Speaker 1: Hey, Daniel, any aliens yet, not so far, at least
Speaker 1: not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 2: Ooh, do you think they're not hearing your invitations to
Speaker 2: come on the podcast?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, if they're hearing the podcast, maybe that's
Speaker 1: why they're staying away.
Speaker 2: Oh no, are you seeing our podcast? Is keeping humanity
Speaker 2: for making first contact with an alien species?
Speaker 1: It could be. But you know, if they don't like
Speaker 1: dad jokes or bananas or chocolate, do we really want
Speaker 1: to talk to them?
Speaker 2: That's right? They can't be very cool if they don't
Speaker 2: like any of those things. I mean, what are we
Speaker 2: going to talk about with them?
Speaker 1: I know that is in the end the great filter.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: I'm Hori, ma cartoonist and the author of Oliver's Great
Speaker 2: Big Universe.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist and a professor a
Speaker 1: uc Ermine, and I live five miles from the most
Speaker 1: famous chocolate covered banana joint.
Speaker 2: Wait what, I didn't know this? What makes it the
Speaker 2: most famous one?
Speaker 1: You've never seen? Arrested Development.
Speaker 2: I've seen the show. I guess I'm not a super fan.
Speaker 2: Is that like a real thing? Like the one featured
Speaker 2: in the show is a real thing?
Speaker 1: Oh? Yes, absolutely, it's a real thing. In fact, there
Speaker 1: are two chocolate covered frozen banana stands on Balbo Island
Speaker 1: near my house, and they both claim to be the original.
Speaker 2: Well one of them is lying. Then, yes, one of
Speaker 2: them is lying, or one of them is wrong at least,
Speaker 2: or maybe they're both wrong. Maybe the original one is
Speaker 2: in New Jersey or something.
Speaker 1: Either way, they're feuding about bananas and chocolate.
Speaker 2: But then, which is one featured in the show that
Speaker 2: must be the most famous one.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if the one featured in the show
Speaker 1: is one of the real ones, or if it's a
Speaker 1: fictional stand.
Speaker 2: In Oh interesting, So then neither of them is very famous.
Speaker 1: The concept of Newport Beach chocolate covered for as bananas
Speaker 1: is famous.
Speaker 2: Have you tried it? Is it good?
Speaker 1: You know? Not a fan of the bananas.
Speaker 2: Is it worth going to Bubblea Island to have them?
Speaker 1: No? Not a fan of the bananas. Even if you're
Speaker 1: covered in chocolate.
Speaker 2: Wow, what if it's a dark chocolate that's better?
Speaker 1: Definitely better, but not good enough?
Speaker 2: You would stop at the banana like you would eat
Speaker 2: it anything but the banana.
Speaker 1: It's just a chocolate delivery system, exactly the banana's got
Speaker 1: nothing to represent.
Speaker 2: I would have thought it's the food that bring us
Speaker 2: all together. Daniel, It's like this podcast is a chocolate
Speaker 2: covered banana.
Speaker 1: I know, and it's a big joke, so you think
Speaker 1: we'd love it.
Speaker 2: But anyway, speaking of podcasts, welcome to our podcast, Daniel
Speaker 2: and Jorge Explain the Universe, a production of iHeartRadio, in
Speaker 2: which we.
Speaker 1: Try to feed you the secrets of the universe. We
Speaker 1: dip them in chocolate, we freeze them, we do everything
Speaker 1: we can to make them palatable because we think that
Speaker 1: everything that's out there in the universe can be understood
Speaker 1: and deserves to be understood by me and by you
Speaker 1: and by everybody out there. Explanations are possible, and you
Speaker 1: deserve to hear them.
Speaker 2: That's right to hear on this podcast, which is in fact,
Speaker 2: the most popular podcast called Daniel and Jorge Explain the
Speaker 2: Universe that has not been featured in a TV show yet.
Speaker 1: That's true, that's highly qualified, but also accurate.
Speaker 2: It's all the details. You could read the fine prints.
Speaker 1: We're probably also the most successful podcast that mentions the
Speaker 1: word banana so often there might be podcasts dedicated to bananas.
Speaker 2: I feel like you're making an unscientific claim. Have you
Speaker 2: sampled all other podcasts to make that claim? I have not.
Speaker 1: I'm guessing I'm definitely speculating. The first step in science
Speaker 1: is speculating. Right then you go out, you gather some data.
Speaker 2: Let's see, that's your hypothesis.
Speaker 1: I'll follow up on it.
Speaker 2: That's your dull hypothesis.
Speaker 1: Nature is always full of surprises, and so maybe the
Speaker 1: podcast Universe will surprise me.
Speaker 2: We'll see, we'll see. But anyways, we do like to
Speaker 2: take facts about the universe and all the amazing things
Speaker 2: that are happening out there, cover them in delicious chocolate,
Speaker 2: and then tell them to you so that you can
Speaker 2: also appreciate what's out there and the dark mysteries of
Speaker 2: the cosmos.
Speaker 1: But this podcast isn't just us talking about the universe.
Speaker 1: It's a conversation between us and you. We want to
Speaker 1: know what you don't understand about the universe. We'd love
Speaker 1: to know what puzzles you, what you'd like to hear
Speaker 1: more about, and what explanations you find unsatisfactory. So if
Speaker 1: you have questions about how the universe works, or you've
Speaker 1: always heard something explained a certain way and it never
Speaker 1: really clicked. Please write to us to questions at Danielandjorge
Speaker 1: dot com. We will write back to you and help
Speaker 1: you figure it out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because even though it sort of starts with guessing,
Speaker 2: before guessing comes to questions, right, scientific progress starts with
Speaker 2: somebody looking at something and going, huh, how does that work?
Speaker 2: Why is that the way it is? And can I
Speaker 2: freeze it and cover it in chocolate?
Speaker 1: Every scientific question ends with can I freeze it and
Speaker 1: cover it in chocolate?
Speaker 2: Yes? Can you take a cork, freeze it and covered
Speaker 2: it in dark matter chocolate?
Speaker 1: These are some dark forces we're playing with.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a tasty field of research there, but yeah,
Speaker 2: it all starts with questions. And as you said, Daniel,
Speaker 2: we love to take questions from our listeners, and sometimes
Speaker 2: we dedicate whole episodes to answering them, or at least
Speaker 2: trying to answer them.
Speaker 1: To making silly jokes about them. At the very minimum,
Speaker 1: if I get a question that I think, hmm, I
Speaker 1: bet other people want to hear the answer to this,
Speaker 1: or I'm Sureorge has some funny things to say about
Speaker 1: this topic, then instead of just running back to you,
Speaker 1: we will answer it here on the podcast For everybody
Speaker 1: to hear.
Speaker 2: Wait, are you saying there are questions you get and
Speaker 2: you're like, nobody else wants to know the answer. You're like,
Speaker 2: only the person asking this question could possibly be interested
Speaker 2: in this topic.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. People send me their crazy, detailed theories of the
Speaker 1: universe and they want specific answers to why it works
Speaker 1: or doesn't work. That's not the kind of thing we
Speaker 1: talk about on the.
Speaker 2: Podcast, although maybe we should. I don't know. I wonder
Speaker 2: if that would make an interesting episode to get some
Speaker 2: of your theories about the universe that you get and
Speaker 2: then figure out why they're not true.
Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe it would. And if I ever find one
Speaker 1: that is compelling that does sound great, then absolutely we'll
Speaker 1: talk about it on the podcast.
Speaker 2: Or I mean we can. I'll shoot another podcast, you know,
Speaker 2: Daniel and Jorge shoot down your theory of everything.
Speaker 1: Why You're wrong about the universe with Daniel.
Speaker 2: Yes, or just why you're wrong? That's actually a pretty
Speaker 2: good idea there.
