Andrew Dunkley: Hi there. Thanks for joining us. This is
Space Nuts, where we talk astronomy and space
science and sometimes puppy dogs. Who knows?
Uh, my name is Andrew Dunkley, uh, your host.
It's great to have your company. Coming up on
this episode, we are going to look into
a discovery made through the Perseverance
Rover on Mars. Uh, have they
found what could have been life in Mars's
history? Or is it another rock that's just
got a stain on it? Uh, also, uh, we've
got some news on the Hubble Tension and the
Large Hadron Collider is no
more. Well, it's going to be more,
but it needs to be no more to be more.
We'll tell you all about it on this episode
of space nuts.
Professor Fred Watson: 15 seconds. Guidance is internal.
10, 9. Ignition
sequence start.
Professor Fred Watson: Space nuts.
Professor Fred Watson: 5, 4, 3, 2. 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
Andrew Dunkley: Space nuts.
Professor Fred Watson: Astronauts report it feels good.
Andrew Dunkley: Joining us again to discuss all of those
things and more is Professor Fred Watson
Watson, astronomer at large. Hi, Fred Watson.
Professor Fred Watson: Hello, Andrew. Good to see you.
Andrew Dunkley: Good to see you too.
Professor Fred Watson: Good to be back on Space Nuts. It
is, it is.
Andrew Dunkley: It's very good.
Uh, we've got a lot to talk about, so we
might as well dive right in because, um,
it wasn't so long ago that we had a bit of a
chat about a, A rock that they
found that they said came from Mars and it
showed, uh, there was life. And then it
turned out to be nothing like that.
Uh, and now we have a storey popping up.
Uh, that suggests the Perseverance Rover may
have detected complex carbon,
uh, molecules in Martian rocks that
may have been signatures for
life. Um, yeah, you can't, uh,
you can't say, look, I found formal life on
Mars. It's all over. Red Rover. Boom, boom.
That's a good joke, that. Think about it.
Professor Fred Watson: And, um, I didn't need to think too
hard.
Andrew Dunkley: And, uh, look, you've just got to take
this with a grain of, uh, Martian salt and
hope that that's what they've actually found.
That's what it's all about.
Professor Fred Watson: You have to go back to that pink planet we
were talking about a few episodes ago to get
the grain of salt to.
Andrew Dunkley: Pink Salt planet,
Professor Fred Watson: indeed.
So, um, yes, the storey is. It is, um,
as you've hinted, um, a kind of
extension of a storey that we covered a few
weeks ago, which was this particular
rock, um, which
is, uh, from an outcrop called
the Bright Angel Outcrop, uh, on, um,
Mars. Uh, so this is the Perseverance Rover,
which you'll Remember is working hard in
Jezero Crater, where there is a
river Delta from probably 3.5 billion
years ago. So, um, the Bright
angel outcrop and the particular rock
that they found, um, I can't see whether
it had a particular name, but it was a
mudstone rock which had,
uh, basically, as you said, stains on them.
Uh, stains on the surface. Um, stains on
Mars will be interesting because you'd wonder
where they came from. But it's got
surface spots and what have been called
nodules. Uh, and the
reason why it caused excitement was
that some of those features superficially
resemble the features that are
produced on Earth by fossilised
microbes. And that's what we covered
actually, back in 2024. It seems like only
yesterday, but we did talk about that.
Or maybe. No, it was probably last year
actually. Um, I think that's when the results
came out. So last year, 2025.
Uh, uh, and a quote, um,
uh, there's a nice Guardian piece on this
Storey, but there's a quote from Sean Duffy,
who used to acting head of NASA,
uh, who said of that discovery, this
very well could be the clearest sign of life
that we've ever found on Mars. Which is
an interesting comment. And of course
all astrobiologists and all scientists
probably, and all, um, podcast presenters,
uh, couch this sort of discovery in very,
very, um, broad terms
because, uh, with. There's
certainly no. This is certainly not a
definitive discovery of life
on Mars, but it
has basically gone
further in the sense that the samples
that, uh, Perseverance took
from this mudstone, uh,
showed that there was something called
macromolecular carbon on its surface.
