Speaker 1: Hey, Jorge, have you been enjoying the donut revolution?
Speaker 2: There's a revolution? Like, are donuts planning to overthrow the government.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's more like a donut renaissance. You know, there's
Speaker 1: all these creative donuts with cereal on top, or with
Speaker 1: croissant dough, or with wacky flavors. Though I'm guessing you
Speaker 1: probably prefer the original vanilla.
Speaker 2: I enjoy a good crow nut and also a plane donut.
Speaker 2: I think you have to be careful, otherwise you might
Speaker 2: get a heart revolution.
Speaker 1: I was recently tempted by a chicken and waffles donut.
Speaker 2: Whoa is that like dinner, breakfast, and dessert in one bite.
Speaker 1: You never even have to leave the house and you
Speaker 1: can't afterwards.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you might not be able to. How about a
Speaker 2: universe donut? Have they made those? That's the donut version
Speaker 2: of the everything bagel cosmic donut. Then you'll be everything, everywhere,
Speaker 2: all at once. I am Orge Mack, cartoonis and the
Speaker 2: author of Oliver's Great Big Universe.
Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist and a professor
Speaker 1: at UC Irvine, and I don't remember the last time
Speaker 1: I actually ate a donut.
Speaker 2: Wait, what that's kind of sad. Donuts are great.
Speaker 1: I hear they're pretty tasty, but I don't actually eat
Speaker 1: breakfast or in lunch anymore. So there's a whole category
Speaker 1: of foods I just don't get to have.
Speaker 2: Wait, you don't eat desserts either.
Speaker 1: Oh. I eat plenty of dessert after dinner, but it's
Speaker 1: not very often people serve donuts for dessert.
Speaker 2: You can have donuts at any time of the day.
Speaker 1: That's why I was looking at that chicken waffle donut.
Speaker 2: I was like, yeah, you can have it all in
Speaker 2: one one bite, one treat.
Speaker 1: Day is nutrition or at least calories.
Speaker 2: More of the calories. Yeah, it's me seen some vegetables though.
Speaker 2: It should be like chicken waffles salad.
Speaker 1: On a donut, right, chicken broccoliate donut.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, chicken pot pie donut. You just invented
Speaker 2: the next food truck, crazy chicken ponuts.
Speaker 1: Chicken potpoury.
Speaker 2: That'll smell good too. But anyways, welcome to our podcast
Speaker 2: Daniel and Jorge Explain the Universe, a production of iHeartRadio
Speaker 2: in which we try.
Speaker 1: To serve up the entire universe, all of its delicious,
Speaker 1: creamy nature and mysterious feelings to you, not on a donut,
Speaker 1: but in your ear. We think that everything that's out
Speaker 1: there in the universe deserves to be explored and questioned
Speaker 1: and understood as best as possible. We don't shy away
Speaker 1: from the things that we don't understand. We embrace that
Speaker 1: ignorance and take you right up to the forefront of
Speaker 1: human knowledge.
Speaker 2: That's right. We try to glaze the doughnut of your
Speaker 2: brain by not glazing over all of the amazing details
Speaker 2: that the universe has to offer and all of the
Speaker 2: crazy mysteries that are out there still left to be resolved.
Speaker 1: Because the questions about the universe are not just for
Speaker 1: particle physicists and cosmologists in fancy offices or not so
Speaker 1: fancy offices, as the case may be. Is for everybody
Speaker 1: to wonder about the universe, and curiosity is totally democratic.
Speaker 1: Everybody can ask questions, everybody can make progress, everybody can
Speaker 1: push the boundaries of human understanding, and everybody deserves to understand.
Speaker 2: Well, it sort of depends on where you live, though, doesn't.
Speaker 1: It how fancy your office is.
Speaker 2: You mean, I mean, whether you live in North Korea?
Speaker 1: Perhaps, Hm, Well, I think those people deserve to understand
Speaker 1: the universe, even if they're not allowed to talk about it.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, and everyone deserves donuts as well, which are
Speaker 2: part of the universe, and maybe even they might be
Speaker 2: the shape of the universe.
Speaker 1: Yeah, are you trying to trigger a donut inspired revolution
Speaker 1: in North Korea?
Speaker 2: You know whatever?
Speaker 1: That wasn't to know?
Speaker 2: If it f I do that makes it happen. Let's
Speaker 2: do it.
Speaker 1: You gotta be careful now. We don't want to get
Speaker 1: hacked by North Korea.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, what would they find though in our files?
Speaker 1: Boys, secrets about the universe.
Speaker 2: Don't think we're keeping those secrets and saving them for
Speaker 2: a later podcast.
Speaker 1: The puns that were so bad we didn't even use
Speaker 1: them on the podcast.
Speaker 2: There's no just thing as a bad pun, Danyl. I
Speaker 2: think that's the definition of a pun. If it's good,
Speaker 2: it's not really a pun. It's a good joke.
Speaker 1: I dare you to hack us North Korea and find those.
Speaker 2: Terror puns to hack Daniel please. I do have some
Speaker 2: secrets I don't want out there. But yeah, like you said,
Speaker 2: it all starts with questions, and everyone can ask questions,
Speaker 2: including our listeners.
Speaker 1: We'd love to hear your questions. If you are listening
Speaker 1: to the podcast and something doesn't quite make sense to you,
Speaker 1: or you're just walking down the street contemplating the universe
Speaker 1: and something bumps in your brain, please reach out to
Speaker 1: us to question at Danielandjorge dot com. Will you right
Speaker 1: back to everybody.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just don't bump into any cars, into any potholes.
Speaker 2: But yeah, we like to take questions here on the podcast,
Speaker 2: and so today on the program we'll be tackling listener
Speaker 2: questions number fifty eight.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much to everybody who sends in their questions.
Speaker 1: It's delightful to read your thoughts about the universe. And
Speaker 1: sometimes I ask people to send me a recording of
Speaker 1: their questions so we can talk about it here on
Speaker 1: the podcast.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and so today we have three great questions from listeners.
Speaker 2: The first one is about the shape of planets. There's
Speaker 2: one about universe changing quantum events, and there's also a
Speaker 2: question about extremely massive and extremely old galaxies. So let's
Speaker 2: jump right in. Our first question comes from Eric from
Speaker 2: the Netherlands.
Speaker 3: Hi, Daniel and Hore. Eric here from the Netherlands. I
Speaker 3: have a funk question. Should I think about donut planets?
Speaker 3: So me and my friend were talking about space and
Speaker 3: planets and what shapes they could take, and so he
Speaker 3: pointed out that he saw an article once about how
Speaker 3: planets could have a torah shape or a donut and
Speaker 3: be stable. I recall as well seeing that paper, but
Speaker 3: I tried to think about how that would work, and
Speaker 3: I just I realized I couldn't really figured it out.