Speaker 1: There's a podcast already called wrong about Everything.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but we be the more famous one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we talk about bananas more than the other one.
Speaker 2: Yeah. We recorded in Bubble Island, which automatically makes it
Speaker 2: more famous. But Anyways, we do like to ask her questions,
Speaker 2: and so today on the podcast, we'll be tackling listener questions.
Speaker 2: Number fifty two. Is fifty two an important number?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's one more important than fifty one.
Speaker 2: I feel like it has area fifty two connotations.
Speaker 1: Isn't that area fifty one?
Speaker 2: Oh? Is it? No? I'm talking about the extra secret
Speaker 2: area that people don't even know exists. It's the one
Speaker 2: after the area fifty one.
Speaker 1: Make sure you don't tell anyone about Area fifty three.
Speaker 1: That's double extra secret. You need one more level of clearance.
Speaker 1: They know about that, don't tell me because I have
Speaker 1: no security clearance.
Speaker 2: But yeah, we like to answer questions here, and today
Speaker 2: we have three great questions from listeners. One of them
Speaker 2: is about Daniel's favorite topic, aliens. The other one is
Speaker 2: about the electromagnetic force and why it works the way
Speaker 2: it does. And the third one is about saving humanity
Speaker 2: by destroying something that maybe a lot of people.
Speaker 1: Hold, precious chocolate covered bananas.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we'll cover the moon in troublin. All right, Well,
Speaker 2: let's jump right in, Daniel. Our first question comes from Nick,
Speaker 2: who's from Tucson, Arizona.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 4: Daniel and Jorge. This is Nick from Tucson, Arizona. Growing
Speaker 4: up in a city that is so richly involved in
Speaker 4: science and astronomy, asking questions about our universes become second nature.
Speaker 4: One of the reasons questions I've had is this, in
Speaker 4: our search for life elsewhere in the universe, we see
Speaker 4: abundant evidence that we are likely not alone in the universe. However,
Speaker 4: on the off chance that we actually are, at what
Speaker 4: point do we make that determination? Given one cannot prove
Speaker 4: a negative. I'm excited to hear your breakdown of how
Speaker 4: we tackle such a dilemma. Thanks for being awesome.
Speaker 2: All right, interesting question from Nick here. I feel like
Speaker 2: he's basically asking, how will we ever know whether we're
Speaker 2: alone in the universe or not?
Speaker 1: It's a good question, and I think he's also asking
Speaker 1: what can we say. Is there some point at which
Speaker 1: we draw the line and say we're done looking we've
Speaker 1: decided we're alone.
Speaker 2: Like at some point in the future, if we never
Speaker 2: hear from other aliens and kind have to figure it
Speaker 2: out that maybe we are alone? Right like it nobody
Speaker 2: ever comes to visit you to your house, obviously, the
Speaker 2: answer is that you're the only person on Earth.
Speaker 1: Yeah, or everybody hates you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the explanation. But let's keep diluting ourselves.
Speaker 1: I think this question is really interesting from the philosophical
Speaker 1: point of view, like how could you ever know whether
Speaker 1: we're alone? And also it reveals something about how we
Speaker 1: make statements in science, how you can make statistical arguments
Speaker 1: even if you can't ever make definitive arguments.
Speaker 2: Well, Nick brings up the idea that it's impossible to
Speaker 2: prove a negative right. It's technically theoretically possible to say,
Speaker 2: for example, that there are no pink unicorns out there
Speaker 2: in the universe, because there might be, and so you'd
Speaker 2: have to check every little nuk and cranny of the
Speaker 2: entire cosmos to be able to say that such a
Speaker 2: unicorn does not exist exactly.
Speaker 1: And even checking every little nuok and cranny the last
Speaker 1: cosmos doesn't prove it right, especially in a case of aliens,
Speaker 1: where the category is so broad and undefined. It's basically
Speaker 1: any sension being that doesn't come from Earth. You could
Speaker 1: have lots of different characteristics that we don't anticipate. You
Speaker 1: might imagine, oh, if we check every single planet out
Speaker 1: there and we don't find aliens, then now we're alone,
Speaker 1: but aliens could always exist in some manner we didn't anticipate.
Speaker 1: So yeah, we might not find aliens on rocky planets,
Speaker 1: but they could exist in gas giants or underground, or
Speaker 1: in the center of stars, or in dark matter, or
Speaker 1: in some other way we hadn't imagined. So it's impossible
Speaker 1: to ever say we are totally alone in the universe.
Speaker 1: You can discover aliens, you can meet them and conclude
Speaker 1: that they're there. But you're right that we can't technically
Speaker 1: say definitively that we are alone.
Speaker 2: Right, ever, Right, Like, it's theoretically impossible.
Speaker 1: It's theoretically impossible to make a completely definitive statement. But
Speaker 1: I also think that's too high a bar. That's not
Speaker 1: the bar we use in science, for example.
Speaker 2: Oh, you mean being correct is too high of a bar.
Speaker 1: Making absolute definitive statements is not the business we're in.
Speaker 2: Right, it's not the business because you can't do it.
Speaker 1: You can't do it.
Speaker 2: You try to do it, you wouldn't be able to do.
Speaker 1: It, Yeah, exactly, And so instead we have statistical tools
Speaker 1: that tell us, like how confident we can be in
Speaker 1: a statement. You could never say anything really definitively, even
Speaker 1: things like the Higgs boson. When we discovered the Higgs boson,
Speaker 1: we claim discovery of it, but we also said, here
Speaker 1: are the chances that we're wrong. Here's the chances that
Speaker 1: the Higgs boson doesn't exist, and it just sort of
Speaker 1: looks like it does right.
Speaker 2: Right. That just kind of gets to how science actually works,
Speaker 2: which is through this idea of the null hypothesis. Right, Like,
Speaker 2: for example, even the Higgs boson, it's not like you
Speaker 2: went out there and you said, well, I have a
Speaker 2: certain degree of confidence of the Higgs boson exists. You're
Speaker 2: actually really what you're saying in your science papers is saying,
Speaker 2: we have a certain degree of confidence that not having
Speaker 2: the Higgs boson is not possible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we calculate very precisely the probability of having been
Speaker 1: fooled because remember, we don't see the Higgs directly. It's
Speaker 1: not like something we can say, here is one look
Speaker 1: at it. It's not like discovering a unicorn in the forest.
Speaker 1: We only see its footprints and its hair left on trees,
Speaker 1: and we have indirect evidence like we almost always do
Speaker 1: in science, and so we can calculate the probability of
Speaker 1: seeing that indirect evidence without there being a Higgs boson,
Speaker 1: which is not zero, and we could say, well, we
Speaker 1: rule that out, not completely, not definitively, but we can
Speaker 1: say it's very unlikely, and we can be very specific
Speaker 1: about the level at which it's unlikely, and there's a
Speaker 1: standard threshold above which we're allowed to say we've discovered it,
Speaker 1: we've pretty much settled it. But of course it's never definitive.
Speaker 2: Although I wonder if with something like the Higgs boson,
Speaker 2: you maybe you can't say that you've seen one, right,
Speaker 2: Like if you collide something and you see a particle
Speaker 2: fly out of it, then the maybe you could say
Speaker 2: that it is there with a one hundred percent confidence.
Speaker 1: We can never say that with one hundred percent confidence.
