Andrew Dunkley: Hi there.
Andrew Dunkley: This is Space Nuts. It's a Q and A edition.
Uh, my name is Andrew Dunkley. Thanks for
your company. In, uh, this episode we will
endeavour to answer audience
questions. Uh, Kevin wants to know about
stopping a photon. Did that really happen?
Ah, we've got a, uh, duo
named Reynold and Brian wanting to ask about
intertwining electromagnetic fields.
Um, the speed of colliding particles in the
Large Hadron Collider is a question we've
received. And Mark is asking us
about the excess number of satellites in
space and what can be done about it. He's got
an idea. We will see what that's all about
on this episode of space nuts.
Generic: 15 seconds. Guidance is internal.
10, 9. Ignition
sequence start.
Professor Fred Watson: Space nuts.
Generic: 5, 4, 3. 2. 1. 2, 3, 4,
5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
Professor Fred Watson: Space nuts.
Generic: Astronauts report it feels good.
Andrew Dunkley: And he's back again for more.
Uh, it is Professor Fred Watson Watson,
Astronomer at large. Hello Fred Watson.
Professor Fred Watson: Hello Andrew. Um, fancy seeing you here. Yes,
in my study.
Andrew Dunkley: Yes, I'm in mine as well. Although it's
hard to see because the background's all
blurred. I must have a setting
that I changed in this thing and I can't
figure it out how to undo it. But um, it
doesn't really matter. You probably don't
want to see all the junk at the back of my
room anyway. It's not as good as your
junk.
Professor Fred Watson: Oh, it's good Chunk. My microscope, uh, there
as well.
Andrew Dunkley: Oh yeah, that's nice.
Professor Fred Watson: If I see anything I need to look at closely,
I can just turn around in my chair and have a
look.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, well, your age, that's probably.
You walked into that one.
Professor Fred Watson: I did deny. Yes.
Andrew Dunkley: Um, shall we answer some questions?
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, no, no, let's
Andrew Dunkley: uh, let's go to our first question. It's an
audio question and it comes from Kevin.
Kevin: Hello, space notes. My name is Kevin. I'm
from Las Vegas, Nevada and I finally have a
question to ask you after listening to you
guys from the beginning. It's regarding
an article that I came across but didn't get
to fully read on how we have
officially docked a particle
of light. Not just slowed it down but full
on. Um, stop. My question is kind of a
two part A, is this a
legitimate thing? Have we stopped a, uh,
photon from moving and B,
if not, this can be posed as a what if
question. But what's the consequences for
a photon that come to a complete stop?
Now, photons don't have rest mass. It's only
in the mass of their energy. But does
it Gain rest mass now that it is at a rest
or is this one of those it enters
and just ends up going back to the speed of
light once whatever's holding it lets go?
Um, Google doesn't quite give me the run
around for a bunch of stuff so I figured I'd
ask you guys. Love the show. Thank you for
listening.
Professor Fred Watson: Thank you.
Andrew Dunkley: Kevin. Uh, I love this question. Uh, this is
a subject that has come up uh, a few times
over the years and it prompted me to do
a bit of research. Uh, and I did find uh,
an article on the Physics World website
that uh, discusses this.
Professor Fred Watson: Fred Watson Good.
Uh, yes, that's right. Look, it's ah,
it really is an interesting um, process.
Um, but it's uh, it's,
there's a bit of subterfuge here in the
nomenclature
Andrew Dunkley: because well that's a big word.
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, there is two big words
there. Don't know what either of them mean.
There's a, you're almost
playing with words here in a way because
you do stop light. But it's not
the individual photon
that stops. It gets
converted into something else,
if I can put it that way. So you've got to
start off with a Bose
Einstein condensate. A
condensate which is ultra
cold atoms, they're a fraction of a
degree above absolute zero.
And the thing about one of these, they're
usually called a bec, a Bose Einstein
condensate. Um, it is
basically a whole lot of atoms and usually
it's sodium, uh, which um,
are so cold that they behave
like a single quantum object. So
it's a bit like entanglement
where you've got two quantum particles and
they um, behave like a single particle.
It's that. But in a, in
a whole petri dish if you like, a lot
of um, a lot of uh, these atoms are
entangled effectively. So you've got this
bec, the boson condensate. But
then you've got to uh,
you sort of excite it with
a laser and then you send your
photon in that you want to stop.
And um, it basically
the photon,
it's not a photon anymore. It's now
interacting with these super cold
atoms, uh, in a way that
effectively slows the transfer of energy
down. So it's not the same photon that
stopped. It becomes something else. It
becomes um, uh.