Speaker 3: So I was wondering what you guys had to say
Speaker 3: about that, like, how would a donut shape planet evolve
Speaker 3: or like be created. Yeah, we'd love to hear you
Speaker 3: guys thoughts. Thank you so much and keep making your
Speaker 3: awesome podcast.
Speaker 2: All right, do you think Eric was just hungry here?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Well Eric is in the Netherlands, so who knows
Speaker 1: what sort of substances he was under the influence.
Speaker 2: Of his friends thinking, Oh boy, I think that's an
Speaker 2: answer them reference.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think it is.
Speaker 2: I think there's a whole other there's a whole rest
Speaker 2: of the country that's not associated with drugs, Danue.
Speaker 1: I just said substances. You said drugs. Donuts might be substances,
Speaker 1: that's right, sure, high on gleazing sugar or something.
Speaker 2: Oh I see, yeah, yeah, well, sniffing some tulips I'm.
Speaker 1: Sure, but it is a really fun question that goes
Speaker 1: to the heart of like how do planets form? And
Speaker 1: are the planets in our Solar system weird? Are there
Speaker 1: weirder planets out there in the universe? What's the sort
Speaker 1: of limit of planet topology?
Speaker 2: Mm? Like what determines the shape of a planet?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Exactly, Like why are most planets spheres? And are
Speaker 1: other shapes possible? Spheres come make sense because gravity is
Speaker 1: the thing that determines the shape of planets. Remember, planets
Speaker 1: come together from little bits of rock, basically cosmic dust
Speaker 1: and gas and ice that gravity has pulled together. Before
Speaker 1: we had a Solar system, there was a massive cloud
Speaker 1: of these ingredients of the Solar System. Some events, some
Speaker 1: spark caused a gravitational runaway that formed the Sun, and
Speaker 1: the rest of the materials that was orbiting too fast
Speaker 1: to fall in continued to orbit in a plane which
Speaker 1: then gathered itself together into asteroids and planets and stuff
Speaker 1: like that. So it's gravity that shapes the whole Solar
Speaker 1: System and gravity that tells us the shape of the planet.
Speaker 2: Right. Without gravity, you wouldn't have planets, right, or anything
Speaker 2: out there in the universe.
Speaker 1: Without gravity, we would still be in the dark ages
Speaker 1: of the universe. Very very early on, protons and electrons
Speaker 1: found each other and became neutral hydrogen, and they were
Speaker 1: just dark neutral hydrogen filling the universe. It was gravity
Speaker 1: that pulled that together, made the first stars, which shot
Speaker 1: out radiation and reionized at the universe and made it exciting.
Speaker 2: M yeah, I guess it. Just the universe would just
Speaker 2: be a giant soup if it wasn't.
Speaker 1: For gravity, a big dark soup.
Speaker 2: All right. Well, I guess the question then might be
Speaker 2: what caused it to a planet? Like, how do you
Speaker 2: define what a planet it is?
Speaker 1: Oh man, that is a whole rabbit hole. You really
Speaker 1: want to go there?
Speaker 2: Oh, they got twenty minutes, let's do it.
Speaker 1: The answer is it's complicated and inconsistent. There's several definitions
Speaker 1: of a planet, depending on which international Astronomical Union you
Speaker 1: subscribe to.
Speaker 2: There are multiple ones. There are multiple ones, yes, like
Speaker 2: how many?
Speaker 1: Oh man? I have not surveyed them recently, but I
Speaker 1: remember them disagreeing about some borderline cases. But the basic
Speaker 1: idea is that you have some objects.
Speaker 2: Wait, I'm super curious about this union. So like astronomers
Speaker 2: have unions like they're like associations, like clubs or like
Speaker 2: you know, government bodies.
Speaker 1: They're more like professional societies. You know. They get together,
Speaker 1: they eat stale cookies, they argue about who's a planet,
Speaker 1: who's not a planet? You know. They build an International
Speaker 1: Astronomical Union, which is not a union in the sense
Speaker 1: that they don't like collectively bargain for astronomers rights or anything.
Speaker 1: They just get together and talk about stuff.
Speaker 2: I see, And what's the competing organization.
Speaker 1: Well, there's the astronomers in the IAU, and then there
Speaker 1: are planetary scientists that have other organizations that have their
Speaker 1: own definitions.
Speaker 2: All right, Well, generally what's the general definition?
Speaker 1: Though? The general definition is a large, rounded astronomical body
Speaker 1: that's not a star or it's remnant. It's something that
Speaker 1: has cleared its path and its orbit around the star.
Speaker 2: M and so it can be made out of anything, right,
Speaker 2: It doesn't have to be rocks. It can also be
Speaker 2: liquid or gases.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it could be made out of ice, It could
Speaker 1: be made out of diamond, It could be made out
Speaker 1: of donuts.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, WHOA, how about chicken and waffles.
Speaker 1: I don't think the IAU has taken a stance on that.
Speaker 1: But I don't see a reason why you can't that.
Speaker 2: That might be the hair that breaks the camel's back.
Speaker 2: There'll be so much disagreement, they'll disunionize.
Speaker 1: Mm hm. And so the thing that makes these planets
Speaker 1: is gravity. And if it was just gravity, then all
Speaker 1: these planets would be spheres because gravity likes to roll
Speaker 1: things downhill. And if you have a sphere with a
Speaker 1: bump on it, gravity will want to pull that bump down.
Speaker 1: And so if you only have gravity, then planets should
Speaker 1: naturally become spheres. It's like the lowest energy state for
Speaker 1: a big blob of stuff. Planets also do other things.
Speaker 1: They spin, Like the Earth itself is not actually a
Speaker 1: perfect sphere because it's spinning and that changes the shape
Speaker 1: of the planet.
Speaker 2: Wait, wait, are you saying the Earth is not round.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying the Earth is flat, but the Earth
Speaker 1: is not a perfect sphere. It's an ellipsoid because its
Speaker 1: spin makes it bulge at the edges.
Speaker 2: Like theypical force. Right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Essentially a counter acts gravity. For example, you weigh
Speaker 1: less at the equator than you do at the poles.
Speaker 2: How bulgy is the Earth?
Speaker 1: The radius of the Earth is like twenty ish kilometers
Speaker 1: different at the poles and at the equator, So it's
Speaker 1: not a tiny effect.