Speaker 1: The Higgs boson lasts for like ten to the minus
Speaker 1: twenty three seconds. We can never see. We only see
Speaker 1: what it turns into, unfortunately. But that's the case of discovery,
Speaker 1: which is special and wonderful. We can also play statistical
Speaker 1: games when we don't discover something. We can say, for example, oh,
Speaker 1: there's a new particle. If it did exist, we probably
Speaker 1: would have seen it, and so we can conclude that
Speaker 1: it likely doesn't exist, and that's not getting definitive. It
Speaker 1: could be that we got unlucky or something. But it's
Speaker 1: sort of like, you know, looking for Bigfoot. If you
Speaker 1: look all through the forest and you don't see Bigfoot,
Speaker 1: then you can say, well, Bigfoot might exist, but he's
Speaker 1: got to be pretty rare or pretty sneaky, or got
Speaker 1: some camouflage technique that we didn't think of already. You
Speaker 1: can still make negative statements even if they're not definitive.
Speaker 2: Right, But in the case of like Bigfoot or aliens,
Speaker 2: I feel like, once you see one, then that's one
Speaker 2: hundred percent confidence that they exist, right. I think maybe
Speaker 2: Nick is asking more about the scenario where we don't
Speaker 2: see one. So if we see an alien, then for
Speaker 2: sure we know for one hundred percent with confidence that
Speaker 2: they exist. But if we never see one, at what point,
Speaker 2: I think is next question? Do you say, well, I
Speaker 2: guess they don't exist.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree in spirit with what you're saying. I
Speaker 1: just want to put an asterisk there, because even if
Speaker 1: you see an alien, you never know one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: You could be being fooled or whatever. No knowledge really
Speaker 1: is one hundred percent definitive. But in practice we call
Speaker 1: that definitive. There are a case in the past where
Speaker 1: we found things were like, there's no way that this
Speaker 1: could have been faked, and then we you know, we're
Speaker 1: pretty sure dinosaurs are real. For example, nobody takes seriously
Speaker 1: the scenario that dinosaurs are all fake.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Or like a whale, like we know, if we'll
Speaker 2: one hundred percent turnty that whales exist and that whales
Speaker 2: are a thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right. I mean technically again, like there's always an
Speaker 1: asterisk there. You never know anything one hundred percent. But
Speaker 1: practically speaking, the probability being fooled they're so small we
Speaker 1: basically call it zero. Yes, you're right, but you're right.
Speaker 1: Nick is focused also on the other scenario. What can
Speaker 1: we learn from not discovering aliens? Is there some point
Speaker 1: at which and so we can make statistical statements like
Speaker 1: we know, if the universe was filled with aliens and
Speaker 1: that were very loud in electromagnetism and travel with stars
Speaker 1: very enthusiastically, we would have seen them already. And so
Speaker 1: by not having seen them, we can say, well, if
Speaker 1: those aliens exist, they must be rare, and we can
Speaker 1: say how rare they have to be for us to
Speaker 1: not see them, So we can make negative statistical statements
Speaker 1: about aliens.
Speaker 2: Or not about aliens, but about scenarios for aliens. Right, Like,
Speaker 2: you're not saying aliens don't exist. You're just saying aliens
Speaker 2: they watch a lot of TV, broad SEV and have
Speaker 2: spaceships that figure out inner Citi travel. Those are maybe
Speaker 2: less likely, although those could still exist, you know, maybe
Speaker 2: they don't like to travel.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. You can imagine a scenario and you say, well,
Speaker 1: what are the chances that if that scenario is real,
Speaker 1: we wouldn't have seen aliens? And so if you imagine
Speaker 1: a scenario where aliens are visiting Earth all the time,
Speaker 1: it's very unlikely that we don't see them, And so
Speaker 1: if we haven't seen them, you can mostly rule that
Speaker 1: scenario out. But there are always other scenarios like maybe
Speaker 1: they can't travel, maybe they're weirder than we imagine, maybe
Speaker 1: they don't care to travel, they don't want to contact us,
Speaker 1: or maybe they all died a billion years ago, or
Speaker 1: they're hiding, or there's always some scenario in which aliens
Speaker 1: could exist and we haven't seen them.
Speaker 2: So basically, if you haven't seen them, there's nothing you
Speaker 2: can say about aliens, because I feel like there's so
Speaker 2: many ifs and possibilities that you're really just starting to,
Speaker 2: you know, make statements based on subjetions that you know,
Speaker 2: you really don't have any information about.
Speaker 1: I think the kind of stuff you can say if
Speaker 1: you don't meet aliens is pretty weak, but not exactly
Speaker 1: nothing like aliens that desperately want to come to Earth
Speaker 1: and have the capabilities to do so, those aliens don't exist,
Speaker 1: Like if they existed, they would be here. So we
Speaker 1: can rule out some scenarios, but the space of possible
Speaker 1: scenarios that we can't rule out is infinite, and it's
Speaker 1: much much bigger than the things we can rule out.
Speaker 1: So like, what fraction of the scenarios have we ruled
Speaker 1: out by not discovering aliens? Basically zero. But that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean there are no scenarios we've ruled out. We've learned
Speaker 1: a little bit by not having met aliens. I see.
Speaker 2: I think what you're saying is that we can sort
Speaker 2: of paint, you know, very subtle shades of rarity about
Speaker 2: the idea or the question of whether aliens exist. But again,
Speaker 2: these are just kind of like shades of statements that
Speaker 2: are you know, based on assumptions, and really nobody knows.
Speaker 1: Really nobody knows, but you can learn something like, for example,
Speaker 1: in our book, we go into some of these scenarios.
Speaker 1: Imagine there's a civilization out there in the galaxy that
Speaker 1: builds self replicating robot robots that go off into space
Speaker 1: and find moons and mine them and make more of them.
Speaker 1: So you can exponential number of these robots because each
Speaker 1: one makes two more, which makes two more, which makes
Speaker 1: two more. And you can ask, like, how long does
Speaker 1: it take before that civilization sends a robot to every
Speaker 1: single planet in the galaxy. The answer is like tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of years. So if the galaxy is billions
Speaker 1: of years old, if that civilization exists, or at least
Speaker 1: one of them, then Earth should have some of those
Speaker 1: robots visiting us. So that hasn't happened, for example, we're
Speaker 1: pretty sure, and so we can say, like, that scenario
Speaker 1: is mostly ruled out. So there are interesting scenarios that
Speaker 1: we can mostly rule out. Though you're right, we're always
Speaker 1: making statistical statements and there's lots of stuff we can't
Speaker 1: rule out.
Speaker 2: Right, and at some point I feel like you're basically
Speaker 2: making invaluable unvaluable statements, Like at some point you're basically saying, well,
Speaker 2: if we haven't seen Superman yet, that means that there
Speaker 2: isn't an alien race out there, and that grew up
Speaker 2: in around the Red Sun that was about to explode,
Speaker 2: and then their parents send at this kid out in
Speaker 2: a space and on Earth. That's something we can say
Speaker 2: about aliens. Yes, because so far we haven't seen Superman yet.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's true. Off the infinite list of possible scenarios,
Speaker 1: we can cross one off the list. That's progress. It's
Speaker 1: still infinitely long.
Speaker 2: No, you can't even cross it out the list.
Speaker 1: You can paint it with a statistical rarity, right, you
Speaker 1: can say that's much.
Speaker 2: Less likely, not even that cat right, I mean, it's statistics.
Speaker 2: So just because you haven't rolled twelve on a die
Speaker 2: doesn't mean that you can't, that's right.
Speaker 1: But if you've rolled the die a lot of times
Speaker 1: you never see twelve, then you can start to make
Speaker 1: statements ill possible. It's still possible, ill possible where you
Speaker 1: can make statistical statements, right, It's not true that you
Speaker 1: can say nothing.
Speaker 2: Right, right, But I guess you can debate how useful
Speaker 2: statistical statement is it's.