One um, document I read
suggests it's actually
converted into a matter
based hologram, uh, uh,
which is a slightly um, odd way of putting it
but basically it tells you that
you've changed the photon but
uh, you can then basically,
um, there's
a separate laser that's exciting the BEC
into this unusual state. If you turn that
off, uh, the pulse doesn't
just slow down. Sorry, the
photon that you're trying to stop actually
does stop when you turn this energy off.
And what you've got is
essentially,
Kevin: uh,
Professor Fred Watson: all the information, if I can put it that
way, contained in the photon is
transferred into this imprint in
the bec, in the atoms of the
Bose Einstein condensate. It
becomes, as I said earlier, like a hologram.
But then if you turn that, what's called the
coupling laser back on, um, the light
pulse is reconstructed
and sets off again on its path. I haven't
explained that very well, but that's
basically what's happening.
Andrew Dunkley: Okay, so
Kevin's right. Uh, we
have demonstrated that you can
slow light down. I, uh, think when the storey
first came out, they actually said they
stopped it. Uh, but
second, uh, part of his question was,
does it reconstitute itself and get on with
its journey? And the answer is yes, that's
correct.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. So this is. It's not, um, a
particular, you know, it's not a specific
piece of research. This. There's a whole lot
of research going on. It's almost like
becoming, um, uh, just a
everyday tool of physicists to do this, to
stop pulses of light, uh, and
tinker around and see what they can learn
from it. Making that grossly
oversimplified. So I apologise to all my
physicist friends. Um, but it's, um,
almost a routine process to do this. Now. I
think I'm right in saying that not just.
Although I suspect it's only a few labs in
the world that have got the equipment
necessary, uh, to do it. Because
it's not just your everyday microscope or
anything like that. It's, uh, quite a
specific piece of, uh, infrastructure,
including the Bose Einstein condensate, which
I think we're all actually made in the. Was
it in the 1980s? Um, they were predicted by
Bose and Einstein, two physicists. Uh,
but I don't think we actually managed to make
one until maybe 40 years ago. I might have
that date wrong, but that sticks in my mind.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, that's fascinating. I wonder why we're
so keen to learn how to do this with light. I
mean, what do we gain from it?
Professor Fred Watson: Well, um, uh, it
teaches you about the properties of the Bose
Einstein condensate. And
being able to stop a photon and store its
energy is quite an
interesting thing. Particularly if
you think, well, maybe we can apply this to
quantum computing. I think that's
uh, one of the reasons why this is a hot
topic, uh, that it does have
applications for quantum,
uh, information. It also,
um, you know, it relates to
our understanding of physics at the most
basic level. Uh, it's, uh.
Yes, it's extraordinary. I think it is a very
useful line of research and, um.
Sounds like it, I think. Yes, I think I
should understand it better. That's the
bottom line.
Andrew Dunkley: Kevin might also be interested to know the
revival process after you switch the laser
back on is quite slow. It's not like it
instantly goes back to its 300 million
metres per second. Um, light speed,
uh, takes a little bit, and
I'm talking a little bit of time to, to sort
of rev its engines back up again.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, so, so that's not. I mean, photons
in a vacuum always travel at that 300
or 300,000 kilometres per second, the way we
usually put it, 300 million kilometres
per second. Um, uh, but that's only
the speed in a vacuum. The speed in
different, um, other media is
different.
Andrew Dunkley: Thanks for the question, Kevin. That's um,
that's a really interesting one.
Our next question, Fred Watson, comes from.
Uh, Now I'm going to assume this is two
people. And the reason I say that is because
the other day we read a note from Rennie in
California about, uh, one of his grandsons
being inspired to perhaps study astronomy in
the future. And these two fellows
sport the same surname as Rennie. So I'm
going to assume these are two people,
Reynold and who've sent this question in.
And if I'm wrong, I'm sorry, but, uh, I just
got that gut feeling about it. They haven't
actually said these are from two different
people, but, um, uh, the fabric
of space time consists of different
fields. An example is the Higgs field,
uh, electromagnetic field, et cetera.
So my question is, theoretically, could any
of these fields intertwine and become
a new type of field, or could the
intertwining effect a, uh, field
to interfere with its behaviour?
That's getting really into the,
um, big complexities of,
uh, studying
these particles.
It's the smallest level of anything really,
isn't it?
