Podcast: Play in new window | Download
We’ve been so crazy following our own whims through the universe that we’ve neglected your questions. That ends today. It’s time to dig deep into our overflowing email box to retrieve the puzzling questions our listeners have sent in.
- Antimatter: Mirror of the Universe
- FAQ:Centre for Antimatter-Matter Studies Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence
- Thereâ€™s a Lopsided Halo of Antimatter Surrounding the Centre of the Milky Way – Fraser Cain (as reported from AAS this January)
- The Particle Adventure the fundamentals of matter and force
- An introduction to Particle Physics
- Quantum State
- Spin and Mixed Quantum States
- Quantum Mechanics
- Planck Mass – NOTE: While there is a Planck mass, it is not the smallest discernable unit of mass, unlike the Planck length or the Planck time.
- A Gravity Assist Primer
- Let Gravity Assist You…
- Speed of Gravity Measured for First Time (Jan. 2003)
- Lunar Tides
Transcript: Questions Show #8
Fraser Cain: Weâ€™ve been so crazy following our own whims through the universe that weâ€™ve neglected your questions. That ends today. Itâ€™s time to dig deep into our overflowing email box to retrieve the puzzling questions our listeners have sent in.
Letâ€™s start with what I think is our best question ever.
This is it, this is the greatest question. Justin Craig sent in an awesome email. He says, â€œI was wondering, if you had enough anti-matter and you put it into a black hole with an equal mass, would the black hole disappear or just become twice as heavy?â€?
Now, before we go into the actual answer of question, letâ€™s give the listeners background on anti-matter. I donâ€™t think weâ€™ve done a show on anti-matter, so what is it?
Dr. Pamela Gay: Anti-matter is basically the â€œSpock has a beardâ€? universe of matter if youâ€™ve watched old generation Star Trek. An electron of antimatter has the opposite charge. It has all the opposite physical characteristics that a regular electron has. So you have an electron and a positron, take one and turn it inside out in every way you can (except for the mass â€“ you can never have negative mass, itâ€™s always a positive quality), and itâ€™s exactly the opposite. Opposites often annihilate one another.
Fraser: This isnâ€™t just some crazy, calculated theory. This is real stuff â€“ you can calculate it in the lab, you can smash it together, it annihilates and produces a gigantic amount of energy. This is real stuff.
Pamela: Yeah, weâ€™ve produced positrons â€“ I think theyâ€™ve even put together anti-matter hydrogen and helium anti-atoms in various laboratories. Youâ€™re just very, very careful to suspend them away from everything else while youâ€™re working with them. But we can create these things.
Fraser: So this isnâ€™t some theoretical concept. Astronomers see the presence of antimatter out in the universe, being produced naturally. In fact, it was recently announced thereâ€™s a cloud of antimatter in the Milky Way.
Pamela: Thereâ€™s a bunch of natural processes that itâ€™s just part of how energy settles out when itâ€™s becoming matter. If you take energy and you say, â€œokay, letâ€™s change it into matterâ€? youâ€™re going to get a regular matter particle and an antimatter particle. Everything is created in the yin and yang, in terms of you have to have a positive charge and a negative charge. All of these things have to balance out in these energy goes into matter reactions. In some cases it can actually create clouds of antimatter.
Thereâ€™s a cloud here in the Milky Way that we detect because of the very specific gamma ray light it gives off, that has a colour that you pretty much only get when you have these matter/antimatter reactions. We think this is perhaps coming from low-mass x-ray binaries that are creating this cloud of antimatter.
Fraser: All right. We know thereâ€™s antimatter, but just creating clouds which are annihilating instantaneously. Weâ€™re not actually clumping together gigantic quantities â€“ enough to say, create a black hole. But letâ€™s say we could. Weâ€™ve pulled it all together and fashioned it into a ball of antimatter with exactly the same mass as our target black hole. Then we smash them together.
Pamela: Hereâ€™s where I said itâ€™s really important that mass is always a positive quantity. If you take a pile of matter and a pile of antimatter, theyâ€™re both going to have the same gravitational effects on things, theyâ€™re both going to have the same style event horizonsâ€¦ theyâ€™re going to have the same everything.
The thing is, with a black hole, you canâ€™t tell if itâ€™s matter or antimatter.
Fraser: Right, of course. So an antimatter black hole would, in all cases, feel identical to a regular black hole, if youâ€™re trying to orbit it or whatever.