And that's something. A
carbon, you know, it's carbon compounds,
probably. Excuse me. Sorry about that,
Andrew, just bellowing into my microphone
here. I do apologise. Um,
um. Uh, it's probably several
organic types of organic
molecule and of course organic means
containing carbon associated with life
normally. Um, but, uh, the
analysis of this shows,
and the analysis by Perseverance
shows that it is, uh,
a possibility that
this life, these organic, these
macromolecules, carbon macromolecules,
could have been the result of life
processes, but they could also
come from basically,
uh, I mean essentially, um, geological
processes, tectonic processes. And
so that's where the
thing stands at the moment. Uh,
we know from,
uh, work that's already been done by
the Perseverance rover and Perseverance,
uh, so Curiosity went to Mars to
determine whether Mars was ever habitable.
And we know that from Curiosity it found that
out within the first two weeks of being
there. Um, but we know now from
perseverance that Jezero Crater was also
a habitable, habitable environment
at um, least for some sort of primitive level
of life. Um, but of course uh, the
issue is that we won't be able to do the
proper tests on these samples until
we get these samples back to Earth, uh,
laboratories where there's far more refined
equipment than you can carry on a little
rover on Mars. And the problem is we
don't currently have any way of doing that,
of getting these samples back because the um,
the mission uh, to do that, a uh,
joint NASA European Space Agency mission
fell foul of politics in the United States
and was cancelled earlier in the year.
Professor Fred Watson: Uh,
Professor Fred Watson: we knew it was in trouble anyway because the
cost had sort of blown out. So it's not a
surprise that that happened. But at the
moment there's nothing on the books to get
them back. Few plans going on I think,
but not to get them back.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, and that's uh, frustrating but I
suppose in the scheme of things it's, I mean
we all want to know whether or not Mars
had life but it's probably not one of the
most urgent things to deal with. Um,
we'll get around to it and chances
are that those um,
cylinders I think they are, that the deposits
are in will be collected as a part of
another major mission. That would be my
thinking sometime in the future.
Professor Fred Watson: You're probably right. Uh, although it's
a very specific type of mission that's going
to go and collect these samples
and then send them back to Earth. That's the
tricky bit. It is, it's
probably a two step process where you've got
an orbiter um, sent to
Mars, goes into orbit around Mars, that drops
a probe onto the surface. The probe picks up
the uh, cache samples,
not ah, cash but
cache, uh, and um, brings them
back up to the orbiter and then the orbiter
sends off a probe to the Earth and that re
enters. It's a very complex process which is
why the cost blew out. But um, I
do have my own view on what might prompt
uh, some urgency with this and that is that
the Chinese are planning to do a sample
return mission to Mars uh, in
the2030s. So um,
if anything's going to stimulate some action
on this, my guess is that that's what it
would be. And you know, all praise to
the China National Space Agency.
Professor Fred Watson: Absolutely.
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, for aiming high. It's a great thing to
do.
Andrew Dunkley: It is.
And um, the other interesting thing
I suppose and you mentioned Curiosity. Uh,
it's starting to build up evidence
that, um, the potential for life
on Mars was widespread across the
planet.
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, correct. That's right. So I meant
to mention that. That's absolutely right.
That you know, when you've got, um,
uh, mudstones separated by 3,000
kilometres or thereabouts, uh, and
giving you the same sort of answer. Yeah,
that I think is, um,
it's a very, very strong evidence
for there having been the possibility of life
on Mars and that it might be findable, if I
can put it that way, if the conditions are
suitable for life everywhere, then there
might be remnants, um, of living
organisms everywhere on Mars which we have,
uh, a good chance of finding. Because
when NASA and other space agencies
aim to send, uh, spacecraft to Mars,
it's not quite just a tail on
the donkey thing where you just poke it in
willy nilly. You've got really good reasons
for going to any specific place. And
certainly Jezero Crater, um, it
was a masterstroke. Sending it to a lake
that, uh, had, um, a
river delta in it.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, they, they picked a good target. Uh,
that was intentional. And yes, uh, it seems
to be paying off. Fingers. Fingers crossed.
But, um, yeah, too early to tell. But looking
somewhat promising is, I think, the best way
to describe it at the moment.
Professor Fred Watson: That's right. It's not, it's not a kind of
negative result. It's not saying, oh, no,
there's no life on Mars. It's saying, hm,
there might be. It might have been.
