
00:14:32.679 --> 00:14:36.080
in space could resolve a thirtieth of that, something like

243
00:14:36.080 --> 00:14:41.279
a thirtieth of an arcsecond. So the bottom line, however,

244
00:14:41.519 --> 00:14:43.399
is that because we're sitting at the bottom of an

245
00:14:43.440 --> 00:14:46.519
atmosphere that's quite turbulent, the very best you can do

246
00:14:47.120 --> 00:14:49.159
is about ero point nine of an arcsecond on a

247
00:14:49.240 --> 00:14:53.360
really exquisite night, and that would be the angle, the

248
00:14:53.480 --> 00:14:55.759
minimal I Goode that you would be able to resolve. Now,

249
00:14:56.720 --> 00:14:59.919
James Web telescope is a six point five meter tell

250
00:15:00.480 --> 00:15:04.559
it's bigger than our angle Australian telescope, which is for

251
00:15:04.759 --> 00:15:06.639
me says I just said three point nine meters.

252
00:15:07.600 --> 00:15:08.159
And the.

253
00:15:11.000 --> 00:15:16.039
Sensitivity to detail depends linearly actually on the diameter of

254
00:15:16.039 --> 00:15:19.919
the telescope. So the bigger the telescope, the finer the detail.

255
00:15:19.559 --> 00:15:20.240
You can see.

256
00:15:20.960 --> 00:15:25.080
So with it James Web telescope, the finest detail it

257
00:15:25.080 --> 00:15:29.919
can see is point zero six eight of an arcsecond,

258
00:15:30.200 --> 00:15:35.840
a little bit less finer than a tenth of an arcsecond.

259
00:15:38.360 --> 00:15:39.200
Is that because?

260
00:15:39.399 --> 00:15:41.120
Is that because of its size and the fact that

261
00:15:41.159 --> 00:15:44.360
it's not being disrupted by a setmasphy.

262
00:15:44.039 --> 00:15:48.879
That's correct, that's right, that's correct. It's sixty eight milliarc seconds,

263
00:15:48.919 --> 00:15:49.360
Is that right?

264
00:15:49.440 --> 00:15:49.639
Yes?

265
00:15:49.679 --> 00:15:53.519
Point zero six eight it's quite a bit less than

266
00:15:53.519 --> 00:15:57.000
a tenth actually. Anyway, the bottom line is that's the

267
00:15:57.000 --> 00:16:01.159
finest detail that the telescope can resolve. Put it anywhere else,

268
00:16:02.279 --> 00:16:06.279
and you know, you can point it anywhere in the universe,

269
00:16:06.320 --> 00:16:08.720
this is what I'm trying to say, and you will

270
00:16:08.759 --> 00:16:12.399
get that same resolution to detail. Whether it's distant galaxies,

271
00:16:12.960 --> 00:16:17.600
whether it's the planets, whether it's exoplanets, you will get

272
00:16:17.639 --> 00:16:21.600
the same fineness of detail. So what happens if you

273
00:16:21.600 --> 00:16:24.840
point it to the Moon? You get you get a

274
00:16:24.919 --> 00:16:28.679
resolution of point zero six eight millie sorry, point zero

275
00:16:28.799 --> 00:16:32.159
six eight arcseconds. What does that show you at the

276
00:16:32.159 --> 00:16:36.200
distance of the Moon. It will show you details on

277
00:16:36.240 --> 00:16:40.480
a scale of one hundred and twenty six meters. That's

278
00:16:40.519 --> 00:16:42.919
the finest thing that you could see on the Moon

279
00:16:43.120 --> 00:16:44.279
with the web telescope.

280
00:16:44.480 --> 00:16:45.480
And it's quite big.

281
00:16:45.919 --> 00:16:48.440
It's not grains of sand, it's one hundred and twenty

282
00:16:48.480 --> 00:16:51.480
six meters. It's a big object, and that's because the

283
00:16:51.480 --> 00:16:54.720
Moon's a long way away, three hundred and eighty four

284
00:16:54.759 --> 00:16:55.799
thousand kilometers.

285
00:16:56.519 --> 00:16:59.720
So okay, do you think that the day may come

286
00:16:59.759 --> 00:17:02.159
with it I'll build a bigger and better telescope that

287
00:17:02.279 --> 00:17:06.200
may be capable of much more detail I'm going to envisage.

288
00:17:06.240 --> 00:17:08.400
The answer is yes, well.

289
00:17:08.400 --> 00:17:11.279
Yes, so that we already We already have that on

290
00:17:11.440 --> 00:17:16.119
the stocks the thirty nine point three meter diameter e

291
00:17:16.319 --> 00:17:18.880
l T the extremely large telescope being built at Cero

292
00:17:18.880 --> 00:17:24.359
Homozonas in Chile. Now that telescope is at the bottom

293
00:17:24.400 --> 00:17:27.000
of the atmosphere, so it suffers from that. But it's

294
00:17:27.000 --> 00:17:31.200
got a very very sophisticated system of adaptive optics on

295
00:17:31.279 --> 00:17:36.240
board that will give it twenty times the detailed sensitivity.