Pamela: If you basically went around with some sort of antimatter vacuum cleaner and collected antimatter into a bigger and bigger and bigger pile until the pile had enough mass (regular mass with antimatter characteristics), that it condensed down to a black holeâ€¦ itâ€™s a black hole. When you take an antimatter black hole and a matter black hole and throw them togetherâ€¦ we donâ€™t know whatâ€™s going on within the event horizon. From the outside perspective, you just made one really large black hole. Which is kind of cool.
Fraser: Hold on, letâ€™s break this down a little bit. Say we have our antimatter black hole and weâ€™re streaming planets and asteroids at it, theyâ€™re just disappearing into the antimatter black hole. Now, there wouldâ€™ve been an explosion going on as these asteroids are striking the antimatter, right?
Pamela: The problem is youâ€™re starting from the assumption the matter inside a black hole is normal. Itâ€™s not â€“ at least, we canâ€™t think of any way that itâ€™s normal. So the whole idea that you have electrons goes away. The whole idea that you have protons goes away.
What you have is some surreal quark soup that all the different bits and pieces that make up both matter and antimatter are slammed together and forced into these really small volumes. Things lose their identity in the process.
Fraser: Weâ€™ll get that question in a second â€“ weâ€™ve actually got another question on that identity and information. I guess my question â€“ sorry to not let go here â€“ letâ€™s imagine you had your antimatter black hole and your regular matter black hole, wouldnâ€™t your antimatter black hole be the exact same configuration as the regular black hole, just the antimatter version of that/
Say itâ€™s some kind of soup of particles which no longer look like protons/electrons/whatever. Wouldnâ€™t they just be anti-versions of whateverâ€™s in the black hole, and wouldnâ€™t that still create the explosion?
Pamela: How do we know, because itâ€™s in the event horizon, that these particles are able to hold on to that level of identity? How do we know they havenâ€™t turned into pure energy as they cram themselves in there?
Fraser: Letâ€™s say we do know. Letâ€™s say they do remain as a mere version of the particles that are in a black hole. What happens then?
Pamela: Well, itâ€™s just energy being released, but that energy canâ€™t get out because itâ€™s a black hole.
Fraser: Well thatâ€™s the question isnâ€™t it â€“ the energy canâ€™t get out because itâ€™s a black hole which would stop even energy. So obviously youâ€™re not going to have an explosion of chunks of things because they would just be sucked down. Youâ€™re not going to have radiation because itâ€™s going to get sucked down. Youâ€™re not going to get soundâ€¦. Anything. There may very well be an explosion, but you wouldnâ€™t know it happened. Is that right?
Pamela: Exactly. Basically, what goes in stays in and we canâ€™t find out anything beyond that. Since the antimatter systems have positive mass, you just have a bigger black hole.
Fraser: Right. Wow.
All right. I think thatâ€™s it â€“ I guess, thatâ€™s the question at the heart of it. The hope was maybe the two would cancel each other out and youâ€™d be able to break past black hole-ness, right, and the whole thing would explode and turn into a release of energy. Even energy canâ€™t escape this black hole, so even if there is a release of energy, no oneâ€™s the wiser.
Fraser: Awesome question. Best question ever.
Letâ€™s get on to some other best questions ever. Letâ€™s go with that â€“ continuing on the information.
We had a question from Maureen Egan, and she wants to know, â€œin terms of information not being able to escape the gravitational pull of a black hole, what exactly is information? When I imagine information I think of data like that stored on a floppy disk or CD.â€?
I think astronomers do use that term quite loosely â€“ all the information is lost, so who knows what happens to it. But what is information?
Pamela: Iâ€™m not sure so much that we use the phrase loosely as we just throw it around a lot without ever telling anyone what it means.
Fraser: Oh, fine â€“ yeah.
Pamela: Which is a little bit more evil on our part.
Fraser: Yeah, no â€“ I just throw around, â€œinformationâ€™s gone â€“ moving onâ€?
â€œStop, what does it mean?â€? So really â€“ what does it mean, information loss?
Pamela: Itâ€™s an idea that came out of quantum mechanics. Itâ€™s this whole idea that particles have varied states in them. If you take an atom â€“ letâ€™s talk about helium, which is nice and simple. In a helium atom, you can have two different electrons. One is going to have spin-up and the other will have spin-down if theyâ€™re both in their lowest energy state. This is something that comes from the poly-exclusion principle, which says you canâ€™t have two electrons with the same spin in the same orbital.
The fact that one is spin-up is information. The different states particles take on, or the different wave functions, all of this is different types of information. Itâ€™s the quantum states that are tied up in particles that people try and figure out how to take advantage of in building the next generation of hard drives where we store information in the spins of electrons.