Professor Fred Watson: That's correct, yes. So we're talking about
fundamental particles which equally, uh,
well, can be seen as, um, uh,
as disturbances
or eddies if you like, in, in the field, in
the force field. Uh, so, you
know, whatever that force field is. But I
think there's a fairly straightforward answer
to this question though. Uh, um.
Exactly. As Reynolds and Brian say, the
fabric of space time consists of different
fields, such as the Higgs field. And the
Higgs boson is a disturbance within the Higgs
field. But, um,
uh, and so the question is, theoretically,
could any of these fields intertwine and
become a new type of field or could the
intertwining affect a field to interfere with
its behaviour? And the answer is yes to the
first part. They don't exactly
intertwine, they superimpose. And
you've actually, um, Reynold and Brian
already named one because the
electromagnetic field is actually a
superposition of the electric field and the
magnetic field, which are themselves
separate. And there are other, there are
other superpositions as well.
Um, uh, the weak
nuclear force intertwines with
the electromagnetic force to become the
electroweak force, which is something we
think was present in the early universe.
Uh, so, uh,
yes, it's interesting the way that these
superpositions happen. So they're absolutely
right. They can entwine, uh, and, uh,
um, at least maybe intertwines the wrong
word. But, uh, superimpose at least so that
you have multiple fields becoming
something different, a new type of field.
Exactly as they say. Okay, yeah.
Andrew Dunkley: Ah, it's a strange world, isn't it, when you
get down to the. It is
tiny, tiny objects and, um,
Professor Fred Watson: strange in the big objects as well.
Andrew Dunkley: I suppose so. I mean, if you
really sit back and drink a few scotches and
start looking up and thinking about it, your
brain just explodes. It's probably the scotch
more so than the problems of the universe.
Um, it is so
out there when you're, you know, just
contemplating existence itself is one
of the things I find myself thinking about
from time to time. How is existence
not, not just why, but how.
Uh, it's all very weird.
Uh, and thank you to Reynold and Brian for
sending in that question. And, um,
we wish you well. Uh, and please send some
more.
Uh, this is Space Nuts, a Q and A edition
with Andrew Dunkley and Professor Fred Watson
Watson.
Andrew Dunkley: Let's take a short break from the show to
tell you about our sponsor, NordVPN.
Uh, let's talk about your online security.
Now, I can tell you from personal experience,
uh, last year when Judy and I were overseas,
we ran into, uh, a bit of a frustrating
issue. There were certain apps we simply
couldn't use without a VPN connection. Things
like our, um, banking apps, uh, they wouldn't
load. Uh, and even a sports app I rely
on wouldn't, uh, let me watch games back home
because of, of geo fencing and things like
that. Uh, so, um, with NordVPN,
I was able to watch, uh, football back
home while crossing the Atlantic Ocean.
Andrew Dunkley: It was pretty weird, but, uh, it worked.
Andrew Dunkley: Uh, and uh, NORDVPN is the best in the
business. Uh, with NordVPN, you can securely
connect to servers all around the world,
which means your apps think you right back
home even when you're not. Uh, uh. It also
encrypts your Internet traffic, hides your IP
address and keeps your personal data safe
from hackers and trackers and anybody else
who's trying to get at you online.
And this can happen in, um, public WI fi
situations, in hotels, airports, cafes,
anywhere like that. The best part, it's
fast. Thousands of servers globally and their
Nordlynx technology allows, uh, you to
run seamlessly, no slowing down. It
is brilliant. Right now you can grab the
special Space Nuts deal through this URL
nordvpn.com
spacenuts you'll get four extra months free,
plus a 30 day money back guarantee. So
there's absolutely no risk if you
Andrew Dunkley: want to give it a go.
Andrew Dunkley: That's nordvpn.com
spacenuts Stay safe
online with our sponsor,
NordVPN
Kevin: Space Nuts.
Andrew Dunkley: Uh, I think we've got another audio question.
We seem to be on a bit of a, um, um,
um, you know, particle
type of bender at the moment with this
episode. Uh, this, this question comes from
Andy.
Andy: Hi guys. Andy again, from uk,
actually from Cheshire, just down the road
from the beautiful Jodrell Bank. Although
I've never forgiven them since they took out
the planetarium. Um, just a quick question.
Um, the lhc, um,
we're told that it
accelerates particles to
very close to the speed of light, about 0.9 C
or whatever the actual figure is.