Speaker 1: Totally unsatisfying, especially in comparison to discovering aliens. Right, but
Speaker 1: it's probably made progress. Right. It also gives us inspiration,
Speaker 1: like if we can think carefully about the kind of
Speaker 1: categories we have been able to see, it makes us
Speaker 1: aware of our blind spots, like, oh, well, actually, it
Speaker 1: turns out we've only been looking for people that broadcast
Speaker 1: in electromagnetism. Let's look for messages in neutrinos or in
Speaker 1: gravitational waves. Right. Inspires us to think outside the box
Speaker 1: a little bit more.
Speaker 2: Mmmmm, let me see, helps you maybe narrow the search
Speaker 2: of how you're looking for aliens?
Speaker 1: Yeah, actually broaden the search, right, consider other ways we
Speaker 1: might be contacted.
Speaker 2: All right, what would you say? Is the answer for
Speaker 2: Nick here?
Speaker 1: I would say we never make that determination.
Speaker 2: Superman does not exist.
Speaker 1: I would take an even bet against Superman existing for sure, Yes,
Speaker 1: but we can never prove that we're totally alone in
Speaker 1: the universe.
Speaker 2: All Right. I wonder if that's comforting or not. Would
Speaker 2: you want to know you're the only species in the
Speaker 2: universe or would we feel better knowing there are other
Speaker 2: aliens out there?
Speaker 1: It's sort of frustrating because it's one of these questions
Speaker 1: where either answer yes, we're alone in the universe, so
Speaker 1: we're super rare and special, or no, we're not alone
Speaker 1: in the universe, so there's other intelligent life out there.
Speaker 1: Either answer is amazing and mind blowing. So it's kind
Speaker 1: of frustrating if the answer we get instead is hm hm.
Speaker 1: Maybe here's some statistics.
Speaker 2: Here are some statistics based on some guesses, based on
Speaker 2: some comic books and sci fi novels that Daniel has read.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's absolutely less satisfying than a definitive answer yes
Speaker 1: or no. So that's pretty frustrating. I feel you, Nick,
Speaker 1: I feel you.
Speaker 2: All right, Well, it sounds like there is no point
Speaker 2: at which we can make that determination, but at some
Speaker 2: point you kind of have to get suspicious about whether
Speaker 2: or not they do exist out there. Yeah, all right, Well,
Speaker 2: Nick is definitely not alone in having questions about the universe.
Speaker 2: Other people have questions and they have sent it to us,
Speaker 2: and we are going to answer them here on the program.
Speaker 2: So when we come back, we'll tackle two more questions
Speaker 2: about electromagnating charges and about destroying the moon. But first
Speaker 2: let's take a quick break. All right, we're answering listener
Speaker 2: questions here today, and our next question comes from column.
Speaker 5: Hey, I'm Callum and I wanted to know why specifically
Speaker 5: do positive and negative charges attract to each other? As
Speaker 5: well as why do you to negative charges and to
Speaker 5: positive charges repel from each other? How exactly does that work?
Speaker 2: Thank you? All right? Awesome question from column here. It
Speaker 2: sort of gets into the very idea of what is
Speaker 2: the nature of forces and electromagnetic forces and charges? Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a great question, really fun, really deep, kind
Speaker 1: of philosophical And it came to me actually originally from
Speaker 1: column's physics teacher. He said he got this question in class,
Speaker 1: wasn't sure how to answer it. Could I help him out?
Speaker 1: And so I thought, hey, let's talk about it, and
Speaker 1: he agreed to play our answer in class. So HI,
Speaker 1: call him and everybody in your class.
Speaker 2: Yeah, hello, I hope you're not disappointed.
Speaker 1: Let's give him the answer first and then we'll see it.
Speaker 2: Do you think this is more or less exciting than
Speaker 2: the lecture that teacher normally would have done?
Speaker 1: Oh? I'm pretty sure Colin's teacher is a fabulous lecture
Speaker 1: in addition to being good looking.
Speaker 2: Yes. Best Teacher of the Year Award multiple years going,
Speaker 2: or at least they will.
Speaker 1: Yes, and probably hilarious too, right.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, all teachers should play our podcast on her classroom.
Speaker 1: But thank you to all the high school science teachers
Speaker 1: out there for your service on the front lines of education.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right. And for all of you students out there,
Speaker 2: if you give us a five star rating on Apple
Speaker 2: Podcasts or any of those platforms, you automatically get an
Speaker 2: A in this class. Wow.
Speaker 1: Yeah, or hey, does not have the authority to promise that,
Speaker 1: but go ahead give us a five star rating.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, no, we never tell the lies here in
Speaker 2: this podcast.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, it's statistically possible that you could get an
Speaker 1: A from giving us a five star rating that we
Speaker 1: can't say definitively.
Speaker 2: Oh my goodness, Oh my goodness. Now I feel really
Speaker 2: alone and make a nice statement.
Speaker 1: Better statistics than lies.
Speaker 2: Right, all right, weants to get to Colum's question. Colin
Speaker 2: wanted to know why do plus and minus charges attract
Speaker 2: and why do two charges with the same polarity repel? Like,
Speaker 2: how does that work? Why is it so binary? I guess?
Speaker 2: And what makes one combination attract and the other one repel?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a really fun question. Because it gets to
Speaker 1: the nature of like what is charge? What do we
Speaker 1: really know about it? And it also gets to the
Speaker 1: question of like, well, why does electromagnetism attract with opposite
Speaker 1: charges and why do other forces not? You know, for example,
Speaker 1: an electromagnetism, two positive charges repel, but in gravity, two
Speaker 1: positive masses attract each other. So there's lots of different
Speaker 1: directions to go in with this question.
Speaker 2: Right, because you have the idea that a charge's like
Speaker 2: just a property of particles, right, They're like little labels
Speaker 2: that you attached to things to stuff out there, like
Speaker 2: electromagnetic charge or like mass, or like maybe some of
Speaker 2: the other charge forces.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's definitely a valid way of thinking about it,
Speaker 1: and that's the way we teach it. But I think
Speaker 1: there's a layer we need to pull apart there so
Speaker 1: we clear on which part of it is actually something
Speaker 1: we observe and which part of it is sort of
Speaker 1: an explanation we've concocted to explain what we've observed, because
Speaker 1: in the end, charge is a tool we use to
Speaker 1: explain attraction and repulsion. That's what we see out there,
Speaker 1: see a bunch of particles, some of them push against
Speaker 1: each other. Some of them attract each other. And what
Speaker 1: we've noticed is if you put these labels on the particles,
Speaker 1: call some of them plus and some of them minus,
Speaker 1: and you come up with this explanation like charges attract
Speaker 1: and opposite charges repel, then it works. It's consistent. It
Speaker 1: explains all the attraction and repulsion that we see. So
Speaker 1: it's not like we discovered charge. What we discovered is
Speaker 1: some particles push and pull, and we came up with
Speaker 1: charge as a way to explain that.
Speaker 2: You're saying, like the idea of a charge is really
Speaker 2: just it's a definition thing. A charge is maybe not
Speaker 2: something fundamental to the universe. It's just something we came
Speaker 2: up with to explain what we see. Yeah, that's the
Speaker 2: philosophical side of it. We don't know if this really
Speaker 2: is a property u or just part of the story
Speaker 2: that we tell. But what we definitely see, what we
Speaker 2: observe is the pushing and the pulling, and we use
Speaker 2: charges to explain that. I think there's another important wrinkle
Speaker 2: there in something you just said, which is these are
Speaker 2: a property of the particles. It's actually really fascinating because
Speaker 2: it's a property actually of a pair of particles, like
Speaker 2: what does a particle do if it has charge and
Speaker 2: it's all alone in the universe.
Speaker 1: Well, it doesn't push or pull. It doesn't get pushed,
Speaker 1: it doesn't get pulled. Right, It's only when you put
Speaker 1: another charge there do they push or pull on each other.