How do we figure out how to tap into this so that we can build atoms that store the genetic code of the human genome, or something crazy like that. I donâ€™t think you can actually do that one.
Fraser: Maybe we could do an analogy in star trek, like where you hop in a transporter and youâ€™re going to be teleported from where you are to the moon down below. You want to make sure that the teleporter can rebuild you, atom by atom, and for it to be able to do that itâ€™s going to be able to put an atom here with this quantum state, an atom there with that quantum state, etc. Itâ€™s got to get it exactly right or you wonâ€™t be you anymore. Youâ€™ll be somebody else, or even just a mess.
Pamela: All of this can include information such as what the polarization of a photon, what is the orientation of the waving of the electric and magnetic fields of that photon as it passes through space.
Fraser: So thereâ€™s any number of ways you could measure an atom or a photon or a particle or anything and thatâ€™s the information that is thought to be destroyed when it goes into a black hole.
Pamela: Itâ€™s the most basic way of putting this is what are the quantum states of the particles â€“ thatâ€™s the information the particles carry.
Fraser: So the thinking is that if you could somehow pull that stuff back out of the black hole, there would be no way to re-create that information. No way to ever know what its quantum state was.
Fraser: Why is that bad?
Pamela: Well, we like to think that no information is ever lost. Ever particle in some way, holds its entire past inside of it. It couldnâ€™t exist if a whole series of different things hadnâ€™t existed. You take energy and that energy has to split into a positive and negative charge, different spins that are conservedâ€¦ you have all these different things that have to get conserved in the creation of matter and reactions and there are very specific processes that are the only allowed atomic processes, as particles decay from one to another through time.
If this information could get lost, itâ€™s sort of like erasing the history of the particle, which is kind of sad and also implies that thereâ€™s information about our universe that gets lost forever.
Fraser: Right, but astronomers arenâ€™t boo-hooing about lost information. This information loss breaks something, right?
Pamela: Well, one of the tenets we start with is no information can ever be lost or destroyed. If black holes can lose or destroy information, thereâ€™s one of our basic tenets gone, and that makes people uncomfortable.
Fraser: Okay, I think we could talk about this all day. Hopefully that gives you the information you were looking for, Maureen, and weâ€™ll come back around and talk about information in black holesâ€¦ thatâ€™s a whole show, Iâ€™m sure.
Pamela: Yeah. The short answer is, as near as we can tell, black holes donâ€™t eat information â€“ it has ways of escaping. But thatâ€™s for another entire episode.
Fraser: Right, right. Okay. But when theyâ€™re talking about information, thatâ€™s what theyâ€™re talking about â€“ the quantum state of the stuff that gets consumed.
Letâ€™s move on and go to our next question. This is from Mark Maultby. â€œIf gravity is the force of interaction between objects, what is the smallest object that could noticeably be said to have gravitational attraction?â€?
I just want to set some scale here. If I have the Earth, with the Sun… Here we are on the Earth, feeling its gravity. If I go across the universe, to the other side of the universe, Iâ€™m still feeling the effect of gravity from the Sun, right?
Pamela: Oh yeah.
Fraser: Now, not much, obviously.
Pamela: Not noticeably.
Fraser: Itâ€™s so miniscule you canâ€™t even have numbers to describe it, but it is there. Every piece of matter in the whole universe is interacting gravitationally with every other piece of matter in the whole universe. Thatâ€™s true?
Pamela: That is exactly true.
Fraser: Okay. All right, and then that doesnâ€™t matter for any size â€“ for a planet, a moon, a proton, an electron, a neutrinoâ€¦ anything, thereâ€™s still a gravitational force thatâ€™s being done across the universe. I guess the question is, is there some point where that doesnâ€™t happen anymore?
Pamela: No. Itâ€™s either you have mass â€“ and if you have mass, then you affect things with gravity. Or you have no mass, in which case you can fly across the universe at the speed of light.
Fraser: Is there a minimum amount of mass you can have/
Fraser: But, we had this conversation just a couple of weeks ago about the Higgs-boson. I know thereâ€™s the concept of gravitons. Is there some number where, if youâ€™re smaller than the Higgs-boson, then you wonâ€™t have mass? Like, you need to have one Higgs-boson to have mass â€“ Iâ€™m speaking gibberish, right?
Pamela: Thatâ€™s one of the crazy things. Higgs-bosons have a fair amount of mass.
Pamela: Or at least, they have a fair amount of energy (and energy and mass are kind of interchangeable, which makes the way we talk kind of confusing). The real question comes down to what is the least massive particle that we know about? Thatâ€™s probably quarks. Three quarks combine to make a proton.