296
00:17:35.640 --> 00:17:36.920
Of the Hubble telescope.

297
00:17:37.240 --> 00:17:37.519
Wow.

298
00:17:37.559 --> 00:17:40.480
Remember the Leubble is not the gems Web but smaller,

299
00:17:41.039 --> 00:17:46.640
so it's it's yeah, it's uh, it's a very fine

300
00:17:46.720 --> 00:17:53.519
resolution machine. We still will only be seeing detail, you know,

301
00:17:53.599 --> 00:17:56.960
on the scale of tens of meters on the Moon.

302
00:17:58.039 --> 00:18:02.200
To imagine seeing rains of sad you probably need a

303
00:18:02.240 --> 00:18:04.480
telescope bigger than the Earth. That worked out what it is,

304
00:18:05.440 --> 00:18:07.279
and it's actually a lot easier just to set the

305
00:18:07.279 --> 00:18:11.319
spacecraft with a cabrole. And that's how we've seen images

306
00:18:11.359 --> 00:18:15.599
of all the Apollo landing sites because of Fluido Reconnoissance orbiter,

307
00:18:15.640 --> 00:18:19.359
which is photographing it from thirty or fifty kilometers above

308
00:18:19.400 --> 00:18:19.920
the surface.

309
00:18:20.039 --> 00:18:21.200
Yeah.

310
00:18:21.559 --> 00:18:24.119
I was sort of HARKing back to the sixties in

311
00:18:24.160 --> 00:18:25.839
the early seventies.

312
00:18:25.440 --> 00:18:26.519
With the Moon missions.

313
00:18:27.039 --> 00:18:30.000
After they were all complete, of course, three gazillion books

314
00:18:30.039 --> 00:18:33.799
were released, and I got one that was aimed more

315
00:18:33.839 --> 00:18:37.440
at younger people. And even though back then we only

316
00:18:37.440 --> 00:18:40.519
had black and white television. Yes, kids, it's true, we

317
00:18:40.599 --> 00:18:44.680
only had black and white television and the pictures were

318
00:18:44.759 --> 00:18:53.319
quite fuzzy, the book was mind blowingly beautiful. The image images,

319
00:18:53.640 --> 00:18:56.599
as I recall from that book, was so high definition

320
00:18:56.680 --> 00:18:58.759
compared to what we could see on TV. I was

321
00:18:59.440 --> 00:19:03.799
absolutely blown away by it. Yeah. So even then, the

322
00:19:04.319 --> 00:19:07.839
cameras that they had on the Moon were quite quite brilliant.

323
00:19:09.480 --> 00:19:12.160
But when they go back and start walking around up

324
00:19:12.200 --> 00:19:16.839
there again, I can't imagine what the pictures are going

325
00:19:16.880 --> 00:19:19.319
to be like with modern day equipment. It's going to

326
00:19:19.319 --> 00:19:23.319
be very exciting. And even the pictures coming back from

327
00:19:23.400 --> 00:19:26.119
Mars so like death these days.

328
00:19:26.200 --> 00:19:27.759
That's right, Yeah, fantastic.

329
00:19:28.559 --> 00:19:32.680
I'm just going to revisit something I said Andrew, which

330
00:19:33.160 --> 00:19:36.119
was about the Angle Australian telescope being able to resolve

331
00:19:36.119 --> 00:19:41.799
for thirtieth of an arc second. That is assuming the

332
00:19:41.839 --> 00:19:46.279
mirror is absolutely perfect with no flaws on it. So

333
00:19:46.319 --> 00:19:49.519
in reality it will be slightly worse than that in space.

334
00:19:50.000 --> 00:19:53.839
And that's why the figure that I mentioned for the

335
00:19:53.920 --> 00:19:58.240
James Web telescope on zero six eight is sort of,

336
00:19:58.680 --> 00:20:00.720
you know, sounds that it was worse than the.

337
00:20:00.720 --> 00:20:01.960
Angle Australian telescope.

338
00:20:02.000 --> 00:20:02.279
It's not.

339
00:20:02.359 --> 00:20:05.920
It's much better, but that takes into account the imperfections

340
00:20:05.960 --> 00:20:09.000
in the mirror as well. Whereas the value that I

341
00:20:09.119 --> 00:20:11.799
quoted for the eighties is if the mirror was perfect,

342
00:20:11.799 --> 00:20:14.240
if it was an absolutely perfect mirror, the only thing

343
00:20:14.279 --> 00:20:17.960
that was limiting its ability to see detail was the

344
00:20:17.960 --> 00:20:19.039
theory of diffraction.

345
00:20:20.039 --> 00:20:22.839
Okay, Yeah, And just.

346
00:20:23.200 --> 00:20:25.359
In case anybody who was listening carefully and said, wait

347
00:20:25.400 --> 00:20:27.039
a minute, he just said something else.