Andrew Dunkley: Might, might have been. And still might be.
Professor Fred Watson: It still might be. That's right, yeah.
Andrew Dunkley: You can read all about that@theguardian.com
or you can read the paper that's been
published in Science Advances. This is Space
Nuts with Andrew Dunkley and Professor
Fred Watson Watson.
Space Nuts.
Now, uh, one of our, um, semi
regular topics is the Hubble
Tension and it's back in the news again,
uh, because of a, um,
another detection involving the collision
of neutron stars. Is that right?
Professor Fred Watson: That's correct, yes. Um, yes.
So, uh, the Hubble Tension is one
of these irritating things that just won't
go away.
Andrew Dunkley: Well, it's being described as one of the
biggest challenges in modern cosmology. So,
yes, it won't go away.
Professor Fred Watson: It won't go away. But it's a bit weird. I
did a radio segment about it, um, with a
Australian commercial radio station yesterday
morning because of the headline storey. Uh,
and I thought, how do you make this exciting?
It was, first thing you know, it was a
morning breakfast show and the guys who Were
interviewing me, were clearly not impressed
with it. Uh, normally I get lots of questions
Andrew Dunkley: from them, but, um, it may well have just
been something that goes
into the too hard basket because it's not an
easy thing to get your head around.
Professor Fred Watson: It's not. That's right. It's not. Um,
there's a lot of gobbledygook attached to it.
Anyway, let's have a go. We have a very
erudite audience on Space Nuts. Uh,
and Space Nuts, uh, listeners
will probably already be aware of all this
anyway. Um, but, uh. Yes.
So what's the Hubble tension? Uh, we have
two measurements of the Hubble constant,
which is the number that defines how fast
the universe is expanding. Now,
it's the expansion time or the
expansion rate that we are seeing. Uh, as
you and I have said many times before, it's
measured in units of kilometres per second
per megaparsec. Uh, and A
megaparsec is 3.26 million light
years. It's the units astronomers use because
you can't measure light years, but you can
measure parsecs. So, um,
that number is, uh,
the magic number. And we have,
uh, two different ways of determining it,
both of which now have achieved a really
high level of precision. Um,
there was a talk that I was at a couple of
months ago in Germany where, uh, one of the
experts was talking about this, uh, and
the sort of uncertainty limits that are put
on each of these two different methods of
determining the Hubble constant. They were
very small, uh, on the order of one
kilometre per second. Very, very, uh,
accurate measurements. Uh, but they
disagree. So, uh, you can do it two ways.
The first way is to
look at the cosmic microwave background
radiation, the good, uh, old background glow
of the Big Bang that is everywhere in the
sky. Uh, it has,
um, undulations on it in temperature, uh,
which we recognise as being
differences in the temperature of the Big
Bang fireball,
uh, which are caused by acoustic
oscillations. It's the bang of the Big Bang.
But you can use those undulations to get a
measurement of the Hubble constant. And the
value that that technology gets or that
method gets is 67 to 68 kilometres per
second per megaparsec. The
other way of, uh, measuring this
is to look in the nearby universe. You look
at galaxies whose distances are measured in,
um, millions or hundreds of millions of light
years. Uh, and that's very local compared
with the 13.8 billion light years
of the cosmic microwave background. Um,
so you look locally and you look for the
traditional methods of Finding, um,
uh, the distances to galaxies, uh, which,
uh, one of them is by what we call
Cepheid variable stars. That was the way that
galaxies were first established to be a long
way off in 1923. Um, you
can also do it with supernova explosions, all
of that sort of stuff, uh, gives you another
alternative value, uh, on the Hubble
constant, and that gives you a higher answer.
So the local universe gives
you, uh, uh, an answer of about
73 kilometres per second per
megaparsec, sort of. So that's
roughly 5. Higher. 5
kilometres per second per megaparsec higher
than the one you get from the Hubble
constant. Now that's, you know, I suppose
that's, uh, something like a 6 or
7% difference between them. And
I can tell you, 30 years ago, um, when I
was an astronomer, kind of a
bit more directly connected with all this 5%.
We'd die for 5%. That was, um,
6 or 7% or whatever the difference is 5
kilometres per second per megaparsec, uh,
because most of them differed by 50
kilometres per second per megaparsec back
then. Um, so, uh, and it was the Hubble
telescope that actually nailed it down to be
in the region of 70. But, yes, we have this
discrepancy. Uh, um. What's the
answer? So, um.
Actually, I might just quote there's a very
nice conversation piece by one of the
astronomers involved, um, with this, who
is a radio astronomer at csiro, the
Australia's National Science Agency.
Uh, Kelly Gurgi. Uh, and, uh,
let me see if I can find this comment. Yes,
that's that. So that Kelly says this is the
Hubble tension. What does it mean? Could it
be something. Could it be something has gone
awry in one or both methods?
Despite intense scrutiny, nobody has found
any mistakes. Alternatively, our
understanding of how the universe evolves may
be missing something fundamental and we need
new physics to resolve it.
Professor Fred Watson: Uh,
Professor Fred Watson: to settle this cosmic M debate, new and
independent methods of measuring the Hubble
constant are, uh, highly sought after.
Which gets us to the storey. Yes, yes.
Andrew Dunkley: We had to fill in all the blanks.
Professor Fred Watson: That's right. Um,
and as the article goes on, gravitational
waves offer an entirely independent way to
measure the expansion of the universe. And we
know about gravitational waves. That's very
much the stock in trade of what we talk about
on Space Nuts. Uh, and
so, uh, what they've done is gone back to one
that was particularly interesting. Uh,
and as you know, gravitational waves get
their number from the date when they're
discovered. This was
GW170817.
So, discovered on the 17th of August, uh,
2017. Um,
that's only two years after the first one was
found. Actually, I think it's only a year
after. I think, uh, it's two years, certainly
two years after the first one was observed.
Um, so, uh,
and this was a neutron star collision, two
neutron stars. And that has the
property unlike a black hole neutron star
collision or a black hole black hole
collision. A neutron star neutron star
collision, uh, actually produces
radiation, electromagnetic radiation. It
produces a flash or a glow.
Um, and that is something you can
detect. So for a start, that means you know
where these gravitational waves have come
from. With a high level of certainty. You can
take test all kinds of things like the fact
that gravitational waves, uh, travel at the
speed of light. All of that sort of pops out
of GW, uh,
17 08, uh, 1 7. Uh,
so it was a remarkable event.
Uh, what has now happened though is
that people have used the analysis of that
signal to sort of tease out,
um, the information about the
Hubble constant. And they get an answer
that is not as accurate as either of the
other ones because they haven't got that
precision yet for this method. But it's
intriguingly like the,
uh, measurement from the
distant universe. Uh, that is the
higher, uh, um, the lower
value. Uh, that's the. Remember, the
distant universe measurements have about 67
to 68 kilometres per second per megaparsec.
The other one was more like 73. Um, this
new value is somewhere between
61 and 70 kilometres per
second per megaparsec, which kind of
is outside the range of the near
universe value. Uh,
uh, um, so it agrees much more
with the distant universe value.
Even though
GW170817
came from a galaxy that is
not that far away in cosmic terms,
it's about 140 million light years from
Earth and that's sort of on our doorstep in
galactic terms. So here you've got an
independent method,
uh, that gives an answer more like the
distant method did. Uh, but it's
using, uh, nearby objects rather than
distant objects. So I think what it's done
is very neatly thrown the cat among the
pigeons again.
Andrew Dunkley: Sure has.
Professor Fred Watson: Um, well, let me just read
the article. Uh, the last paragraph is our
result is still four times less precise than
the leading nearby universe measurements. We
will need to detect more neutron star
collisions to definitively settle the Hubble
tension using gravitational waves. Such
events are rare, so it may be a while. But
for now, our study provides an important new
clue in one of Astronomy's biggest problems.
And that's where they leave it.
Andrew Dunkley: Where does that place the
storey? We did a couple of years ago about,
ah, a study into the Hubble tension,
um, trying to understand the differentiation
between the two existing methods where they
said, look, the difference is not that big a
deal. They're both right. So
where does that stand now? Do you remember
talking about that?
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, I do remember. Yeah, we've covered it,
certainly covered it before. Um,
so if that's the case, if they're both right,
and I think that was the outcome of that,
then that's pushing you towards new physics
because, um,
to get two different results
for the same thing by two different
methods, both of which use general
relativity as their basis, that is the firm
basis of our understanding of the universe.