I think the real question is what the particle is with the smallest mass out there. Here you have to start remembering thereâ€™s quarks, and they combine to create protons and basically have mass (in a sort of weird kind of way). Electrons have mass, neutrinos have mass. Then thereâ€™s this stuff called dark matter that we donâ€™t know what the heck it is. It has mass. It gravitationally effects things.
Iâ€™m not sure we know, yet, at this point in time, exactly what the smallest particle out there is, because weâ€™re still discovering particles. Weâ€™re still trying to figure out what this weird stuff called dark matter is. But itâ€™s basically, when you start getting down to theseâ€¦ this is a single lepton, a single boson, a quarkâ€¦ these individual units have slightly different masses, but these are the smallest things (smaller than atoms), that are capable of gravitationally affecting other things in the cosmos.
Fraser: But that kind of feels like youâ€™re not quite answering the question.
Youâ€™re kind of saying that these are the smallest particles that we know about â€“ that we know exist for sure â€“ and we know that those particles have mass, and therefore they can gravitationally attract. If you had one quark on one side of the universe and another on the other side of the universe, if they werenâ€™t being expanded away from each other, they would eventually come together, over a long time.
But the question is, is there some theoretical limit where you just canâ€™t have any less mass?
Pamela: When defining the smallest possible things, we often say, â€œthereâ€™s the Planck unit of timeâ€? (the smallest discernable unit of time), or thereâ€™s the Planck lengthâ€¦ Youâ€™d think thereâ€™d also be a Planck mass, which would be a limit to how small mass could get. But thereâ€™s not.
As far as we know, there may not be a limit to how small something can get in terms of mass, but weâ€™re still figuring out the particle world. We still havenâ€™t found the Higgs-boson (if it exists). We still havenâ€™t found the graviton (if it exists). Thereâ€™s this whole realm (potentially) of different particles that donâ€™t interact via the electromagnetic force like electrons and protons do, that are making up dark matter. For all we know, the least massive particle out there is also the most common particle out there and happens to be whatever it is that makes up dark matter.
Weâ€™re still learning. Particle physics, the standard model, these are things weâ€™re still working to define. As far as we know, no â€“ there is no mandated-by-the-cosmos boundary on how small a mass we can get. Weâ€™re still exploring.
Fraser: I guess the question will maybe help to be answered by upcoming work with the Large Hadron Collider.
Fraser: We donâ€™t really know. That was a good question too.
Pamela: These are the ones that stump me.
Fraser: I know, I know. Letâ€™s move on. Something I think is a little simpler â€“ this comes from Sabre Rosewood and the question is: â€œsince the tides on Earth are part of what causes our moon to slowly move away, what will happen once the oceans are gone? Will the Moon stop moving away from the Earth?â€?
We talked about this in our show â€œWhere Does the Moon Come From?â€? and discussed that â€“ the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth. Whatâ€™s the cause of that?
Pamela: It boils down to conservation of angular momentum. The Earth isnâ€™t a perfect sphere: it has mountains, it deforms itself due to the gravitational pull of the Moon. As the planet rotates, it bulges out so that part of it bulges toward the Moon and part of it bulges in the opposite direction because the gravity is not so strong over there.
This deformity basically gives the Moon a gravitational handle to hold on to our planet and say, â€œno â€“ donâ€™t rotate past me, keep the bulge pointed this direction!â€? The rotation of the Earth is constantly trying to carry the bulge past the Moon. Gravity grabs that bulge and pulls it back. This pulling back on the bulge thatâ€™s trying to rotate past the Moon is slowly, slowly, slowly, slowing the rotation of the planet.
Fraser: Youâ€™re talking about a bulge thatâ€™s coming from mountains or one side of the Earth is a little more bulged than the rest of it. Oceans move huge distances â€“ more than the mountains ever move. Thereâ€™s a gigantic amount of ocean on the planet, so does that play a significant role in this?
Pamela: It plays a significant role, but itâ€™s not the only role. So, 50 million years from now, when our oceans start to evaporate away, weâ€™re still going to have these tidal effects. Weâ€™re still going to have this planetary flexing that prevents us from becoming a perfect sphere ever. This planetary flexing is going to continue to slow the rotation of the planet until eventually weâ€™re completely locked so the same face of our world is always facing the same face of our moon.
Fraser: And the moon will stop moving away.
Pamela: It will stop moving away.
Fraser: Right, so the oceans are part of the bulge on the Earth, but theyâ€™re not the whole thing. Eventually, even when the oceans boil away, the Earth and the moon will still go through this dance until they figure it out â€“ until the Earth and moon are facing the same side toward each other forever and always. Which I think would be longer than the lifetime of the Sun, right?