Speaker 1: So it's sort of like velocity, where velocity is relative.
Speaker 1: You know, you can only measure a velocity of an
Speaker 1: object relative to something else. Velocity is not the property
Speaker 1: of an object. Even though we describe particles as having charge,
Speaker 1: it's only really meaningful relative to another particle. So it's
Speaker 1: more like the property of a pair of particles. Here's
Speaker 1: two that have the same charge, here's two that have
Speaker 1: opposite charge, And we've come up with a consistent explanation
Speaker 1: to describe all of that, and so we think that's
Speaker 1: probably what's going on, But you know, we don't really know.
Speaker 2: So you're saying that as scientists, we've been studying things
Speaker 2: out there in the universe, and sometimes we notice that
Speaker 2: when you have these little things particles, sometimes they repel
Speaker 2: each other and sometimes they attract each other. And we've
Speaker 2: come up with this scenario where when they attract each other,
Speaker 2: it must be because they have opposite of something, and
Speaker 2: when they repel each other's when they have the same
Speaker 2: of something. Yeah, and we call that a charge.
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly.
Speaker 2: So to ask like, why does that happen, the answer
Speaker 2: is like, basically because it does.
Speaker 1: Well, the answer is we see it happen, and we
Speaker 1: can tell a story about the mechanism behind it. Right,
Speaker 1: we have this idea that each particle that has a
Speaker 1: charge creates a field, and that field has a force
Speaker 1: on other particles, and so we can describe it, we
Speaker 1: can accommodate it. But we're doing much better than just
Speaker 1: saying this is what happens in the universe. We're not
Speaker 1: just describing everything we see. We're really explaining it. And
Speaker 1: you can tell the difference between describing and explaining because
Speaker 1: explanations are simpler, not just a list of everything you've seen.
Speaker 1: They're more compact, they're more economical. So specifically, if you
Speaker 1: have like ten particles you want to understand, there's like
Speaker 1: fifty different unique pairs of those particles. So a totally
Speaker 1: descriptive theory, one that just lists what happens between every
Speaker 1: particles would have like fifty pieces of information wouldn't simplify
Speaker 1: anything at all. The idea of electric charge is really
Speaker 1: an explanation because by putting a plus or a minus
Speaker 1: on every particle, that's just ten pieces of information one
Speaker 1: per particle. Then the result for any pair of particle
Speaker 1: is determined by the relative charges. So it's not just
Speaker 1: a description of what happens. It's a clever, compact, economical explanation,
Speaker 1: and that's good physics. The rest is turkey philosophy. Right,
Speaker 1: Why does the universe work this way and not some
Speaker 1: other way? That's a deeper philosophical question. We can also
Speaker 1: talk about why in electromagnetism like charges repel whereas in gravity,
Speaker 1: like charges attract. That is something we do understand.
Speaker 2: I mean, I feel like basically you're saying that the
Speaker 2: answer is because it does, Like why is it that way?
Speaker 2: Because that's what we observe. But I wonder if maybe
Speaker 2: Colin is asking more, like, you know, in our knowledge
Speaker 2: and our models of quantum mechanics and particle and quantum fields,
Speaker 2: like what is the basis of a charge in that scenario?
Speaker 2: And what's the mechanism by which having a positive or
Speaker 2: negative of that charge makes you attract or repel another particle?
Speaker 1: Yeah, And the story is fascinating and compelling. The way
Speaker 1: we talk about it is that particles have these fields
Speaker 1: around them. So electron creates an electric field, right, and
Speaker 1: it depends on the charge. A proton has a different
Speaker 1: field than an electron, and that field can vary, you know,
Speaker 1: it can be like stronger here and weaker there, and
Speaker 1: that variation is crucial if the field is slanty. If
Speaker 1: it's like stronger in one place and weaker in another place,
Speaker 1: it will create a force on other charged particles. So
Speaker 1: the slantiness of the field is where that force comes from.
Speaker 1: Just like if you put a ball down on the ground,
Speaker 1: If the ground is leveled, the ball's not going to
Speaker 1: roll anywhere. But you put a ball down on a hill,
Speaker 1: it's going to roll downhill. In exactly the same way.
Speaker 1: You put a charged particle in space where the field
Speaker 1: has a gradient where it varies it's stronger in one
Speaker 1: place weaker somewhere else. It's going to feel a force
Speaker 1: pushing it to where the field is weaker, depending on
Speaker 1: its charge.
Speaker 2: Right, I feel like you're saying again just more like
Speaker 2: it is because it is. But I wonder if you
Speaker 2: can say something about in your math formulations of quantum
Speaker 2: mechanics for quantum particles. How do you account for a charge?
Speaker 2: Is it just like a little number you append to
Speaker 2: a particle or to like a viiable that you call
Speaker 2: a particle? And then how does it come up that
Speaker 2: if you have the same as sign or plus or minus,
Speaker 2: then you repel? And how does it come up that
Speaker 2: you attractive? We have different signs?
Speaker 1: Yes, so equonom mechanics. We have these labels that we
Speaker 1: assigned to particles. And I think maybe what you're looking for,
Speaker 1: and what column is asking, is like, where do these
Speaker 1: labels come from? What really is charge? Sure, they seem
Speaker 1: to work and they're compact, and we can use them
Speaker 1: to predict the forces on particles, But do we understand
Speaker 1: where the charge itself comes from? The answer is no.
Speaker 1: And here's where we get a bit philosophical, because you
Speaker 1: have to think carefully about the kind of answer you're
Speaker 1: looking for when you ask this question. Take a step back,
Speaker 1: for example, and ask a similar question, why does a
Speaker 1: proton have charge plus one? Where does that come from? Well,
Speaker 1: we know the answer, it comes from the bits. The
Speaker 1: proton is made out of the quarks, So back to
Speaker 1: the electron or for the quarks. Also, what's the answer there? Well,
Speaker 1: we don't know because we don't know what the electron
Speaker 1: is made out of, or if it's made out of
Speaker 1: anything but just the electron. So for bigger stuff that's
Speaker 1: made of smaller stuff, we can answer this question. We
Speaker 1: can explain it in terms of that smaller stuff. For
Speaker 1: the smallest stuff, we can't. It's just how the universe is,
Speaker 1: and that will be also true when we eventually find
Speaker 1: out what's at the foundation of the universe. It's the smallest,
Speaker 1: most basic bit of matter, we'll look at it and say,
Speaker 1: why is it the way that it is, And if
Speaker 1: it really is the foundation of the universe, we'll have
Speaker 1: no answer because we can't explain it in terms of
Speaker 1: its bits, because it doesn't have any internal bits. So
Speaker 1: that's the philosophical answer. We don't yet know what's inside
Speaker 1: the electron, if anything, so we don't really have any
Speaker 1: insight into why it has charge. But zoom back out
Speaker 1: from that philosophy and you can still learn things about
Speaker 1: forces and fields and charges if you start from the
Speaker 1: charge in the field it makes. That tells you something
Speaker 1: about the forces. We act as if the charge is
Speaker 1: a property of the particle, and then it creates these
Speaker 1: fields and those fields push or pull on the other particles.
Speaker 1: But the nature of the field, whether it's electromagnetism or gravity,
Speaker 1: determines whether like charges attract or like charges repel. And
Speaker 1: that gets a little bit mathematical. It's like the structure
Speaker 1: of the field. Is it a vector field, is it
Speaker 1: just a scaler? Like is there a number or is
Speaker 1: there a direction to the field that determines the kind
Speaker 1: of particle that transmits the information. So an electromagnetism, we
Speaker 1: have the photon, right, the photon is a complicated particle.