Um, but they also say that
they're colliding particles at close to the
speed of light. Now if they're colliding
particles that they're accelerating in
opposite directions, surely that means they
should be the collisions. The impact
should be at close to twice
the speed of light. Um,
if you just clear that one up, I'd be very
happy. Um, I,
I think I'm right and I think the collisions
are happening at greater than the speed of
light. But prove me wrong
again, fantastic show. Speak to you soon.
Andrew Dunkley: Thanks, Andy. Um, reminds me of all
those,
Andrew Dunkley: I
Andrew Dunkley: suppose, when they're teaching you to drive
and they're saying, um, look, you're
driving along the highway at 100 kilometres
an hour and a car's coming in the opposite
direction at 100 kilometres an hour and you,
uh, sadly, hit each other. The
impact speed is 200 kilometres an hour. I
guess that's what he's getting at.
Professor Fred Watson: Exactly that, yes. Um,
um, and it's a natural thing and it's a
question that we often get, uh, because it's
completely counterintuitive.
Uh, exactly as, um, as Andy's saying. Uh,
and yeah, Cheshire's lovely. He's right. And
so is Jodrell Bank. Um, uh, uh,
as Andy's saying, you're colliding these
things. If I remember rightly, the, uh,
proton, uh, speed
within the Large Hadron Collider,
I think it's
99.99998%
of the speed of light. So that's how fast
these things are going, almost the speed of
light. And you've got two, uh, streams of
them going in opposite directions. You bring
them together at the various experiment
points. Um, I've been to some of those. I've
been in the cavity at the cavern, actually,
where the compact muon solenoid lives.
Uh, and that's where they collide. So
shouldn't they collide at nearly twice the
speed of light? And the answer is no,
because then
Andrew Dunkley: you ought to be no.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, that only works in classical mechanics,
uh, where, as you said, the velocities just
add together. Uh, if these things were
moving, you know, in the, what we call the
classical realm, in other words, slow stuff,
you would add the velocities together. Uh,
but when you get to
relativistic speeds, as we call them, speeds
close to the speed of light, you have to
account for two other relativistic
factors, which are, uh, time dilation
and length contraction. And both of those
things are things, uh, that become very
significant at, uh, nearly the speed of
light. And so when you take those into
account, you get a different formula. And
I don't know whether listeners are going to
turn off here, but, uh, I'm going to give you
the formula. So in the
classical case, if you've got two
velocities, U and V, it's always U and V,
not you and me, U and V. Um,
uh, and yes, in classical case, U plus
V is
the closing speed, but in the relativistic
case, the Closing speed is u
+v divided by
1 over u
times v over c squared.
So u +v divided by 1 over
UV over c squared. That's the
relativistic formula. And when you put the
numbers in, uh, you realise
that you can never, uh, exceed the speed
of light by this.
Um, you just get, uh, an answer
that's even closer to the speed of light than
your two initial, uh, colliders.
So, um, here's an example. Uh,
you've got two things travelling,
hitting each other or travelling towards each
other at 0.8 of the speed of light.
In the classical situation, they would be
coming together at 1.6 times the speed of
light. That will be their relative veloc. But
when you do the relativistic calculation, uh,
their Closing velocity is
0.975 times the
speed of light.
Andrea: Okay.
Andrew Dunkley: Okay.
Professor Fred Watson: I hope that makes sense. It's all
about the weird things that happen when you
get near the speed of light. You know, time
dilation itself, time slowing down for,
uh, you know, for the. For as
a difference between the observer and the
person moving at the speed of light and
length contraction. These are all weird
things. So it shouldn't be a surprise that
they don't just. The velocities don't just
add together, they combine in that
relativistic sense. Sorry about the equation.
It's an equation I quite like, which is why I
threw it in there.
Andrew Dunkley: It's fair enough, too. And, uh, hopefully
that's solved, uh, Andy's dilemma.
Um, he thought it would be twice the
speed of light or something to that effect if
you got two objects at the speed of light
impacting each other head on. But no, can't
be done is what you're saying.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, they're close. I mean, only light
can go at the speed of light. So you're
talking about things going at nearly the
speed of light. Uh, they're not colliding at
nearly twice the speed of light. They're
colliding at even more nearly the speed of
light than they were to start with. But it
never exceeds the speed of light.
Andrew Dunkley: I get it. There you go, Andy. Uh, solved.
Professor Fred Watson: The crew of Artemis 2 now bound for the moon.
Humanity's next great voyage begins.
Andrew Dunkley: Space Nuts.
Andrew Dunkley: And our final question today comes, uh,
from. Mark. Hi, Fred Watson, Andrew, uh,
and team. It's, uh, Mark again from Sunny,
is it Cece.