Pamela: Yeah, thatâ€™s what we think right now at least.
Fraser: Itâ€™ll be a red giant before it happens.
Okay, cool question. Letâ€™s move on. Paul Barnett asks â€œSince the universe is expanding and we believe that matter cannot be created or destroyed but only changed from one form to another, I’m curious to know where the new matter comes from to occupy the new space that’s created. Is there new matter being spontaneously created?â€?
Now, let me try and rephrase the question, because I think he made a couple of mistakes there. We talk about the universe expanding, the expansion of the universe, both from the big bang but also from the additional dark energy thatâ€™s helping to push the universe apart. Weâ€™re getting more space in between the galaxies and galaxy clusters and interstellar space. But weâ€™re not necessarily getting any space in between the galaxies because theyâ€™re held together.
I guess the question is, letâ€™s look way out into the most unpopulated part of the universe where space is expanding apart and we can measure the density of how many atoms per cubic kilometre there are out there. As the space is expanding from dark energy, is there any more matter coming into existence?
Pamela: No, thatâ€™s the cool thing. The universe is basically diluting itself over time.
Fraser: So itâ€™s like youâ€™re pouring water into something that was quite thick, and itâ€™s just making it more and more dilute â€“ more and more thinned out.
Pamela: Or, the way I like to think about it, if you imagine blowing up a balloon, the balloon has very thick walls when itâ€™s small, but the more and more you blow it up, the thinner those walls get, the fewer atoms there are per square centimetre of area on the surface of that balloon.
Fraser: Until it pops.
Pamela: Until it pops.
Fraser: Our universe isnâ€™t going to pop, is it?
Pamela: But itâ€™s going to get pretty empty.
Fraser: Right, and thatâ€™s it â€“ there could be some point in the far, far future where everywhere you look, thereâ€™s no atoms around. Right now, I forget â€“ did you mention how dense space is?
Pamela: Itâ€™s on the order of nothing per cubic meter?
Fraser: Right, okay. The occasional particle per cubic meter, but you could eventually get to the point where thereâ€™s one particle per light year.
Pamela: Whatâ€™s weird though is this is true of atoms of normal matter. Thereâ€™s this thing called dark energy, and near as we can tell, dark energy is constant at all times. When we look at how much energy there is per cubic meter of space, it works out to a few protons worth of energy at all points in time, even though the total volume of the universe has increased.
That means the amount of energy, the amount of dark energy in the entire universe, is somehow increasing as the universe gets larger, because its staying constant as a function of volume. This gets confusing.
Fraser: Iâ€™ve got a zinger for you now, then. We always talk about the fact that matter and energy are interchangeable. So, is dark energy interchangeable with matter? Could you freeze it into matter?
Pamela: As far as we know, no. Dark energy is this weird enigma, currently. We donâ€™t know what causes it. As near as any theorist that I can understand has gotten, dark energy is basically a field of energy that permeates all of space and time. If you can imagine this mesh of energy that is everywhere, all at once, and not getting all metaphysical on meâ€¦ if you can imagine this lowest possible energy state (that isnâ€™t zero) it permeates everywhere. One of the fears is something will come along and trigger that wave, that field that permeates everywhere to crash down to zero and no one knows what will happen.
Fraser: Now youâ€™re freaking people out here.
Pamela: Theorists do scary things with their mathematics sometimes. Like I said, we donâ€™t really understand it right now. So, give us a few years.
Fraser: Okay. To summarize then, with the expansion of the big bang and the addition of dark energy, the universe is growing but the amount of matter in the universe isnâ€™t changing, so itâ€™s really just getting diluted. So, back to the question whereâ€™s the matter coming from, itâ€™s not coming from anywhere â€“ thereâ€™s no additional matter. All the matter in the entire universe was created in the big bang, and thatâ€™s all weâ€™ve got.
Pamela: Thatâ€™s all weâ€™ve got.
Fraser: All right. Speaking of all weâ€™ve got, thereâ€™s one more question. This is a good one too, in fact this is a question I was going to ask you about and I never got around to it.
This one comes from the forum, the Bad Astronomy & Universe Today forum. â€œI canâ€™t wrap my head around the physics of gravity assist. Why does travel in the same direction of an objectâ€™s orbit speed something up, while travel in the opposite direction slows it down? I keep thinking the approach push and depart pull would cancel each other out either way and not change the speed at all.â€?