Speaker 1: It has spin, whereas the Higgs field, for example, has
Speaker 1: the Higgs boson, which doesn't have any spin. And it
Speaker 1: turns out it's the spin of that particle that's communicating
Speaker 1: the information that determines whether like charges attract or like
Speaker 1: charges repel.
Speaker 2: Wait, wait, what do you mean, Like, what's the connection
Speaker 2: between the spin of something and it's charge. And are
Speaker 2: you talking to actually about like particle spinning or are
Speaker 2: you talking about some thing we call spin.
Speaker 1: Well, when we're talking about particles, they don't actually spin.
Speaker 1: They just have this thing we call quantum spin, right,
Speaker 1: And so some particles don't have any of it. We
Speaker 1: call them spin zero, Some particles have spin one, some
Speaker 1: particles have spin a half. All of the particles that
Speaker 1: transmit forces like electromagnetism have unit spin spin zero, spin one,
Speaker 1: spin two. So the photon, for example, is a spin
Speaker 1: one particle, and that comes out of the knee sure
Speaker 1: of the electromagnetic field. Like when you make photoons, which
Speaker 1: are ripples in this electromagnetic field, you make these particles
Speaker 1: that can have spin, and that's because the electromagnetic field
Speaker 1: has vectors that can like point in different directions, whereas
Speaker 1: the Higgs field is just a number, and so the
Speaker 1: ripples you make in it don't have any spin. And
Speaker 1: then the spin of these particles that transmits the forces
Speaker 1: determines whether like charges attract or repel. So electromagnetism, because
Speaker 1: it has a photon, a spin one particle, that's what
Speaker 1: makes like charges repel.
Speaker 2: Why is it? What's the connection there? Why does the
Speaker 2: photon having spin one make like charges repel.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it has to do with how we construct the
Speaker 1: mathematics of the quantum field theory. Basically, you get a
Speaker 1: negative sign every time you go up in spin, so
Speaker 1: spin zero, like charges attract. You add spin to spin one,
Speaker 1: you get a negative sign. You add another spin to
Speaker 1: spin two, like the graviton, then like charges attract again.
Speaker 1: So it comes out of the statistics of quantum field theory,
Speaker 1: which I think is a little too hairy to get into.
Speaker 2: So wait, are you saying that potons have spin?
Speaker 1: Photons have spin? Absolutely, Photons can be polarized, right that
Speaker 1: whole episode about polarization of photons. They can spin this way,
Speaker 1: they can spin that way.
Speaker 2: And so when when you say spin one or spin zero,
Speaker 2: what does that icually mean, like the number of dimension
Speaker 2: or are we just creating categories to explain why something's
Speaker 2: attract and repel.
Speaker 1: Well, spin zero means just just a number, doesn't have
Speaker 1: any spin. Spin one means it's a vector. It points
Speaker 1: in some direction. It can also point in the other direction.
Speaker 1: Spin two is for really complicated particles like gravitons. They're tensors.
Speaker 1: They're more like not a vector, they're more like a matrix,
Speaker 1: really complicated. So they can have more values of spin.
Speaker 1: A particle that's called quote unquote spin one can have
Speaker 1: zero plus one or minus one spin particle that's quote
Speaker 1: unquote spin two can have plus two plus one, zero
Speaker 1: minus one minus two. So as the structure the field
Speaker 1: itself gets more complicated, the nature of the particle is
Speaker 1: more complicated, and then that changes the kind of interaction
Speaker 1: that it mediates.
Speaker 2: I see. So I feel like maybe you're saying that
Speaker 2: the answer for our high school audience here is that
Speaker 2: it's sort of related to the dimensionality of the forces
Speaker 2: that we're talking about. Like if the force that we're
Speaker 2: talking about has a certain number of dimensions, then like
Speaker 2: charges are going to repel. If it has a different
Speaker 2: set of dimensions, then like charges are going to attract.
Speaker 2: And it's almost like it sort of goes by the
Speaker 2: odd or evenness of the number of dimensions.
Speaker 1: That's exactly right, And you know the explanation we game earlier,
Speaker 1: like well, this is just sort of what we see,
Speaker 1: you know, it's not just descriptive. Like we put together
Speaker 1: as simple as possible an explanation for all the pushing
Speaker 1: and pulling that we've seen, and it works together kind
Speaker 1: of beautifully. It's really compact, it's simple, it tells a
Speaker 1: really compelling story, and there's some restrictions to it, Like
Speaker 1: you can't just build any quantum field theory you want.
Speaker 1: They don't all work. These are the ones that work,
Speaker 1: and that do explain what we see. So in that sense,
Speaker 1: maybe we are revealing something that's true about the universe.
Speaker 1: This is what's actually happening behind the scenes. Maybe charge
Speaker 1: is real and it's part of these particles. We'll never
Speaker 1: really know, of course, any more than we know if
Speaker 1: there's aliens out there or Bigfoot exists. But it's very
Speaker 1: compelling story we're telling about how it works.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because it's sort of based on the math. If
Speaker 2: the dimensionality, how many dimensions the force has, then like
Speaker 2: charges repel. If it's even, then the like charges attract.
Speaker 2: That's kind of a fundamental thing about the universe, right, Yeah.
Speaker 2: Does it ties math to what we see and experience
Speaker 2: in our everyday lives.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. That's what I was trying to say earlier,
Speaker 1: is that there's only a few ways to build these theories.
Speaker 1: It's not like you can just build any theory you like,
Speaker 1: so you have an infinite number of possible explanations. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of constraints on making these theories work, so
Speaker 1: they don't break down, they don't make nonsense predictions. They
Speaker 1: also agree with everything we've seen, and so what we've
Speaker 1: seen is that the universe really constrains us. There are
Speaker 1: rules for how you can build these theories mathematically, and
Speaker 1: that's why seeing something work in the mathematics, it's often
Speaker 1: a really big hint that it might reflect something in
Speaker 1: the universe. And so that's why we hope that by
Speaker 1: exploring the mathematics of these theories, were actually investigating what's
Speaker 1: happening behind the scenes in the universe.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all right, So then the answer for Column and
Speaker 2: Column's class and for everyone out there is that like
Speaker 2: charges repel in electromagnetism because of the number of dimensions
Speaker 2: that the electromagnetic forces seem to operate in. If the
Speaker 2: electromagnetic force is operated in a different set of dimensions
Speaker 2: or number of dimensions, then like charges would do the opposite.
Speaker 2: They would attract each other.
Speaker 1: Exactly like they do with the Higgs field and like
Speaker 1: they do with gravity.
Speaker 2: All right, Well, everyone gets an a.
Speaker 1: Extra credit on the house all around.
Speaker 2: Well, if you sat through that whole explanation and that discussion,
Speaker 2: I think everyone deserves an a what do you.
Speaker 1: Think at least a frozen banana?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, and a frozen banana. Okay, all right, Well,
Speaker 2: thank you Colum, and thank you Colm's teacher. For bringing
Speaker 2: this up. It's creating. You know, there are high schoolers
Speaker 2: out there that are curious about these things, and they're
Speaker 2: drilling to the nuances and having questions about very basic things.
Speaker 1: M hmm. And it also shows you how easy and
Speaker 1: common it is to ask simple questions that have tricky answers.
Speaker 1: We don't really know the answers to. Now, this is
Speaker 1: a pretty basic question, and the answers are a little
Speaker 1: bit slippery and philosophical and mathematical. So you're right there
Speaker 1: at the edge of our knowledge and our understanding.
Speaker 2: All right, well, let's get to our last question of today,
Speaker 2: and this one is pretty dramatic and pretty intense. It's
Speaker 2: about destroying the moon, maybe to save humankind. So let's
Speaker 2: dig into that question. But first, let's take another quick break.