348
00:20:30.480 --> 00:20:33.720
I can't imagine what the badget is at a telescope

349
00:20:33.799 --> 00:20:37.599
like the Anglo Australian for windex. I mean that must

350
00:20:37.640 --> 00:20:39.480
cost a fortune.

351
00:20:39.839 --> 00:20:43.960
You know.

352
00:20:42.799 --> 00:20:45.880
The End Australian telescope.

353
00:20:45.440 --> 00:20:50.400
Mirror is cleaned once a year when the aluminium surface

354
00:20:50.480 --> 00:20:54.640
is removed and and it's requoated, right, so it's never

355
00:20:54.680 --> 00:20:59.839
cleaned with chemicals. Some observatories avoid doing that by using

356
00:21:00.279 --> 00:21:04.200
carbon dioxide snow home solid carbon dioxide across the mirror

357
00:21:04.200 --> 00:21:06.079
and that takes away some of the dust. We don't

358
00:21:06.079 --> 00:21:08.319
do that in the Angle Australian. We take the surface

359
00:21:08.359 --> 00:21:13.519
away and recoat it. But just down the road from

360
00:21:13.559 --> 00:21:16.920
the Angle Australian Telescope is the United Kingdom Schmidt telescope,

361
00:21:16.920 --> 00:21:19.119
which I was also a strollery and Childe off yep.

362
00:21:19.279 --> 00:21:21.039
That was at one point two meter diame. It a

363
00:21:21.160 --> 00:21:23.240
lens at the front, not a mirror. It does have

364
00:21:23.279 --> 00:21:26.359
a mirror in it, but the main thing that gets

365
00:21:26.359 --> 00:21:28.960
dirty is a lens. And guess what we used to

366
00:21:29.039 --> 00:21:30.400
clean it with wind as.

367
00:21:33.400 --> 00:21:35.839
So you ask a dumb question, you get a great answer.

368
00:21:36.559 --> 00:21:42.079
Sometimes sometimes it works. I was joking anyway, that's good,

369
00:21:42.920 --> 00:21:49.079
that's good to know. Yeah, well, so no, it can't work, David.

370
00:21:49.119 --> 00:21:54.640
It's just a bit beyond our capability and spread. Yeah yeah.

371
00:21:54.960 --> 00:21:57.440
And you know, if you wanted to build one capable

372
00:21:57.519 --> 00:21:59.440
of that, you might as well build a whole planet,

373
00:22:00.960 --> 00:22:05.759
although that work, that works for Darth Vader. But yeah,

374
00:22:05.799 --> 00:22:08.640
all right, thanks David, thanks for the question. One final thing,

375
00:22:08.680 --> 00:22:11.640
it's not a question. It's one of our regular sender

376
00:22:11.680 --> 00:22:14.079
ins who shall remain.

377
00:22:13.920 --> 00:22:15.319
Nameless because he'll tell us who he is.

378
00:22:15.359 --> 00:22:20.920
Anyway, This is kind of well, he's going to eventually

379
00:22:20.960 --> 00:22:25.359
tell a joke, but you're gonna have to because he

380
00:22:25.440 --> 00:22:28.359
bleeps part of it out. You're going to have to

381
00:22:28.440 --> 00:22:30.759
use your brain to figure out the punchline. Some people

382
00:22:30.799 --> 00:22:33.920
may already have heard this one. I love it is Martin.

383
00:22:35.279 --> 00:22:43.519
Hello, Space Nights. Martin Berman Borvain here from Potomac, Maryland, US,

384
00:22:43.640 --> 00:22:50.640
a writer extraordinaire in many genres, especially science fiction, and

385
00:22:50.720 --> 00:22:55.119
I am currently working on a novel about an obnoxious

386
00:22:55.200 --> 00:23:02.039
billionaire called Egon Risk and his plans to take a

387
00:23:02.200 --> 00:23:07.960
starship full of dim witted celebrities to found a new

388
00:23:08.039 --> 00:23:13.759
master race among the stars, and how these plans may

389
00:23:13.880 --> 00:23:17.279
or may not come to grief. I don't actually have

390
00:23:17.359 --> 00:23:24.319
a question this week. I actually just have a little

391
00:23:24.400 --> 00:23:29.279
known bit of Star Wars trivia. Did you know that

392
00:23:29.519 --> 00:23:37.240
George Lucas was originally planning to have Skywalker's home planet

393
00:23:37.759 --> 00:23:45.319
Tattooing be a satellite of the seventh planet of our

394
00:23:45.440 --> 00:23:51.319
solar system. Yes, but he had to move the planet

395
00:23:51.640 --> 00:23:56.960
Tattooing to a long long time ago in a galaxy

396
00:23:57.119 --> 00:24:02.000

#460: Gravity Reimagined, Quantum Field Fables & Black Hole Mysteries

Listen On

Featured Episodes

Recent Episodes

Support On

#460: Gravity Reimagined, Quantum Field Fables & Black Hole Mysteries

Astronomy Daily Newsletter

Thank you!

Listen On

Featured Episodes

Recent Episodes

Support On