This is great â€“ Iâ€™ve thought about it too. Youâ€™ve got a spaceship going toward Jupiter and itâ€™s going to get a gravitational assist to pick up velocity and go much faster. As it approaches Jupiter, Jupiter is speeding it up. I get that â€“ itâ€™s velocity might be changing as itâ€™s falling into Jupiterâ€™s gravity well. As it does its fly past, and starts to move away from Jupiter again, now Jupiterâ€™s pulling back on it. It should be slowing back down. Shouldnâ€™t you just end up with the same velocity? Itâ€™s like going down a hill and then back up it on the other side, shouldnâ€™t you end up going the same speed you were going before?
Pamela: That would be exactly right if the object you were having the gravity assist from wasnâ€™t moving.
The key is you are gravitationally falling into the gravity hole of some object in motion. If itâ€™s not in motion, you go in, come back out and your energy hasnâ€™t changed at all. If you imagine a completely frictionless, gently curved valley in the road. You go down a hill, up a hill, no friction occurs so youâ€™re going the same speed on both sides of the hill even though you speed up going in and slow down going upâ€¦ it all cancels out in the end.
The catch is, if the objectâ€™s moving, the amount of time that it is either able to gravitationally pull on you to speed you up or gravitationally pull on you to slow you down changes. If youâ€™re moving in the same direction as the object thatâ€™s giving you the gravitational assist, as youâ€™re moving toward it, itâ€™s saying â€œyes! Catch up with me!â€? and pulling on you to get you to catch up to it. So the whole time, youâ€™re approaching it, itâ€™s running away from you. As itâ€™s running away, itâ€™s pulling on you to help you catch up.
Once you catch up to it, youâ€™ve gained all this velocity, so youâ€™re able to zip away from it with extra velocity you didnâ€™t have before, because the extra time you had catching up with it lead to you getting some of its velocity and spending extra time falling in and not extra time falling out.
Fraser: So, youâ€™re slowing down Jupiter by a teeny-tiny little bit, to slow it down in its orbit, and its speeding you up to pull you up to its speed.
Fraser: Right. So the amount that you get falling into it and the moving back away from it do cancel out, but itâ€™s that process where itâ€™s pulling you up to its speed in the orbit which is what adds to your velocity.
Pamela: If youâ€™re going in opposite directions, then you end up putting the extra effort into slowing down to meet its speed. Then you end up going slower on the other side. Same thing.
Fraser: Right, and I know the MESSENGER space craft is using that method to be able to go into orbit around Mercury.
Fraser: Theyâ€™re using this process to be able to slow themselves down, as well â€“ if you just go the opposite direction, you slow yourself down.
That totally makes sense. I honestly didnâ€™t have it thought through, so thank you.
Pamela: Itâ€™s a really cool affect.
Fraser: You know what, I said that was the last one, but weâ€™ve enough time for one last, quick little question. I think this is a quick one. Rich from New York wants to know â€œif the Sun were to suddenly vanish, would we feel the effects of gravity instantaneously, or would it take approximately 8 minutes, just like light?â€?
Pamela: It would take 8 minutes, just like light. Fast enough?
Fraser: The speed of gravity is the speed of light. If the Sun disappeared, we would see the light disappear and weâ€™d also suddenly feel the gravity disappear.
Pamela: It would appear as if all of a sudden all the stars became visible and theyâ€™re moving in the wrong way. Thatâ€™s kind of cool.
And that effect works the same for us moving around the Milky Way, the Moon going around the Earthâ€¦ it waits for the speed of gravity. Cool.
I think that plays into our recent show about gravity waves, thatâ€™s what the whole trick is about. Youâ€™re watching as waves of gravity are released from objects as they wash over the planet. Thatâ€™s it â€“ that was quick.
Fraser: Perfect. I think that covers everything.
This transcript is not an exact match to the audio file. It has been edited for clarity.
First, thank you for 73 excellent podcasts! I’ve been a listener since Episode 1 and look forward to Monday evenings after work when I can sit down and enjoy your shows.
I have a question regarding your site. You used to have an embedded player on the page for each podcast, I have noticed that it is no longer there. While it’s no real bother to download the show and then play it, I kind of liked the convenience of the player.
A little thing, but I hope you bring it back. 🙂
Regardless, please keep producing Astronomy Cast. I can’t wait for next weeks episode.
I am a big fan of this show and i listen to it every friday. Because i like astronomy a lot. i want to do my career in it so ya. Keep producing the great shows.
Thanks a lot astronomy cast.
In re antimatter into black hole, a less jumbled discussion could follow the following:
1) antimatter (e.g. a positron) has positive mass
In re antimatter falling into a black hole. Perhaps the following points could focus the discussion:
1) All mass (and energy) is positive (E.g. electron = positron = the associated gamma ray) The “antimatter black hole” is the same as a “normal” black hole discussion (good job! I always forget this) is part of this equivalence.