Uh, what that suggests is there's something
wrong with general relativity. Now we've
believed that for a long time, but so far,
all the tests, it comes out on top. It comes
out with these incredible, uh,
incredibly precise accuracy in
describing the way the universe works.
Andrew Dunkley: All right, um, watch this space, I suppose.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
Andrew Dunkley: Where we're at on that. More to come. It's
um, one of those issues that just won't go
away because, uh, well, being human beings we
want to figure everything out so they won't
give up on this. Uh, you can read about
it at the Conversation website or you can
read the paper which was published in the
Astrophysical Journal. This is Space
Nuts. Andrew Dunkley with Professor
Fred Watson Watson.
Professor Fred Watson: I believe that this nation should commit
itself to achieving the goal
before this decade is out of landing a
man on the moon and returning him safely to
the Earth.
Andrew Dunkley: Face nuts.
Now we got a question about the Large
Hadron Collider. Recently they were asking
about the, the speed of two particles hitting
each other at the speed of light. Would that
be twice the speed of light? And the answer
was no. But the Large
Hadron Collider is in the news for a
different, uh, a different reason. They're
shutting it down. It's bye bye
Large Hadron Collider. But not forever. In
fact, um, they're going to do some
renovations. They're going to put a cubby
house on top of it and a kid's playground.
Professor Fred Watson: Grummy flower.
Andrew Dunkley: Little coffee shop next next door.
Professor Fred Watson: It's already got the coffee shop.
Andrew Dunkley: Already got the coffee shop.
Professor Fred Watson: Okay.
Andrew Dunkley: They're going to do a bigger coffee shop.
That's, that's really what this storey is
about.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. And the great thing from my point of
view is that uh, in, uh, let
me see, in Just over three weeks. I'll be
there. Wow. Uh, so, yeah, so I
love, I
Andrew Dunkley: love the line in this storey on
theuniversetoday.com. uh, see you later.
Accelerator. Yes, I
think that's very clever.
Professor Fred Watson: It's a nice way to.
Andrew Dunkley: I wish I'd thought of it.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, I do too. Um, yeah, actually,
you've always got to be careful, especially
when you write about this machine, because
Marnie, in one of our earlier tours, when we
visited the Large Hadron Collider,
had a spelling mistake in the word
hadron, uh, which you probably don't need to
think too hard about to work out what it was.
But somebody had to point it out.
Is that what really meant
Andrew Dunkley: Transpose two letters?
Professor Fred Watson: Yes. You transposed two letters.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah.
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, it would have got some laughs. I think it
did. Yes, I think it did. I'm sure it's
happened before, but, um, Marnie never made
that mistake again. But, yes, we're going
again. And the fact that it switched off
actually makes us hope that we might, uh,
once again get a trip down into,
uh, the tunnel where the accelerator is,
that 27 kilometre long circle of
pipe work, uh, where the subatomic particles
are accelerated, but also perhaps into one of
the experimental, uh, caverns.
Um, the last one we were at was the compact,
uh, Muon Solenoid. This is
this machine that's as big as a small factory
in a giant chamber underground. And it's
called the Compact Muon Solenoid. I love
that. Uh, it's definitely not compact
by our, uh, standards, but it was a fantastic
thing to see. We're hoping we might see that
again, but we'll see. Um, so, yeah, we're
nothing to do with the large. Hunt and
Collider were just, um, cheerleaders, uh,
to bring people to cheer it on. Because one
day we hope this machine might tell us what
dark matter is. And that's actually what this
upgrade's about. Uh, so what's happening? Uh,
it's switched off at the moment. I, uh, think
it is now switched off. Uh, see you later.
Accelerator. It's, um, uh,
due to reopen in 2030,
which will be a new version. It's called the
High Luminosity LHC Large
Hadron Collider. And it's got 10 times
the luminosity of the original machine.
Um, and I think by luminosity,
what particle physicists mean is the
number of particles that you can, uh, sort
of charge around, uh,
the circuit, the 27
kilometre, uh, ring that the
particles charge around,
uh, being accelerated and focused by
superconducting magnets. And I think that's
what's actually being, you know, I think
that's what's being, uh, upgraded.
Um, so I don't think the speed will be
faster. Uh, and if I remember rightly, these
protons are accelerated to
99.99998% of
the speed of light. I think that's the
accurate thing. Uh, so it'll be
probably the same speed but many, many more
particles. And that gives you a much better,
uh, chance of seeing some of the things that
we've missed. We've missed by, uh,
the current version of the lhc, which of
course M is a, ah, triumph
already. And in fact, uh, on the day we're
recording, um, today, 2nd of July,
yesterday was the 12th, sorry,
the 14th anniversary of the discovery of the
Higgs boson, which was done at the Large
Hadron Collider. Wow. So a bit of an
anniversary there.
Andrew Dunkley: That's gone fast, hasn't it?
Professor Fred Watson: Hasn't it gone fast? Yeah, and gosh, I think
we've been talking about it that long as
well, literally and figuratively. Yeah,
that's right, that's right. So,
and of course what we're, and this
ties into our previous storey, what we're all
hoping, uh, for is
that the, uh, new
analysis which will result from
the high luminosity lhc,
uh, will give us insights into everything,
but perhaps in particular the Higgs boson,
and maybe will point the way,
uh, as the Conversation piece says, uh, will
point the way to physics beyond the Standard
model, perhaps including evidence for
supersymmetry or the existence of exotic
dark matter particles. And of course, along
the way we hope they'll solve the Hubble
Tension as well.
Andrew Dunkley: Well, yes, let's hope so. Yeah,
yeah, it's um. So how long does this work
take, you reckon? I think it takes quite some
time, yeah.
Professor Fred Watson: Most of the time between now and 2030 when it
comes back on. So, yeah, I mean
it sounds as though, uh, it
is, are going to involve
replacing all the superconducting magnets all
the way around the 27 kilometre ring
and that. Yeah, that's quite a thing.
Andrew Dunkley: The good news is, if you want a
superconducting magnet, there'll be some for
sale on the side of the road
in a few years time, probably.
Professor Fred Watson: Um, I beg your pardon, I quoted, uh, it as
being from the Conversation, the article I
was reading from, but it's actually Universe
Today.
Andrew Dunkley: Universe Today by Alan Boyle.
Professor Fred Watson: Very good.
Andrew Dunkley: All right, we'll watch with interest and
hopefully an upgraded Cafe as well, which
will, um, you know, bring the tourists in big
time, for sure.
I think that brings us to the end of the
show, Fred Watson. Thank you so much.
Professor Fred Watson: Ah, they go so quickly, don't they?
Andrew Dunkley: They don't. They do. They do, yes.
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, but I'll see you next time, I hope.
Andrew Dunkley: I hope so, too.
Professor Fred Watson: Huh?
Andrew Dunkley: Couldn't do this without you, Fred Watson.
Professor Fred Watson: I don't think I could do it without you.
Andrew Dunkley: At least you'd be able to talk about
something. I'd sit here and go, um.
Professor Fred Watson: No, you wouldn't.
Professor Fred Watson: No, no, you wouldn't. No, you can talk.
Andrew Dunkley: I can talk gibberish. I can do that a lot.
Professor Fred Watson: The hind leg off a donkey.
Andrew Dunkley: That's the time I could do that.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
Andrew Dunkley: I could talk the leg off an iron pot. That's
another one.
Professor Fred Watson: I like that.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. All right. Thanks, Fred Watson. We'll
see you soon.
Professor Fred Watson: Sounds great. Thanks, Andrew.
Andrew Dunkley: Professor Fred Watson Watson, astronomer at
large. Don't forget to visit our website
between episodes. You can do that and, uh,
maybe if you've got time, wherever you listen
to us, leave review. Reviews are very helpful
because they tell people what you think
of us and that might inspire them to listen.
It might not, depending on what you say. But,
uh, yeah, reviews are very, very good. If you
can, uh, spend a couple of minutes doing that
from wherever you listen to us.
Um, YouTube,
um, Apple Podcasts, Spreaker. There's a.
There's a whole bunch that we're on. And
thanks to Huw in the studio, who couldn't be
with us today because he's dealing with
a dark matter. And from me, Andrew Dunkley.
Professor Fred Watson: Thanks for your company.
Andrew Dunkley: We'll see you in 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.um.com.
Professor Fred Watson: this has been another quality podcast
production from bytes.um com.