Speaker 2: All right, we're answering questions from listeners, or at least
Speaker 2: the question is that Daniel feels like answering.
Speaker 1: I answer all the questions, I just elevate some of
Speaker 1: them to the podcast.
Speaker 2: Oh oh, this is elevating the questions. Interesting, I thought
Speaker 2: it was lowering them.
Speaker 1: You're thinking your contribution to these is lowering our answers
Speaker 1: to them.
Speaker 2: Possibly, Yeah, we're covering it with Hersey's chocolate. But our
Speaker 2: last question here comes from Kim from Toronto.
Speaker 3: Hi, Daniel and Jorge, This is Kim from Toronto in Canada.
Speaker 3: I know how much you enjoy answering ethics and physics
Speaker 3: questions from aspiring evil villains.
Speaker 2: So I have a question for the two of you.
Speaker 3: If climate change is melting the ice caps and forcing
Speaker 3: sea levels to rise at the equator, could this effect
Speaker 3: be offset at the equator by destroying the Moon safely
Speaker 3: of course, so nobody gets hurt. And since more of
Speaker 3: the Earth's population is closer to the equator than the poles,
Speaker 3: would this potentially save the lives of those who are
Speaker 3: currently living in zones which would flood if the sea
Speaker 3: levels rise. And a question for Jorge, if I were
Speaker 3: to single handedly destroy the Moon in order to save
Speaker 3: millions of lives, would this make me a hero or
Speaker 3: a villain?
Speaker 2: All Right, a bit of question here from Kim. I'm
Speaker 2: not even sure what to make of this question or
Speaker 2: what it even means, Like, how do you tie destroying
Speaker 2: the moon to saving the planet.
Speaker 1: Well, I do like the creativity here, Like we're facing
Speaker 1: some issues people, let's think about out of the box solutions.
Speaker 2: Right, that's right. We have the problem of climate change. Obviously,
Speaker 2: the easiest thing is to destroy the moon.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's the easiest thing or even
Speaker 1: on the top ten easiest solutions to climate change, but
Speaker 1: it's kind of interesting to think about.
Speaker 2: Okay. So, I think what Kim is thinking here is
Speaker 2: that climate change is a thing, and one of the
Speaker 2: consequences of climate change are rising sea levels, which is
Speaker 2: a problem. Maybe not if you're a Montana or in Siberia,
Speaker 2: but if you're in a coastal city then it's sort
Speaker 2: of a problem. And if the sea levels rise, and
Speaker 2: it's going to cost a lot of chaos and instability
Speaker 2: for billions of people, which is better news for everybody.
Speaker 2: And so I think Kim is thinking, like, oh, rising
Speaker 2: sea levels, that sounds like something related to tides, and
Speaker 2: tides are related to the moon. Why if we destroy
Speaker 2: the moon, well, that solve the consequences of climate change, right,
Speaker 2: I think that's what Kim is trying to propose here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think the idea or the hope is that
Speaker 1: you could mitigate the impact of rising sea levels by
Speaker 1: minimizing the tides. Like, yeah, maybe the ocean is going up.
Speaker 1: But the worst part is when you're the ocean goes
Speaker 1: up and you have high tides. If your tides aren't
Speaker 1: as high, or if you can remove the tides, then
Speaker 1: the ocean doesn't rise as much. And so you're somehow
Speaker 1: mitigating the rise in sea levels by preventing these swings
Speaker 1: in the ocean depth.
Speaker 2: Right, right, because I imagine that Kim has figured out
Speaker 2: that if you remove the moon, that doesn't mean that
Speaker 2: the sea levels go down. It just means that they
Speaker 2: don't go up and down.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's exactly right. They don't go up and down,
Speaker 1: and so they're not as high, right, I think that's
Speaker 1: the point.
Speaker 2: The highs are not as high and the lows are
Speaker 2: not as well. So you eliminate the variation of the tides,
Speaker 2: which helps. It doesn't solve the rising sea levels because
Speaker 2: the average sea level will surprise, that's right, Maybe the
Speaker 2: high tide will be as bad as it would be
Speaker 2: if you had the move.
Speaker 1: Exactly And this relies on the sort of a simple
Speaker 1: model of the tides, where the moon is pulling on
Speaker 1: the water and making it deeper here and narrower there,
Speaker 1: and so it's making higher tides and lower tides, And
Speaker 1: it's true that the tides can be very large and
Speaker 1: quite variable. You know, in some places around the world
Speaker 1: the tides can be like, you know, more than ten meters,
Speaker 1: So it can definitely be very dramatic.
Speaker 2: Well you mean like in some places it can go
Speaker 2: up and down ten meters.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, tides could be very very dramatic.
Speaker 2: Where is it? Ten meters is a lot thirty feet?
Speaker 1: It is? I looked at a map of the tidal
Speaker 1: variations and it's sort of surprising. It's not focused on
Speaker 1: the equators. You know, there's like the inlet under Alaska
Speaker 1: is very dramatic. Actually, the waters just to the west
Speaker 1: of Central America have some of the strongest tides. Up
Speaker 1: near the coast of Europe has very strong tides. It
Speaker 1: doesn't just vary on latitude. Tides in the end are
Speaker 1: influenced by the moon, but there's lots of other important factors,
Speaker 1: like the shape of the coast and the depth of
Speaker 1: the water, how the water likes to slash around, the
Speaker 1: temperature of the water. Lots of things affect the amplitude
Speaker 1: of the tides.
Speaker 2: So then what does that mean? Does that mean that
Speaker 2: if you eliminated the moon, you would still get tides.
Speaker 1: That's also true because the Sun contributes like a third
Speaker 1: of the tidal forces. So if you eliminated the moons,
Speaker 1: you would reduce the tides, though it wouldn't be concentrated
Speaker 1: necessarily at the equator. But if you liminated the moon,
Speaker 1: you would still have tides because the Sun also causes
Speaker 1: tides and a slightly different pattern of course than the moon,
Speaker 1: but you wouldn't get rid of them by destroying the moon.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I remember we had a whole episode about ties
Speaker 2: and it was kind of complicated.
Speaker 1: It's very complicated. People have been trying to understand this
Speaker 1: for a long time, and Newton had the first model
Speaker 1: based on, you know, gravity pulling on the water, but
Speaker 1: that's just one part of it. That's just like the input,
Speaker 1: that's how much gravity is pushing on the water. You
Speaker 1: also have to understand how the water responds. Like if
Speaker 1: you sit in your bathtub and you push on the
Speaker 1: water to make a wave, you make a wave. The
Speaker 1: water doesn't just bend under your hand and stay there.
Speaker 1: So you have to understand the water's response, all the
Speaker 1: wave equations to really understand how the tides are formed.
Speaker 1: It's very, very complicated these days. We have a really
Speaker 1: solid understanding of it, though, which is why you can
Speaker 1: look up the tides anywhere on Earth pretty far in
Speaker 1: the future and get a pretty good prediction of it.
Speaker 2: Right, right, although I hear the accuracy of that kind
Speaker 2: of goes up and down. Then when you look or
Speaker 2: where the moon is. I think what you're saying is
Speaker 2: that Kim's plan would work sort of like if you
Speaker 2: took out the moon, you wouldn't totally eliminate the tides,
Speaker 2: but you would maybe eliminate two thirds of the tide,
Speaker 2: which is sort of Kim's plant.
Speaker 1: You would eliminate two thirds of the tides, but it
Speaker 1: wouldn't have the most impact in the coastal areas. It
Speaker 1: would have the most impact other places on Earth, which
Speaker 1: is still helpful. Right, everybody would benefit from having lower
Speaker 1: ocean levels or lower highs.
Speaker 2: I suppose Wait, what do you mean it wouldn't affect
Speaker 2: the equator. You're saying, but tides affect the coastal areas, right.