2) Mass and energy are equivalent. If a positron-electron pair annihilate and both photons enter the black hole, the black hole grows by 2 electrons mass. If the positron and electron fall in separately, it doesn’t matter if they annihilate or not, the energy (mass) increase is the same!
3) It doesn’t matter what happens “inside” the black hole: particles that get “into” the singularity have no structure, but even if they somehow interact inside the event horizon but outside the singularity, the properties of the black hole (total mass/energy, total charge, angular momentum) don’t change!
Thank you Pamila and Fraiser for using my question
Bad link for transcript.
Dr. Pamela Gay said: “Well, we like to think that no information is ever lost.”
It is not so simple. If information is lost, it presents the same problem for quantum mechanics as it would be loss of mass for general relativity…
However, whether information is lost in the black hole is still hotly debated among scientists. AFAIK, superstring theory (which is the best theory pretending to be the theory of everything) shows that information is not lost in a black hole. Recently, Stephen Hawking also changed his long holding belief that information is lost in the black hole, and even presented a proof that information is not lost in black holes. Though not everyone accepted his proof, I think we have much more reasons to think that no information is lost than otherwise.
Dr. Pamela Gay said: “What is the least massive particle that we know about. That’s probably quarks. Three quarks combine to make a proton.”
The lightest of all quarks is the Up quark, with its mass lying between 1.5 and 4 MeV, which is still more than the mass of electron, which is 511â€‰keV/cÂ². Perhaps, the lightest participle known to modern physics is neutrino. No one knows precisely its mass, but conducted experiments have shown that it should be less than 2â€‰eV/cÂ², but the observed neutrino oscillation suggests that neutrino should have a non-zero rest mass.
After listening to this show i came up with the following question:
Could it be possible that the asymmetry between matter and antimatter that we observe in the universe be justified if we think that all the “missing” antimatter is trapped in black holes? Are there enough black holes to account for all this antimatter?
Thank you Robert Farley! Your explanation really helped me to understand this issue. I remained confused by this even after Pamela’s discussion. Pamela sort of talked around the points you made, but never stated them as clearly as you.
I’m sorry to rain on the parade, but someone in the crowd has to step up and say something to break this ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ hold of misinformation our science has over us. Most of this episode is riddled with clear errors in plain view, yet either no one so far seems to have noticed or they are quickly convinced to drop their objections because someone who is perceived as an authority says otherwise.
1) If the moon were truly tugging on the Earth with its gravity, slowing the planet’s spin then a similar reaction would have to be occurring at the moon, causing the moon’s spin to increase in this direction as well. Yet the moon’s face stays facing us, just as it would if this tidal effect weren’t there at all, since the moon is already said to have a spin that matches its monthly orbit about us. You can’t have it both ways. Either the Earth’s spin and the moon’s distance are dynamics that have nothing to do with “gravitational tides”, or the moon’s spin must be changing due to forceful tidal effects just as the Earth’s supposedly is (which, again, it isn’t doing).
2) Pamela correctly stated that if Jupiter were stationary there would be no net speed increase as a spaceship approached then departed. But the rest of her explanation merely tows the party line that is always pulled out despite the fact that it makes absolutely no sense. To see this, just draw a planet on a sheet of paper and diagram the spaceship accelerating toward it then decelerating away from it, back to its original speed. Now, move the entire paper along as if the planet (and spaceship) were in motion. This is precisely what the moving planet in orbit would be doing. How does this change anything? It doesn’t, of course. All motion is relative, and not only does it make no sense to come up with any different explanation just because the planet and spaceship happen to be in motion about the Sun, but if you were in orbit in front of Jupiter watching all this you wouldn’t even represent the situation as any different from the planet being stationary. All motion is purely relative. All reference frames are relative. So how can the same situation bring different outcomes merely because of the reference frame that we choose to view it from? Again, it can’t, of course.There is no more justification for gravity assists whether the planet and spaceship are in relative motion with respect to the Sun or not. This senseless explanation only passes because people know the end result does actually occur, and it can’t possibly be that in today’s advanced world we really have nothing but empirical experience of the effect but no explanation at all, so they just nod and accept this clearly flawed explanation in plain view.
3) It is well known that there was a claim by one set of researchers to the effect that they had verified that gravity travels at the speed of light several years ago. It is also easy to find the counter-claims that rolled in immediately from other scientists, stating that these researchers had no idea what they were talking about and that they have proven nothing. Pamela even mentioned this in a podcast roughly a year ago where this exact same question arose, and she correctly admitted that, as a result, we still don’t really know the speed of gravity. Yet here she just flatly states it is light speed, no doubt with no more justification than when she correctly stated we have no idea earlier. Here are some links to this issue:
I am sorry to be a downer, but honestly, it’s high time someone stood up and said something about the type of thinking that is destroying science, leading to far too much credibility given to such ideas as string theory, dark matter, dark energy, virtual particles, multiple dimensions, time dilation, parallel universes, etc., etc. There is something fundamentally wrong with our science, and we need to sort it out, not cover it up!
I fixed the transcript link.
Hi Jack, I’m going to address your concerns, but you can also take your comments over to the BAUT forum where lots of knowledgeable amateurs and professionals can explain things.
1) “Either the Earth’s spin and the moon’s distance are dynamics that have nothing to do with “gravitational tides”, or the moon’s spin must be changing due to forceful tidal effects just as the Earth’s supposedly is “.
And, in fact, it is. Check out what Phil Plait says about it here:
Check out Phil’s page there for more information and a detailed explanation.
Next, you said:
2) “draw a planet on a sheet of paper and diagram the spaceship accelerating toward it then decelerating away from it, back to its original speed. Now, move the entire paper along as if the planet (and spaceship) were in motion. This is precisely what the moving planet in orbit would be doing. How does this change anything?”
There’s a really good explanation available here, from Durham University, which talks about the different reference frames:
Hyperphysics has a good, if brief, explanation requiring some physics background here:
Finally, you said:
3) “It is well known that there was a claim by one set of researchers to the effect that they had verified that gravity travels at the speed of light several years ago. It is also easy to find the counter-claims that rolled in immediately from other scientists, stating that these researchers had no idea what they were talking about and that they have proven nothing.”
True enough, the experiment was highly disputed. Experimentally, Einstein’s theory has not yet been proven. Nevertheless, most scientists believe the theory to be fact, and we are simply waiting on an accurate experiment. That is not disputed even in the links you provided.
Thank you for your reply, Rebecca.
1) I can see your point here, assuming the gravitational “chain” binding the Earth and moon is continually tugging on the moon, pulling it back from its tendency to be spun by the Earth’s tidal resistance. However, one problem remains that Phil Plait apparently hasn’t considered. The same reactionary pull returning the moon’s spin back as it was would also occur at the Earth, returning its spin to the same speed as well.
2) The quote from Durham University first confirms that the spacecraft would have no net speed increase relative to the planet, but would only change its direction as its path curves while passing. So far this just restates my point that there is no net speed increase, according to today’s gravitational theory.
The only remaining comment is the following:
“In the frame where the planet is moving steadily, this is an acceleration.”
This statement still offers no explanation at all. It doesn’t change anything to say that, relative to the Sun, the entire planet and spacecraft scenario is moving. The same net zero speed increase relative to the planet occurs either way, just with a direction change, as stated. I can zip past a ball sitting still on the ground and say that, relative to me, there is an acceleration to the ball on the ground, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the ball is sitting still on the ground. This simply is not an explanation.
The Hyperphysics quote says:
“Planetary exploration vessels like Voyager I and Voyager II made use of propulsion maneuvers which gained energy from the planets and moons they passed.”
This is in direct conflict with earlier statements both by Durham University above and by myself in direct reference to the logic of today’s gravitational theory, stating that there can be no net speed increase relative to the planet. The spacecraft cannot “gain energy from the planet” to speed off faster than it arrived yet have no net speed increase relative to the planet at the same time.
3) Thank you for setting the record straight on the speed of gravity issue. It is important to acknowledge misinformation whenever it occurs, especially in such a popular public forum with experts speaking, as many people can be misled and the misinformation can propagate and become “fact”. Just as shown in the above quotes from Durham University and Hyperphysics, unless challenged, anyone could also say, “Check out this quote from an expert at Astronomy Today stating that gravity is confirmed to travel at the speed of light.” Our science is actually filled with such misinformation that is getting copied and quoted to the point where misinformation becomes “established fact”, leading to all sorts of ills in our science today.
I believe you have stated at least twice on the show that the sun will boil away the oceans in about 50 million years. I had always been of the understanding that this would happpen when the sun started in its red giant phase about 5.5 billin years from now. Can you help me understand this one?
If the lower figure is right then that is less time since the last great extinction (KT event). Some biologists argue that right now we are in a mass extinction due to human activity. Thats kind of sad. amoeba trilobites, fish, dinasours, humans, adious life in the known universe.