Speaker 2: Isn't the Earth like twelve thousand kilometers in diameter? It's
Speaker 2: we're talking about like a zero point one percent.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's big compared to me or you or your
Speaker 1: house or your breakfast, and it's small compared to the
Speaker 1: radius of the Earth, so you might not even notice it,
Speaker 1: Like if you're holding the Earth in your hand, you
Speaker 1: probably couldn't detect it.
Speaker 2: Mmmm, well, I guess going back to Eric's question, his
Speaker 2: question was, can you have a planet that's not shaped
Speaker 2: like a giant ball? Can you maybe have a planet
Speaker 2: that is shaped like a doughnut or a trus.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a really cool question, and people have been
Speaker 1: thinking about this for a long time. There's a long
Speaker 1: history a smart physicists thinking about stable gravitational configurations. Essentially,
Speaker 1: as you spin the planet faster and faster, you can
Speaker 1: make more and more interesting shapes. If there's no spin,
Speaker 1: you basically can only have a sphere. But if you
Speaker 1: spin it you can make stable shapes that are not spheres.
Speaker 2: But aren't all of those shapes basically like oblongs or
Speaker 2: like squish balls.
Speaker 1: Yes and no. Certainly ellipsoids are possible, And as you
Speaker 1: spin the planet it gets fatter and fat, and then
Speaker 1: eventually it might even break up and you start like
Speaker 1: losing stuff into outer space. But according to the calculations,
Speaker 1: you can also have a torus. You can have a doughnut,
Speaker 1: which is gravitationally stable if it's spinning at the right speed.
Speaker 2: Interesting, but I guess maybe it isn't another big factor
Speaker 2: what the planet is made out of. Like it's made
Speaker 2: out of gas, it probably can't hold any other shape
Speaker 2: other than a sphere cannon.
Speaker 1: It turns out to not be very important if it's
Speaker 1: big enough, because if it's big enough like the typical
Speaker 1: sizes of planets or even something like the Moon or larger,
Speaker 1: then the gravity in the spin overwhelm any material strength.
Speaker 1: It doesn't really matter what it's made out of. You
Speaker 1: can think about this as like a drop of liquid, essentially,
Speaker 1: whose shape is completely controlled by its spin and by
Speaker 1: its gravity, not at all by its surface tension, because
Speaker 1: like the material strength of rock is tiny compared to
Speaker 1: the gravitational force of the whole Earth.
Speaker 2: Meaning like even rocks are sort of liquid in a larger.
Speaker 1: Scale, Yeah, exactly, And in the great pressure inside the Earth,
Speaker 1: for example, they do flow and huge rocks and mountains
Speaker 1: can be formed by these pressures. So even if you
Speaker 1: have like a diamond planet, if it's big enough, then
Speaker 1: the gravitational forces are going to be the only thing
Speaker 1: you have to worry about.
Speaker 2: So you're saying you can make a doughnut shaped planet, Like,
Speaker 2: how does that even work when in it the whole collapse?
Speaker 1: Yes, and no, Like you can find a solution where
Speaker 1: it's in equilibrium, where everything is pulling on everything in
Speaker 1: a balanced way, and so it doesn't collapse, but it's
Speaker 1: very very unstable, Like a little bit of extra mass
Speaker 1: here or a little bit of extra mass there can
Speaker 1: break the thing up. So it's possible theoretically to construct
Speaker 1: this thing and to set it spinning and to have
Speaker 1: it avoid collapsing, but it's unlikely for it to appear
Speaker 1: in nature or to last very long. But if it's
Speaker 1: big enough, then it has enough like gravitational self energy,
Speaker 1: sort of like along the tube to avoid collapsing.
Speaker 2: I guess you just made me think of like Saturn's rings.
Speaker 2: You know those rings are made out of ice and rocks,
Speaker 2: and you know, assuming that maybe you could hop between
Speaker 2: rocks in those rings, you could maybe consider that one
Speaker 2: whole space body, couldn't you or maybe like if you
Speaker 2: added more rocks to those rings, it eventually might be solid.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, And that's actually one potential outcome for a
Speaker 1: donut planet. If you start with a donut planet, it's
Speaker 1: likely to break itself up into smaller bodies and then
Speaker 1: you basically just have rings because if one spot is
Speaker 1: a little bit more massive then another spot, it's going
Speaker 1: to pull towards that. You're going to get this like
Speaker 1: bead instability, where it tends to break up into beads
Speaker 1: rather than being one continuous planet.
Speaker 2: Right, But I think the idea is kind of the same, right,
Speaker 2: like a donut shape planet would is sort of basically
Speaker 2: like a ring, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think they're stable for the same reason, but
Speaker 1: they're a little bit different. Like a ring is basically flat,
Speaker 1: but a donut shape planet is actually a cylinder, so
Speaker 1: it's a little bit different. This is something we're thinking about,
Speaker 1: is like more massive and without a huge planet at
Speaker 1: the center, and so it's gravity will pull it together
Speaker 1: into a cylinder rather than keeping it in a flat
Speaker 1: plane like a set of rings, but they are similar.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I guess what would it be like to
Speaker 2: be on that planet? Like, could you walk around the
Speaker 2: tube of the donut and stay on the planet or
Speaker 2: do you fall into the center of the hole?
Speaker 1: You could walk around the whole planet and stay on
Speaker 1: the planet. Down would always be towards the center of
Speaker 1: the ring, not towards the dot that's in the hole.
Speaker 2: Oh, I see, because even if you're in the inner
Speaker 2: part of the hole, you're spinning so fast you're sort
Speaker 2: of being pressed against the donut, sort of like in
Speaker 2: those carnival rides where you're spinning it inside.
Speaker 1: A a graviton. Yeah, exactly, Well, the spin definitely contributes
Speaker 1: and helps make this thing stable. Do you have a
Speaker 1: combination of that spin and the actual gravity of this object?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: It really is pulling on you. But the interesting thing
Speaker 1: is that the gravity is not the same all the
Speaker 1: way around the planet. Like on a sphere, you're always
Speaker 1: the same distance from the center of the planet, right,
Speaker 1: and so the gravity is basically the same. Okay, there's
Speaker 1: small differences from the pole to the equator, as we
Speaker 1: just talked about it, but essentially it's the same. But
Speaker 1: on a Torus, it's significantly different gravity on like the
Speaker 1: inside and the outside.
Speaker 2: Whoa meaning, what's the difference is is it stronger or
Speaker 2: weaker on the inner hole.
Speaker 1: So if you're walking around the inside or the outside,
Speaker 1: those are the two equators of the Taurus. Those have
Speaker 1: the weakest gravity. The gravity is strongest if you're walking
Speaker 1: on the poles. Now the poles are like a circle.
Speaker 1: It's kind of hard to visualize, but like the you
Speaker 1: have a north pole and a south pole where you
Speaker 1: put the glaze right, yeah, exactly, either on the glazed
Speaker 1: side or the not glazed side.
Speaker 2: That a south pole has no glaze on it fun side, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. So if you're walking along the glazed pole,
Speaker 1: then that's where the gravity is the strongest. If you're
Speaker 1: walking in the outside, you're kind of far away from
Speaker 1: a lot of the mass and so gravity gets weaker.
Speaker 2: What if you're from the Netherlands and you're walking around
Speaker 2: glaze nice on the glazes that you should have some
Speaker 2: chicken and waffles. You go for the munchies. Yeah. Interesting,
Speaker 2: So as you're walking around the two of the doughnut,
Speaker 2: you're going to weigh less or more or less right,
Speaker 2: mm hmmm.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, so life on this kind of planet would
Speaker 1: be very weird. Although I don't think life could realistically
Speaker 1: evolve on such a planet because I don't think it
Speaker 1: would last very long. Again, it's an equilibrium, but it's
Speaker 1: not stable, which means a small deviation is going to
Speaker 1: end up breaking this thing up and collapsing it.
Speaker 2: But I wonder if you can imagine, like taking one
Speaker 2: of those big asteroids out there in the Solar System
Speaker 2: asteroid belt and just carving a donut, you would sort
Speaker 2: of technically be a doughnut planet, and it wouldn't be unstable,
Speaker 2: would it.
Speaker 1: You could build a small object like that that's a ring,
Speaker 1: like a space station. Essentially, you could be constructed that's
Speaker 1: a ring, and you could do the same thing using
Speaker 1: the structural integrity of an asteroid. Yeah, but I don't
Speaker 1: think that's really planet.
Speaker 2: Sized, you know, mm if.
Speaker 1: You want something really like the size of the Earth,
Speaker 1: and you've got to use gravity and spin. But the
Speaker 1: cool thing is that such a planet could have really
Speaker 1: really weird moons, Like you could have moons that orbit
Speaker 1: in the plane of the donut. You could also have
Speaker 1: moons that orbit through the hole in the doughnut. Whoa, Yeah,
Speaker 1: and there's some stable orbits where the moon just goes
Speaker 1: up and down through the hole just like bounces, like
Speaker 1: it's on a trampoline or something.
Speaker 2: Oh wow, that'd be pretty fun, pretty interesting. But you're
Speaker 2: saying these planets would be unstable, meaning like if you
Speaker 2: knock it, they'll just crumble and collapse or or what
Speaker 2: what does unstable mean?
Speaker 1: Yeah, they rely on the symmetry of it, So they
Speaker 1: rely on having exactly the same gravity from this chunk
Speaker 1: and that chunk, which means they rely on it all
Speaker 1: being the same density and having exactly the same shape,
Speaker 1: and so it tends to break itself apart. If you
Speaker 1: get hit by a pretty large asteroid for example, Now
Speaker 1: you've broken that symmetry. This part is pulling harder than
Speaker 1: the other parts, and the math tells us that while
Speaker 1: this is a solution, it's wildly unstable and very easy
Speaker 1: for it to break down.
Speaker 2: So basically impossible for it to be out there in
Speaker 2: real space, I.
Speaker 1: Mean impossible in the infinite universe. It's pretty hard to say.
Speaker 1: It's technically possible, but so improbable that it seems very
Speaker 1: unlikely that it exists. Though if the universe is infinite.
Speaker 1: You know anything can happen.
Speaker 2: Well, I wonder, because it requires the process of making
Speaker 2: the planet to be sort of like super duper precise
Speaker 2: and symmetrical perfect.
Speaker 1: The rocks are basically just have to come together into
Speaker 1: that form.
Speaker 2: Right, It's not like this process and then nothing could
Speaker 2: touch it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: Well, I guess that's the answer for Eric. Planets can
Speaker 2: be donut shape. You can carve a small planet maybe
Speaker 2: into donut shape, and you could maybe make one out there,
Speaker 2: but it's not probable and unlikely. My final question, Daniel,
Speaker 2: is if you're on this donut planet, what does the
Speaker 2: donuts look like? Do they look just look like balls
Speaker 2: or like figure eights? Maybe? What do they call pretzels donuts?
Speaker 1: I don't think I'm glazed enough to answer that question.
Speaker 2: Just sprinkle some jargon there. All right, Well, thank you, Eric.
Speaker 2: Now let's get to our second question, and this one
Speaker 2: is about universe changing quantum events, So we'll dig into that,
Speaker 2: but first let's take a quick break. All right, we're
Speaker 2: answering listener questions, and our second question comes from Lauren Hi.
Speaker 4: Daniel jrge My question is about the universe changing quantum
Speaker 4: events like of a strange star and it's strange lids,
Speaker 4: or if the higgs field de finds a more stable
Speaker 4: state than what it is right now. If this were
Speaker 4: to happen sufficiently far away from the Milky Way, such
Speaker 4: that the origin point is expanding away from us relatively
Speaker 4: faster than the sweet of light because of the universal expansion,
Speaker 4: would that keep us safe from these events?
Speaker 2: Thanks? Whoa interesting question. I feel like Lauren is basically saying,
Speaker 2: can the universe end and we'll never notice?
Speaker 1: No, she's actually saving the universe right, or she's talking
Speaker 1: about how the universe might be saving us from its
Speaker 1: own disaster.
Speaker 2: Hmm, Well, let's break it down. First, she talked about
Speaker 2: universe changing quantum events. What does that mean?
Speaker 1: Well, on the podcast a few times, we've talked about
Speaker 1: how our understanding of the nature of matter and reality
Speaker 1: has given us some hints that there might be some
Speaker 1: weird potential events that could be quite disastrous. For example,
Speaker 1: now we know that the universe is filled with a
Speaker 1: higgs field, and that higgs field has some energy to it.
Speaker 1: Potential energy is stored in that higgs field, and the
Speaker 1: way the higgs field interacts with other particles gives them
Speaker 1: mass changes how their quantum fields vibrate in such a
Speaker 1: way that they move with inertia. But we don't know
Speaker 1: if that Higgs field is stable, Like it might be
Speaker 1: that all that energy that's in the Higgs field is
Speaker 1: sort of stuck in there, but it could get tipped over.
Speaker 1: It could be like that donut planet that works for
Speaker 1: a while, but you know, if something happens, some particle
Speaker 1: collider triggers it, it could collapse. Then it collapses, that
Speaker 1: would spread out at the speed of light. So that's
Speaker 1: a potentially catastrophic event because if the Higgs field loses
Speaker 1: its energy, all the particles lose their mass and nobody's
Speaker 1: eating donuts.
Speaker 2: Or at least would lose weight pretty quickly. But maybe
Speaker 2: a question is how do we know this, Like, how
Speaker 2: do we know the Higgs field is like that and
Speaker 2: has this potential to collapse.
Speaker 1: We actually don't know that the Higgs field could collapse.
Speaker 1: The Higgs field could be stable or unstable or meta stable.
Speaker 1: We're still figuring that out. We are measuring how the
Speaker 1: Higgs field couples with itself and how the Higgs itself
Speaker 1: gets mass, and that's going to help us understand the
Speaker 1: sort of contours of the Higgs field, Like, the Higgs
Speaker 1: field is different from every other kind of field. All
Speaker 1: those fields like to relax at a minimum energy, but
Speaker 1: the Higgs field like has a wiggle in it. It's
Speaker 1: sort of like instead of having a canyon with just
Speaker 1: a river at the bottom, there's a canyon with like
Speaker 1: a channel along one of the walls where water can
Speaker 1: also flow. But we don't really know how stable that is,
Speaker 1: if it's totally stable, or if there's just a very
Speaker 1: thin lip there that the universe could roll over down
Speaker 1: to the bottom of the canyon.
Speaker 2: I guess maybe your question is, how do you know
Speaker 2: this about the Higgs field? Can you measure it?
Speaker 1: Yeah, we have measured the Higgs field, and we have
Speaker 1: a theory about how the Higgs works and the shape
Speaker 1: of the Higgs potential, but we just don't know the
Speaker 1: parameters of it.
Speaker 2: Like, can you measure this little energy that the Higgs
Speaker 2: field has?
Speaker 1: Absolutely, we have measured that energy. We know that value. Yes,
Speaker 1: we know the energy that's in the Higgs field. What
Speaker 1: we don't know is how stable that is. That depends
Speaker 1: a little bit about how the Higgs interacts with itself.
Speaker 2: So what makes you think that it is maybe unstable.
Speaker 1: Because if it interacts with itself in certain ways, that
Speaker 1: changes the shape of this potential, like the canyon that
Speaker 1: the water is flowing through, and it might mean that
Speaker 1: lip is very very narrow, and in some very high
Speaker 1: energy events, the Higgs field could get pushed out of
Speaker 1: that little channel and roll all the way down to zero,
Speaker 1: basically collapse to the true low energy state.
Speaker 2: Mmm. So the idea is that, like, for some reason,
Speaker 2: where we are in the universe, and as far as
Speaker 2: we can see in the universe, this Higgs value has
Speaker 2: this value to it, But you're saying that value could
Speaker 2: suddenly change, and if it does, then it basically the
Speaker 2: universe kind of collapses.
Speaker 1: Exactly like the universe has been cooling for billions of years.
Speaker 1: It used to be very hot and high energy, and
Speaker 1: as it expands, everything cools and gets more dilute. But
Speaker 1: the Higgs field sort of got stuck on this ledge,
Speaker 1: and we don't know if that ledge is stable or
Speaker 1: if it could keep collapsing. But our whole way of
Speaker 1: life depends on it being stuck on that ledge.
Speaker 2: Right, And the idea is that, like, if it collapses somewhere,
Speaker 2: then that collapse is gonna spread out sort of like
Speaker 2: a Yeah, you have a room full of dominoes that
Speaker 2: are just standing there and you tip one over, that
Speaker 2: collapse is going to spread out.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. Yeah, it's like if you pop a balloon,
Speaker 1: you pop the whole balloon, not just where you stuck
Speaker 1: the needle.
Speaker 2: But why do you think that is? Could it be
Speaker 2: contained or could in the universe just fill that back up?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a good question. It has to do with again,
Speaker 1: how the Higgs field talks to itself. If one of
Speaker 1: it has less energy, you.
Speaker 2: Said, one of them, what does one of them mean? So,
Speaker 2: if the Higgs field in one location loses energy, that
Speaker 2: interacts with the Higgs field nearby, right, The Higgs field
Speaker 2: is not a bunch of independent numbers in space. There's
Speaker 2: all this math that connects the Higgs field here with
Speaker 2: the Higgs field somewhere else, which is why like waves
Speaker 2: can travel through the Higgs field, you know. And so
Speaker 2: what happens one spot of the Higgs field affects the
Speaker 2: rest of the Higgs field as well. Well. Lauren sort
Speaker 2: of here in her question imagines maybe a good new
Speaker 2: scenario where maybe this has happened or will happen, But
Speaker 2: maybe it happens somewhere so far away this collapse is
Speaker 2: never going to reach it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the real nightmare thing about the Higgs collapse is
Speaker 1: it could happen anywhere in the universe and it could
Speaker 1: reach us and we would have literally no warning because
Speaker 1: it would be moving at the speed of light. So
Speaker 1: there's no advanced notion. It could be any moment this
Speaker 1: wave of Higgs collapse could wash over our solar system.
Speaker 1: So that seems kind of terrifying. But Lauren is pointing
Speaker 1: out that the universe has a horizon. There are things
Speaker 1: out there in the universe that are so far away
Speaker 1: from us that the expansion of the universe means we
Speaker 1: will never see light from them, And so she's asking
Speaker 1: if that also means that if the Higgs field collapses,
Speaker 1: there are we protected from it.
Speaker 2: Right or not maybe protected from it, but just isolated
Speaker 2: from it by the expansion of the universe.
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly isolated by the expansion of the universe. And
Speaker 1: she's right, the answer is yes, if the Higgs field
Speaker 1: collapses in a region of space that's so far away
Speaker 1: from us that light from it can never reach us,
Speaker 1: then also that Higgs field collapse can never reach us.
Speaker 2: WHOA, that is super cool. I wonder how she thought
Speaker 2: of this? Is this it a known thing or is
Speaker 2: she the first one to think about it?
Speaker 1: No, it's definitely a known thing. It's something people have
Speaker 1: been wondering about, and it's something people think about because
Speaker 1: this expansion of space is so strange. It like breaks
Speaker 1: up the universe into little mini universes. You know, it's
Speaker 1: strange that we have a horizon in our universe beyond
Speaker 1: which we might never see if this expansion continues. You know,
Speaker 1: all of this assumes that the universe is expanding, and
Speaker 1: that expansion is accelerating and will continue to accelerate. This
Speaker 1: is what we call dark energy. As the universe expands,
Speaker 1: all the matter and the radiation gets more and more dilute,
Speaker 1: but dark energy doesn't, and so it becomes a bigger
Speaker 1: and bigger fraction of the energy budget of the universe,
Speaker 1: which then drives its expansion even more, which is why
Speaker 1: the whole thing is accelerating, and because it's space itself expanding.
Speaker 1: As you get further and further away, you have more
Speaker 1: space between you and something else that's expanding, and that's
Speaker 1: why the expansion can become faster than the speed of light,
Speaker 1: which seems like a violation of Einstein's relativity, but it
Speaker 1: isn't actually right.
Speaker 2: Right, although there are two sort of caveats here, Like one,
Speaker 2: we don't know if the universe is going to keep expanding, right,
Speaker 2: It might be that the universe stops expanding, in which
Speaker 2: case this Higgs collapse is going to catch up to us.
Speaker 1: Right, Yes, that's true, and the Higgs collapse could change
Speaker 1: the way the universe is expanding.
Speaker 2: That's another wrinkle, right, That's what I was going to say, Like,
Speaker 2: maybe the collapse makes the universe stop expanding, in which
Speaker 2: case it is going to catch up to us.
Speaker 1: It's possible, it's possible. But there's another scenario there which
Speaker 1: is really cool. And the connection between these two ideas
Speaker 1: is actually pretty interesting because we don't understand what dark
Speaker 1: energy is. We just know there's some energy in space
Speaker 1: and that's contributing to the accelerating expansion. We don't know
Speaker 1: where that energy is coming from. Some people wonder if
Speaker 1: that energy is from the Higgs field, although current calculations
Speaker 1: say those numbers don't really agree by like ten to
Speaker 1: the one hundred. But if it is from the Higgs field,
Speaker 1: then what's fascinating is that if the Higgs field collapses,
Speaker 1: you no longer have dark energy everywhere in space, and
Speaker 1: so you no longer have accelerating expansion in that bubble,
Speaker 1: right because that collapse can't catch up with the cosmic horizon.
Speaker 1: The rest of the universe keeps accelerating expansion and this
Speaker 1: bubble just doesn't.
Speaker 2: But wouldn't that bubble grow because the Higgs field is contagious.
Speaker 1: That bubble grows, but at a smaller rate than the
Speaker 1: rest of the universe is expanding.
Speaker 2: Then it wouldn't reach us. Even if it's stopped expanding.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you'd get these local collapsed bubbles where the Higgs
Speaker 1: field is very very different in that little bubble, and
Speaker 1: in that bubble you would also not have expanding space.
Speaker 5: Mmm.
Speaker 2: So basically, we have to hope that if the universe
Speaker 2: ever collapses, it collapses outside of our horizon and not
Speaker 2: within our horizon. Yes, because if it collapses within our horizon,
Speaker 2: then we're toast.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm exactly. The horizon right now is about five
Speaker 1: gigaparsex away, So anything that happens further away than that,
Speaker 1: any light that's emitted from objects further away than that
Speaker 1: we will never see, and so any disasters sparked by
Speaker 1: those objects also we're pretty safe from hm.
Speaker 2: So I guess that reduces our risk, right, because it
Speaker 2: means that because if the universe is super duper huge,
Speaker 2: maybe infinite, then we're sort of dooming because it maybe
Speaker 2: eventually it'll collapse somewhere. But then reduces our risk because
Speaker 2: it's not going to reach us.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. We're only at risk from an enormous,
Speaker 1: vast region of space, not actually infinite space.
Speaker 2: Hmm. So I wonder if that means that we're not
Speaker 2: going to die soon so we should eat all the
Speaker 2: doughnuts we can, or if that means that we're going
Speaker 2: to live for a long time, and so therefore we
Speaker 2: should eat all the donuts we can.
Speaker 1: We should get fitness donuts. That's our next food truck.
Speaker 2: Did you say fitness donuts?
Speaker 1: Yeah, solid donuts or something.
Speaker 2: Oh, those don't sound as delicious all right. Well, thanks
Speaker 2: Lauren for this awesome idea and great question. It sounds
Speaker 2: like the answer is, yeah, we would be safe from
Speaker 2: those universes collapsing outside of our event horizon that we
Speaker 2: can see. So as long as we can't see it,
Speaker 2: we're safe.
Speaker 1: Close your eyes and you won't die, Yeah, basically, or
Speaker 1: I guess if it does, then there's nothing you can do.
Speaker 1: You can always hide under the covers, right, covers protect
Speaker 1: you from everything.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there you go, There you go. All right, Well,
Speaker 2: let's get to our last question of the day, and
Speaker 2: it's about extremely massive and extremely old galaxies. So let's
Speaker 2: explore that. But first let's take another quick break. All right,
Speaker 2: we're asking listener questions here today and our last question
Speaker 2: is about super duper old and massive galaxies.
Speaker 5: Hello, Daniel and Jorge. This is Jamie in New Jersey. Recently,
Speaker 5: I have read several stories reporting that teams have used
Speaker 5: the web space telescope to observe several extremely massive galaxies
Speaker 5: as early as one to two billion years after the
Speaker 5: Big Bang. In that galaxies this early challenge our models
Speaker 5: of the universe. I would be grateful if you could
Speaker 5: explain why these galaxies conflict with our models and is
Speaker 5: this revolutionary or does it just tug on the models
Speaker 5: a little bit?
Speaker 2: Thank you? All right, great question from Jamie. I feel
Speaker 2: like he's referencing some kind of news that came out recently.
Speaker 1: Yes, he is. There's a paper that came out in
Speaker 1: Nature quite recently and a bunch of listeners sent this
Speaker 1: to me and curious about what it meant. It has
Speaker 1: to do with some observations made by the James Webbs
Speaker 1: based telescope about the early universe.
Speaker 2: What did they find and what did they report?
Speaker 1: So, remember, the James Webs based telescope can see infrared light,
Speaker 1: which means that it can see stuff that's older than
Speaker 1: anything Hubble can see. Hubble works in the optical spectrum
Speaker 1: like visible light that our eyes can also see. But
Speaker 1: as things come from further away in the universe, they
Speaker 1: get expanded more and more, they get more and more
Speaker 1: red shifted. So James web can basically look further back
Speaker 1: in time than Hubble can. There are photons that strike
Speaker 1: Hubble that just don't get recognized by it. Because it's
Speaker 1: an optical telescope. Those photons from the earliest moments of
Speaker 1: the universe will be seen by James web So James
Speaker 1: Webb can look further back in time at deeper redshifts,
Speaker 1: at older stuff. And what they saw surprise them about
Speaker 1: the formation of galaxies in the early universe.
Speaker 2: Mmmm, they found a galaxy that's super duper extra old.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Yeah, they found galaxies that are really big for
Speaker 1: their age. Like we're talking about in the very early
Speaker 1: part of the universe. So these galaxies are sort of
Speaker 1: old in the sense that they were created a long
Speaker 1: time ago, but they're young in that we're seeing them
Speaker 1: when they were just made in the very early universe.
Speaker 2: Right. It's like finding an old picture of your parents.
Speaker 2: It's like they're old, but it's a picture of them
Speaker 2: when they're young.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, And what they saw in that picture is
Speaker 1: very confusing. We had an idea for how galaxies form.
Speaker 1: The universe begins, you have big clumps of gases we
Speaker 1: talked about earlier. You form stars, and that ends the
Speaker 1: dark ages, and those stars come together to make galaxies.
Speaker 1: But that whole thing takes time. You know, it's seated
Speaker 1: by dark matter, because dark matter overwhelms the universe and
Speaker 1: has most of the gravity, and so it shapes all
Speaker 1: of this structure. But in our models, we expected this
Speaker 1: to take a few hundred million years. You know, stars
Speaker 1: take a wild to form and then for them to
Speaker 1: get pulled together. Gravity is not that powerful a force. Yes,
Speaker 1: and what we had seen before this as we used
Speaker 1: hubble to look further and further back in time. Was
Speaker 1: as we went back in time to the earlier universe,
Speaker 1: we saw fewer galaxies and smaller galaxies, because as time
Speaker 1: goes on, galaxies form and then they merge and make
Speaker 1: bigger and bigger galaxies. And so Hubble saw this trend
Speaker 1: towards smaller and fewer galaxies. And when we turned on
Speaker 1: James Web, we expected to see more of the same,
Speaker 1: to sort of extrapolate back down to the smallest and
Speaker 1: initial early galaxies. But what they saw instead were big
Speaker 1: Papa and Mama galaxies in the early universe already with
Speaker 1: old stars in them.
Speaker 2: What do you mean old stars?
Speaker 1: So you can tell the age of a population of
Speaker 1: stars by looking at the light that it puts out.
Speaker 1: Big stars that don't burn very long tend to be
Speaker 1: very hot, and they make more blue light. Small stars
Speaker 1: that last a long time tend to make more red light.
Speaker 1: So if you see a population of stars with a
Speaker 1: bunch of blue light in them, you know they're fairly young,
Speaker 1: because the blue stars don't live very long. If you
Speaker 1: see a population of stars that are more red, you
Speaker 1: know they're pretty old because all the blue ones have
Speaker 1: already burned out, so they can measure the age of
Speaker 1: a population of stars, and they see that these stars
Speaker 1: look kind of old already. So they expected young, tiny
Speaker 1: galaxies filled with blue stars, but they see big galaxies
Speaker 1: filled with redder stars.
Speaker 2: I guess how do you tell the difference between like
Speaker 2: an old star that's really close by and a young
Speaker 2: star that's really far away.
Speaker 1: Oh, I see you're talking about like the spectrum of
Speaker 1: the star versus it's red shift.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean you're saying, like, we can tell how
Speaker 2: young the stars are, but we can also tell how
Speaker 2: far weight it is by the retins of it. How
Speaker 2: do you distinguish the two?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a good question. We can do that because
Speaker 1: the star puts out light in many different wavelengths, Like
Speaker 1: the fingerprint of a star, has energy from lots of
Speaker 1: different atomic spectra, and so we can tell both how
Speaker 1: far that whole spectrum is shifted, which tells us the
Speaker 1: red shift to the star and therefore how far away
Speaker 1: it is, and also how hot the star is, Like
Speaker 1: are there more the blue lines than the red lines?
Speaker 1: So we can tell the temperature of the star by
Speaker 1: like the ratio of various lines in the spectrum, and
Speaker 1: that we can tell how far away it is by
Speaker 1: the shifting of those lines. So those are two separate
Speaker 1: measurements mm.
Speaker 2: And so what's weird about this measurement is that the
Speaker 2: galaxies are too old to be that young in the universe.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and too big and with old stars in them.
Speaker 1: So it's really surprising.
Speaker 2: WHOA, So what could it mean?
Speaker 1: Well, nobody really knows yet. Everybody's puzzling over it, and
Speaker 1: there's lots of fun ideas that are being bounced around.
Speaker 1: Number one is like, well maybe we goofed. You know,
Speaker 1: we're making these measurements of the red shift of these stars,
Speaker 1: but it's hard, especially because we don't have measurements in
Speaker 1: the optical spectrum to back it up. James Webb is
Speaker 1: pretty precise, but these are difficult measurements to make if
Speaker 1: you only have a few lines that you're using to
Speaker 1: measure these red shifts. And you know, these galaxies are
Speaker 1: very faint blobs, very very far away, and so it's
Speaker 1: not like we can even really resolve and tell that
Speaker 1: it's a galaxy. So the whole thing could just be
Speaker 1: a measurement error, miscalibration.
Speaker 2: Wait, wait, what we can't tell what would you see
Speaker 2: like a pinpoint of light or what it's.
Speaker 1: Like a few pixels, you know, these are blobs. One
Speaker 1: explanation is that these aren't even galaxies. That in the
Speaker 1: very early universe. There could be super massive black holes
Speaker 1: that formed, and what we're seeing is light that's emitted
Speaker 1: from the accretion disk of these very early universe super
Speaker 1: massive black holes. So that's another possibility.
Speaker 2: We just looked at a couple of pixels and they
Speaker 2: assumed there was a galaxy.
Speaker 1: Well, basically, galaxies are worth out there in the universe.
Speaker 1: The universe is made of galaxies. That's the basic building
Speaker 1: block of the cosmos.
Speaker 2: Oh, I see when you're talking about that scale. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you can't see individual stars beyond the Milky Way basically,
Speaker 2: so if you see a source of light, it has
Speaker 2: to be a galaxy.
Speaker 1: You can see individual stars in some nearby galaxies, but
Speaker 1: in general, yes, the most distant galaxies, we can basically
Speaker 1: just tell there's a blob there, So probably it's a galaxy.
Speaker 2: M or even like a any source of light out
Speaker 2: there that far. It has to be a galaxy maybe
Speaker 2: or not. It could be also a black hole age
Speaker 2: you said.
Speaker 1: It could be. Now, there's no explanation for like how
Speaker 1: the early universe could have made supermassive black holes that
Speaker 1: have these accrusion disks and admit that light. But it's
Speaker 1: just like one fun idea. It gives you a sense
Speaker 1: of like the craziness of the ideas people are exploring
Speaker 1: to explain this unexplained data. That's the fun part of
Speaker 1: physics and science when you're like, what this doesn't make
Speaker 1: any sense, and it forces you to be creative about
Speaker 1: what else could be going on in the universe.
Speaker 2: Mmmm, what are some other possibilities for these weird measurements?
Speaker 1: So possibility one measurement error, Possibility two weird unexplained black holes.
Speaker 1: Possibility three is that maybe we are wrong about how
Speaker 1: stars and galaxies formed in the early universe. We have
Speaker 1: a model for how that happens, basically because we can
Speaker 1: see it happen in nearby galaxies which are kind of old.
Speaker 1: And what we see is that star formation is not
Speaker 1: that easy, like our formation is kind of tricky. You
Speaker 1: need a big blob of cold gas and you need
Speaker 1: not too much radiation to like blow it apart. You
Speaker 1: need to leave it alone for a while, so gravity
Speaker 1: pulls it together. And there's lots of examples in the
Speaker 1: universe where galaxies are not making stars anymore, like they're
Speaker 1: just too hot or there's too much radiation from their
Speaker 1: central black hole. This process is called quenching. So it
Speaker 1: might be that our idea for how long it takes
Speaker 1: to form stars it's been biased by looking at star
Speaker 1: formation in the late universe when quenching happens. Maybe in
Speaker 1: the early universe it was possible to form stars much
Speaker 1: faster than it is today because you were still in
Speaker 1: the dark ages and there wasn't all this radiation or
Speaker 1: you know, these ideas are very speculative, but it could
Speaker 1: just be that star formation could happen much faster in
Speaker 1: the early universe than we thought.
Speaker 2: I wonder if it could also be that maybe there
Speaker 2: was just a pocket of a lot of stuff there
Speaker 2: when the universe blew up, You know how there are
Speaker 2: fluctuations in the amount of the density of the universe made.
Speaker 2: It just happened to be a lot of stuff there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's certainly possible that there are fluctuations like that.
Speaker 1: We don't have a huge number of data points here yet,
Speaker 1: so everybody's waiting to get more samples and more data
Speaker 1: and look for more things and see are these weird
Speaker 1: examples that can be explained by fluctuations. As you say
Speaker 1: that these fluctuations would be pretty unlikely given our current
Speaker 1: understanding of the cosmological model. But maybe that's wrong, right,
Speaker 1: Maybe our understanding of the early universe has more fluctuations
Speaker 1: than we expected. Maybe there's something else going on. It's
Speaker 1: definitely a lot we don't understand about the very early
Speaker 1: universe and the expansion of the universe in that time,
Speaker 1: and the balance between dark energy and dark matter. So
Speaker 1: there's definitely a lot to learn. And this could just
Speaker 1: be like the thread that begins to unravel it, or
Speaker 1: it could be just a measurement error.
Speaker 2: Hmm, I wonder could it also just be like, maybe
Speaker 2: these galaxies are a regular galaxy, but they're moving away
Speaker 2: from us really fast. Is that a possibility. That's why
Speaker 2: there were so red shifted.
Speaker 1: So the red shift includes two different things. Is like
Speaker 1: the expansion of the universe as a whole, and then
Speaker 1: also galaxies can have velocity relative to that expansion, like
Speaker 1: for example, Andromeda is moving towards us even though the
Speaker 1: universe is expanding, right, so there's a peculiar local velocity.
Speaker 1: And then the overall universe expansion, And I think you're saying, like,
Speaker 1: could these action be closer and not as old as
Speaker 1: we thought, they just happen to be moving away from
Speaker 1: us really really fast. I suppose that's possible, but it
Speaker 1: would be a really large, peculiar velocity. They'd have to
Speaker 1: be like super zooming around, and that's not something we
Speaker 1: expect either. Even in that scenario, that would be something new.
Speaker 2: Why don't we expect it sort of speed limit for galaxies.
Speaker 1: It's not that there's a speed limit, but we have
Speaker 1: a model for how the universe was made and how
Speaker 1: structure is formed, and if things are moving around and
Speaker 1: much faster than that, it tends to disturb that structure.
Speaker 1: And so we see the universe sort of like cooling
Speaker 1: and crystallizing, and that tells us a lot about the
Speaker 1: speed of matter and galaxies in the universe. If there
Speaker 1: was zomom around much faster than the structure of the
Speaker 1: whole universe would look different. But there could always be
Speaker 1: a few weird oddballs, right.
Speaker 2: Right, right, There's always a few weird oddballs in the
Speaker 2: universe here on Earth, all right. So the answer for
Speaker 2: Jamie is, we don't.
Speaker 1: We're not sure it's super exciting because we don't know
Speaker 1: what it means, and it's wonderful because it's a surprise.
Speaker 1: That's the best outcome. Every time you turn on a
Speaker 1: new kind of eyeball and look at a new spot
Speaker 1: in the universe, you hadn't looked at it before, and
Speaker 1: the universe shows you something new.
Speaker 2: Right, right, More job security for physicists.
Speaker 1: And more joy for everybody who's curious about the nature
Speaker 1: of the universe.
Speaker 2: I think more unknowns is not good for those of
Speaker 2: us who just want answers. Like, if you're curious, you
Speaker 2: want answers, right, But if you're making a living out
Speaker 2: of the questions, then it's good news for you.
Speaker 1: I think if you're curious, you want answers, but you
Speaker 1: also want more questions.
Speaker 2: Now you're trying to tell people what they want.
Speaker 1: Yes, I'm Steve Jobs over here.
Speaker 2: There you go, the Steve Jobs a physics. You're one
Speaker 2: black turtleneck away from that.
Speaker 1: I'm one donut away from not being able to wear
Speaker 1: my turtle neck anymore.
Speaker 2: I think they stretched, Daniel. Yeah, so I think they're okay.
Speaker 2: All right, keep eating those donuts or not eating those
Speaker 2: donuts for breakfast? All right, Well, thank you to all
Speaker 2: of our question askers. It's always fun to see what
Speaker 2: people are curious about and to get a sense of
Speaker 2: what are the big unknowns out there.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much everybody who shares your curiosity with us.
Speaker 1: This is a ride we're taking together to explore the universe,
Speaker 1: So please don't be shy to write to us to
Speaker 1: questions at danieland Jorge dot com. We love to hear
Speaker 1: from you and we'll always right back.
Speaker 2: And send us some chicken and waffle donuts if you
Speaker 2: can with your questions. Always appreciate it all right. We
Speaker 2: hope you enjoyed that. Thanks for joining us, See you
Speaker 2: next time.
Speaker 1: For more science and curiosity, come find us on social
Speaker 1: media where we answer questions and post videos. We're on Twitter, Discorg, Insta,
Speaker 1: and now TikTok. Thanks for listening, and remember that Daniel
Speaker 1: and Jorge Explain the Universe is a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.