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, it's where Patrick Moore used to live.
He used to visit him.
Andrew Dunkley: I really have to use a bigger font size with
these questions. Sunny, uh, Selsey on the
south coast of England. Um, in more
than one of your podcasts, you mentioned the
growing problem of excess satellites in space
and what to do with them. That got me
thinking. Would it be possible to use the
action reaction principle to place a new
satellite in the same place as an old
one and move the old one into a higher
graveyard orbit? Uh, Then at a later date,
collect them to be dismantled safely. The way
I look at it, if they want to put more
satellites into space, they should also pay
to clean the space up. Uh, I know this
sounds, uh, a, uh, bit space
snook, a bit like space space snooker. Yes,
it does. Uh, but would it be possible. By the
way, I broke the TV in the Globe Pub as a
young man playing snooker, so probably not a
good idea to ask me to work out the
trajectories for all of this. Keep, uh, up
the great work. It means a lot to everyone
listening. And those, uh, that don't, well,
you just gotta pity them,
says Mark. Thanks, Mark, for the question.
Uh, I'd love to, I'd love to have been the
night he broke the tv.
Professor Fred Watson: That would have been spectacular.
Generic: Yeah.
Andy: Gosh.
Andrew Dunkley: Now what I want to know is, was that he's
backswing, getting ready for the, the,
the move of the queue that hit the screen, or
did he actually fire a ball,
uh, across the, across the room and hit the
tv? Uh, you're gonna have to clarify that
one, Mark. Um, look,
uh, in, in regard to, um,
cleaning up your own mess, there's actually
a. Isn't there an international law
that requires you to deal with your own
stuff up there?
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, there is now. Um, I think it was added
to the, uh, the
approvals given by the International
Telecommunications Union, which is a
governing body of all this stuff, um,
that you. I think this came in
probably five, 10 years ago. You have to
demonstrate, uh, before they'll give you
permission to launch, that you've got a way
of removing your spacecraft from
orbit. Um, in other words,
you've got to be able to clean up your own
junk. Uh, now that's
fine for new stuff, but there's a lot of
stuff up there that didn't
qualify for that. And no thought was given to
the idea of trashing space that you, you
know, your spacecraft would
just continue in orbit, um, after
its useful life was over. And
indeed for many of them, for objects,
uh, especially ones with solar panels which
are big and act as a drag on the residual
atmosphere up there. Uh, even if you're up
at, uh, uh, four or five hundred
kilometres, there's enough atmosphere that
if you do nothing, your spacecraft will,
uh, the orbit will decay. It will
hit the atmosphere and slow down and that
brings it down lower and then it slows down
more. And that is how
space is kind of almost automatically cleaned
up.
Andrew Dunkley: And that's what's happening to the Swift.
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, yes, that we talked about a couple of
episodes ago. Exactly right. That's right.
And that one's worth saving, which is why a
mission's been mounted to do that, to boost
it into a higher orbit. So in a way, what
that's doing is actually what Mark is
suggesting. You, uh, can go, uh,
attach another rocket to it and push it up to
a higher orbit to safeguard it. Um,
um, so for low Earth
orbit, There's below about 5,
600 kilometres. There is this natural
sweeping up as things decay
unless you do something about it. Many
spacecraft have got thrusters that lets you
lift its orbit. Um, but if you switch the
thrusters off, that means they're going to
come back to Earth anyway. And that might be
enough to satisfy the international
Telecommunications Unit, uh, going higher
up, though.
Andrew Dunkley: Except.
Andrew Dunkley: Yes, one more point. Uh, when these things
are burning up, they're putting all those
metals into our atmosphere.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, you're still getting contamination.
That's right. We're getting aluminium oxide
and all sorts of stuff up there that
shouldn't be there. Uh, but,
um, yes, for higher orbits,
these are the ones, what you might call mid
earth orbits above 1,000 kilometres,
uh, they're not gonna decay so readily. And
so they are an. And then,
uh, the, um, geostationary
satellites. So the geostationary orbits are
very, very specific. Um, in fact,
all the satellites are in the same orbit,
more or less, um, because it's the one that
keeps them over the equator and keeps them
going, uh, round once in a day.
Um, those geostationary orbits, they're at
36,000 kilometres. They have to have
mechanisms to push them into what's called
exactly as, uh, Malik mentions, a grave
orbit, which just gets them out of the way so
that when they become defunct and you can't
control them anymore, they're not going to
bang into one of the active geostationary
satellites. So it is a game of snooker up
there, um, in a perhaps more gentle way than
knocking one satellite into another, um, and
replacing its position in space.
All you do, if you do that is
you've got another one that's going to decay
at the same rate. If it's in low Earth orbit,
it.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, they reckon there's somewhere between
three and four and a half thousand inactive
or defunct satellites in orbit at the moment.
Professor Fred Watson: That's correct, yes. Um, but
then on top of that there's a, uh, host
of, uh, upper stages, launch,
you know, the launch vehicles. Lots of bits
and pieces, bits of fairing, bits of junk,
debris from previous collisions. It's a
fleck of paint, flecks of Paint. That's
right. There's even a glove.
Andrew Dunkley: And a spanner with a spanner too. Yeah,
there's all sorts of stuff floating around.
Professor Fred Watson: It's all going at 8 kilometres per second.
That's the dangerous bit.
Andrew Dunkley: So I think that, uh, was another part to his
question. Could you replace a satellite in
its exact position, move the
defunct one out and put a new one in the
exact spot that its predecessor was?
Professor Fred Watson: Well, you could, and, uh, indeed that's done.
You don't move the other one out. You. Once
its orbit's decayed, you, uh, just let it
drop. Yeah, you've got that orbit, uh, freed
up and you put another
spacecraft there. That's what's happening
with Starlink. Actually, it's exactly what's
happening. The Starlink satellites are all at
round about 500 kilometres. They were
planning another shell at, uh, 1200
kilometres. But, uh, for once, um, SpaceX
listened to the astronomy lobby. Because
those outer ones can be visible all night in
some parts of the world, um, even though
they're fainter because they're higher up,
uh, it means that they're visible for much
longer during twilight.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, and that's a real problem, isn't
it? There you go, Mark. Uh, everything you
said, um, is possible. And
uh, yes, there is a law requiring people to
clean up their messes, but at the moment,
letting them burn up in the atmosphere is
okay until we all die of some
kind of metallic poisoning. Then, um, they'll
go, ah, yeah, we should have done, done
something about that.
Professor Fred Watson: Unintended consequences. Yeah.
Andrew Dunkley: Uh, lovely to hear from you, Mark.
Um, uh, we've been talking a lot
about particle science today, and, uh, Andrea
in Western Australia sent, uh, something in
a while back and I've kind of been sitting on
it, trying to find the appropriate moment.
And because of the, the fact that three of
our four questions were focused on, on
particles, I thought it was appropriate
to play, um, uh,
Andrea's little voice piece today.
Andrea: Hey, you two. The joke for the day.
Two neutrinos walked through a bar.
Andrew Dunkley: Thanks folks.
Andrea: Really enjoy your show and I hope you guys
found that really fun.
Professor Fred Watson: We did.
Andrew Dunkley: Uh, that's a good one.
Professor Fred Watson: That is excellent. Yeah, perfect.
Andrew Dunkley: Perfect timing. Well, actually, I've been
sitting on it for months, but it,
um, seemed appropriate. Appropriate today.
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, that's the, um, one.
Andrew Dunkley: Now a reminder, if you have questions for us,
we would love to get them. Uh, you need to go
to our website to send them in, uh, which is
easy, spacenutspodcast.com or spacenuts
IO. Click on the Ask me anything button at
the top, it's labelled ama.
And that's also the logo for the Australian
Medical Association. But don't get confused.
Uh, they might answer it too, though. You
never know. Uh, but send your questions into
us because, um, there's so much stuff that
people want to know and if you want to know
something, the best way to find out is to ask
us and then we'll refer it to somebody else.
But, uh, it is, um, uh, text and audio.
Don't forget to tell us who you are and where
you're from. Thank you so much, Fred Watson.
It's been a pleasure.
Professor Fred Watson: Always a pleasure, Andrew. Great to talk.
Andrew Dunkley: Catch you soon. Professor Fred Watson Watson,
astronomer at large. And, uh, thanks to Huw
in the studio, who puts everything together
with Blu Tack. Couldn't be with us today
though, because he drives a proton and it
does not do the speed of light. And so he was
late. And from me, Andrew Dunkley. Thanks for
your company. We'll catch you on the next
episode of Space Nuts.
Professor Fred Watson: Bye. Bye.
Andrew Dunkley: You've been listening to the Space Nuts
podcast, available at
Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
iHeartRadio or your favourite podcast
player. You can also stream on
demand@bytes.com.
Andrew Dunkley: this has been another quality podcast
production from bytes.com.