Speaker 1: Tide affects the coastal areas. But where around the world
Speaker 1: those tides are most dramatic is not in the equator?
Speaker 1: Depends on the shape of the continents and all sorts
Speaker 1: of stuff. If you google like a tide map, you'll
Speaker 1: see these red hotspots where the tides are most dramatic,
Speaker 1: and they are not along the equator. So if he's
Speaker 1: looking to focus his efforts and help people along the equator,
Speaker 1: tides are not the way to do it.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm not sure Kim actually is that concern about
Speaker 2: people in the equator, and specifically, I think he's just
Speaker 2: concerned about the overall consequences of climate change. And you're
Speaker 2: saying it wouldn't be focused on the equator, It would
Speaker 2: sort of spread out all over in weird places. But
Speaker 2: if you did eliminate the moon, it would lower the
Speaker 2: ups and downs of the tide.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it would. It wouldn't reduce the tides, But of
Speaker 1: course you're also contributing lots of other potential knock on
Speaker 1: problems from getting rid of the moon, which does much
Speaker 1: more than just provide tides.
Speaker 2: What do you mean, like, what other effects would removing
Speaker 2: the moon have?
Speaker 1: Well, the moon is crucial for lots of ecosystems. You know,
Speaker 1: provides light at certain times of night at certain parts
Speaker 1: of the month. Predators rely on the moon for hunting
Speaker 1: at night. There's a lot of biological things that are
Speaker 1: linked to the moon. You know, a lot of our
Speaker 1: cycles are linked to the Moon for lots of reasons.
Speaker 1: So you get rid of the Moon, it could have
Speaker 1: difficult to predict impact on ecosystems.
Speaker 4: Mmmm.
Speaker 2: I think my question is how would you even destroy
Speaker 2: the moon?
Speaker 1: That's the engineering you man.
Speaker 2: Let's say you like obliterated. It wouldn't all those rocks
Speaker 2: fall on Earth and kills all of which I make
Speaker 2: climate change a small problem.
Speaker 1: Yes, definitely, you'd have to do this safely. I've actually
Speaker 1: read that novel Seven Eves where their moon is destroyed
Speaker 1: and rains down rocks on the Earth. Super interesting. You know,
Speaker 1: instead of destroying the Moon, you can just like push
Speaker 1: it out into space. You don't actually have to destroy it.
Speaker 2: Oh whoa, whoa. Interesting, Like just attach some rockets into
Speaker 2: it and have it just beIN out of control and
Speaker 2: shoot off Earth. Yeah, exactly what kind of energy would
Speaker 2: that take?
Speaker 1: A lot of energy if you want to do it quickly,
Speaker 1: if you want to do it gradually and you're happy
Speaker 1: to wait millions of years, then you know, low rocket
Speaker 1: thrust could do it. In fact, we're already losing the
Speaker 1: moon right, it gets further and further away from us
Speaker 1: by like a centimeter per year. So Kim could also
Speaker 1: just wait a few million years.
Speaker 2: And that will all be dead from other things. I
Speaker 2: wonder if you could take all this co two on Earth, right,
Speaker 2: take it to the moon, build some sort of engine
Speaker 2: with that, and then you solve two problems.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, there you go. There's the engineering you But
Speaker 1: you know, you're always creating other problems when you're disturbing
Speaker 1: the system, like the moon does again, even more than
Speaker 1: like helping predators find prey, it also stabilizes the Earth's spin.
Speaker 1: The Earth spins off axis right, so it's a little
Speaker 1: bit unstable. It wobbles a little bit, and they think
Speaker 1: that the moon helps stabilize that wobble, like absorbs some
Speaker 1: of that angular momentum. And without a big moon, the
Speaker 1: Earth's axis might tilt more and more until eventually it's
Speaker 1: tilted all the way over on its side the way
Speaker 1: Urinus is.
Speaker 2: WHOA. Well, in that case, maybe will come out with
Speaker 2: the idea to make a moon to tilt this back.
Speaker 2: I mean it, Kim seems to have pretty big ideas.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he'll solve one problem, create another one. Then solve
Speaker 1: that one create a bigger problem. I see where this
Speaker 1: is going.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, Well Kim has a second part of
Speaker 2: the question, which is if Kim manages to destroy the
Speaker 2: moon and save people's lives, but make them a hero
Speaker 2: or a villain?
Speaker 1: Yeah, and this question specifically for you?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I wonder why specifically for me, am I the
Speaker 2: ultimate judge of people's actions.
Speaker 1: I think Kim recognized that you have a deeper appreciation
Speaker 1: of like a comic book superhero lore.
Speaker 2: Oh, I see, I see interesting. Interesting. I guess it
Speaker 2: depends on several things. Does Kim have a doctorate to
Speaker 2: be you know, most villains are called doctor something?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 1: Interesting?
Speaker 2: Does Kim wear a cape and a hood? That makes
Speaker 2: a big difference. Also, yeah, we'll get that to Kim's
Speaker 2: PR department right away. Well, I think it depends maybe
Speaker 2: on the ultimate effect of Kim's actions. You know, maybe
Speaker 2: Kim will say millions of lives now, but in the
Speaker 2: long run, make the earth the worst place to live.
Speaker 2: M interesting, in which case you'd be like a tragic hero.
Speaker 1: So we're responsible for the unintended consequences of our.
Speaker 2: Actions, I'm saying, and we would all suffer from the
Speaker 2: unintended consequences of Kim's actions.
Speaker 1: Well, if this podcast is attracting aliens to Earth and
Speaker 1: they come and they kill us, all, are we then villains?
Speaker 2: Only? That was your intent all along.
Speaker 1: Daniel, I'm going in no comment on that one.
Speaker 2: Sounds like a yes.
Speaker 1: No comment to that as well.
Speaker 2: That's what a super villain would say.
Speaker 1: Supervillain has a super team of lawyers, and that's what
Speaker 1: they advise.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, superheroes don't have lawyers. They're honest and forth right.
Speaker 1: There you go, Kim, So if you have a lawyer,
Speaker 1: you're a villain.
Speaker 2: Yeah, although Kim has been pretty forthright about their plans,
Speaker 2: so maybe I'm very confused.
Speaker 1: I'm very confused ethically here. Yes, I'm hoping for hero
Speaker 1: I'm pushing for Hero in this one. Yeah.
Speaker 2: All right, Well we're all cheering for you, Kim and
Speaker 2: your plan to destroy the moon. Maybe it'd be easier
Speaker 2: if we just cut carbon dioxide emissions. Yeah, it sounds
Speaker 2: like a like an easier path here. All right. Well,
Speaker 2: that's the answer for Kim, and I think that means
Speaker 2: that we've answered all the questions.
Speaker 1: Stick, that's right, we have, and we love your questions.
Speaker 1: We love thinking about them. We love talking about them,
Speaker 1: we love answering them. If you have questions about how
Speaker 1: the universe works and you want to hear us talking
Speaker 1: about them, please write to me two questions at Danieljorge
Speaker 1: dot com.
Speaker 2: Yeah, whichever question you sent in, Daniel will give you
Speaker 2: an A and a banana covered in chocolate. Yes, digital
Speaker 2: frozen banana covered in chocolate.
Speaker 1: Covered in digital chocolate.
Speaker 2: All right, Well, we hope you enjoyed that. Thanks for
Speaker 2: joining us, See you next time.
Speaker 1: For more science and curiosity, come find us on social media,
Speaker 1: where we answer questions and post videos. We're on Twitter,
Speaker 1: disc work in, and now TikTok. Thanks for listening, and
Speaker 1: remember that Daniel and Jorge Explain the Universe is a
Speaker 1: production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows.