WEBVTT - Listener Questions #5

0:00:06.040 --> 0:00:10.080
<v Speaker 1>Are black holes actually black? Is life always built on

0:00:10.119 --> 0:00:11.040
<v Speaker 1>a carbon stack?

0:00:11.280 --> 0:00:14.360
<v Speaker 2>Can one star make another explode? What happens if you

0:00:14.440 --> 0:00:15.600
<v Speaker 2>lick an electrode?

0:00:15.720 --> 0:00:19.200
<v Speaker 1>Would biology beat physics in a fair fight? Why is

0:00:19.280 --> 0:00:20.760
<v Speaker 1>dark chocolate better than white?

0:00:20.960 --> 0:00:25.440
<v Speaker 2>Hawking predicted that black holes glow? What makes a supernova blow?

0:00:25.800 --> 0:00:31.480
<v Speaker 1>Biology, physics, archaeology, forestry, really anything other than chemistry?

0:00:31.640 --> 0:00:34.600
<v Speaker 2>What diseases do you get from your cat? Well, we'll

0:00:34.640 --> 0:00:36.040
<v Speaker 2>find the answers to all that.

0:00:36.600 --> 0:00:39.519
<v Speaker 1>Whatever questions keep you up at night, Daniel and Kelly's

0:00:39.520 --> 0:00:42.920
<v Speaker 1>answer will make it right. Welcome to another Listener Questions

0:00:42.960 --> 0:01:00.640
<v Speaker 1>episode on Daniel and Kelly's Extraordinary Universe. Hello, Kelly Weener

0:01:00.720 --> 0:01:04.600
<v Speaker 1>Spin I'm a parasitologist, and today we're talking about chemistry.

0:01:05.959 --> 0:01:09.240
<v Speaker 2>Hi, I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist because I don't

0:01:09.280 --> 0:01:11.600
<v Speaker 2>like chemistry. So what am I even doing here today?

0:01:12.040 --> 0:01:14.520
<v Speaker 1>Well, so, Daniel, my question for you today is why

0:01:14.640 --> 0:01:16.120
<v Speaker 1>is chemistry the worst science?

0:01:17.319 --> 0:01:20.679
<v Speaker 2>How much time do you have, Kelly.

0:01:20.240 --> 0:01:21.560
<v Speaker 1>I've did, We've got an hour.

0:01:22.200 --> 0:01:25.959
<v Speaker 2>No, chemistry is amazing because it's the closest thing we

0:01:26.080 --> 0:01:29.600
<v Speaker 2>have to explaining magic, like the things that you can

0:01:29.640 --> 0:01:33.600
<v Speaker 2>see happen with your own eyes. You know, seeing a

0:01:33.640 --> 0:01:35.800
<v Speaker 2>solid turn into a liquid turn into a gas is

0:01:35.920 --> 0:01:37.800
<v Speaker 2>kind of incredible, and the fact that we can take

0:01:37.840 --> 0:01:41.600
<v Speaker 2>that apart and understand it microscopically is amazing. And it's

0:01:41.600 --> 0:01:45.440
<v Speaker 2>so much more concrete than particle physics or even astrophysics sometimes.

0:01:45.440 --> 0:01:47.480
<v Speaker 2>So I have a lot of respect for the relevance

0:01:47.520 --> 0:01:51.880
<v Speaker 2>of chemistry, but I really struggle with the complexity of it,

0:01:52.040 --> 0:01:54.960
<v Speaker 2>Like there's so many different rules to apply in different

0:01:55.000 --> 0:01:58.240
<v Speaker 2>situations and a weeks to remember all the exceptions, and

0:01:58.280 --> 0:02:01.080
<v Speaker 2>this electron and that electron, and it doesn't have the

0:02:01.120 --> 0:02:04.200
<v Speaker 2>simplicity that I like in particle physics. But you know, hey,

0:02:04.480 --> 0:02:08.040
<v Speaker 2>that's purely a subjective preference, right, And I'm really glad

0:02:08.080 --> 0:02:10.520
<v Speaker 2>that there's different kinds of science for different kinds of folks,

0:02:10.880 --> 0:02:12.800
<v Speaker 2>so we get all the fun different kinds of sciences

0:02:12.800 --> 0:02:14.160
<v Speaker 2>happening here on our planet.

0:02:14.280 --> 0:02:17.040
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, no, I agree, and I'm joking. My senior honors

0:02:17.080 --> 0:02:20.160
<v Speaker 1>research project was in organic chemistry. I'm minored in chemistry,

0:02:20.639 --> 0:02:23.160
<v Speaker 1>but man, it was hard taking oakem over the summer

0:02:23.200 --> 0:02:26.200
<v Speaker 1>because I'm not good at visualizing things in three D

0:02:26.440 --> 0:02:29.160
<v Speaker 1>and seeing those reactions happen in my head is really hard.

0:02:29.520 --> 0:02:31.320
<v Speaker 1>But I got lucky, so I took it over the summer,

0:02:31.360 --> 0:02:33.920
<v Speaker 1>and it was like four hours of lecture and then

0:02:33.960 --> 0:02:36.800
<v Speaker 1>two hours of lab like every day of the week.

0:02:36.840 --> 0:02:39.200
<v Speaker 1>It was intense. I had a group of friends. I

0:02:39.240 --> 0:02:41.760
<v Speaker 1>was one of six, and we called ourselves the Benzene

0:02:41.840 --> 0:02:44.560
<v Speaker 1>Ring because there's six carbons and a benzene ring.

0:02:44.800 --> 0:02:46.200
<v Speaker 2>I got a chemistry joke look at that.

0:02:47.080 --> 0:02:49.720
<v Speaker 1>And we would pull all nighters on Thursday nights to

0:02:49.760 --> 0:02:52.799
<v Speaker 1>study for the Friday exams. And I will always think

0:02:52.800 --> 0:02:54.840
<v Speaker 1>fondly of those people who got me through like the

0:02:54.880 --> 0:02:57.880
<v Speaker 1>hardest summer of my life. But anyway, I like it.

0:02:57.919 --> 0:03:01.040
<v Speaker 1>I just find it way harder than just about anything

0:03:01.040 --> 0:03:03.120
<v Speaker 1>else I have to think of. But you know, I

0:03:03.200 --> 0:03:06.040
<v Speaker 1>take a lot of medications that I'm sure would not

0:03:06.280 --> 0:03:08.800
<v Speaker 1>be around but for the miracle of chemistry.

0:03:08.960 --> 0:03:11.880
<v Speaker 2>Exactly. I'm ever so grateful for chemistry. And though I

0:03:11.880 --> 0:03:14.320
<v Speaker 2>take every opportunity to make fun of chemistry, I also

0:03:14.320 --> 0:03:16.040
<v Speaker 2>want to make sure people out there understand that I

0:03:16.040 --> 0:03:17.680
<v Speaker 2>have a lot of respect for it, of course as

0:03:17.720 --> 0:03:19.720
<v Speaker 2>a science. And I will say that there are a

0:03:19.760 --> 0:03:23.680
<v Speaker 2>few listeners who are chemistry professors who write in and say,

0:03:23.760 --> 0:03:25.600
<v Speaker 2>don't worry keep joking about chemistry.

0:03:25.600 --> 0:03:29.080
<v Speaker 1>It makes me laugh so good. Yes, I joke about

0:03:29.080 --> 0:03:30.959
<v Speaker 1>it the same way I joke about a sibling, where

0:03:31.000 --> 0:03:33.040
<v Speaker 1>it's like you love them, you're picking fun at them.

0:03:33.120 --> 0:03:35.200
<v Speaker 1>If somebody else does it, you get a little defensive.

0:03:35.720 --> 0:03:38.520
<v Speaker 1>But yes, no, I love chemistry. It's just man, My

0:03:38.520 --> 0:03:40.600
<v Speaker 1>brain was not made for chemistry, but I'm so glad

0:03:40.640 --> 0:03:41.840
<v Speaker 1>other people's brains are.

0:03:41.880 --> 0:03:44.800
<v Speaker 2>And chemistry, like all kinds of science, inspire people to

0:03:44.920 --> 0:03:47.440
<v Speaker 2>ask questions, to wonder like how does this work? How

0:03:47.440 --> 0:03:49.640
<v Speaker 2>does this fit together? What are the rules for this?

0:03:50.120 --> 0:03:52.960
<v Speaker 2>And if you have questions about physics, or biology or

0:03:53.000 --> 0:03:56.960
<v Speaker 2>even chemistry, please write to us and ask your questions.

0:03:57.040 --> 0:04:00.120
<v Speaker 2>We would love to dig into it to understand the

0:04:00.160 --> 0:04:03.200
<v Speaker 2>benzene rings and everything else about the universe.

0:04:03.880 --> 0:04:06.280
<v Speaker 1>Well, bring another expert on to explain.

0:04:05.920 --> 0:04:09.280
<v Speaker 2>That, And today on the podcast we'll be doing just that,

0:04:09.480 --> 0:04:12.680
<v Speaker 2>answering questions from listeners. We have a lot of fun questions,

0:04:12.920 --> 0:04:17.080
<v Speaker 2>including questions about chain reactions in space, which is sort

0:04:17.080 --> 0:04:21.000
<v Speaker 2>of like superspace chemistry, a question about the chemistry of life,

0:04:21.240 --> 0:04:23.560
<v Speaker 2>and a question about what it all means and how

0:04:23.600 --> 0:04:26.040
<v Speaker 2>we know when to accept a scientific theory.

0:04:26.320 --> 0:04:29.799
<v Speaker 1>An amazing set of questions. Let's get started by hearing

0:04:29.880 --> 0:04:31.159
<v Speaker 1>what Tim wanted to know about.

0:04:32.000 --> 0:04:35.760
<v Speaker 3>I was just listening to your podcast about the brightest

0:04:35.760 --> 0:04:40.080
<v Speaker 3>thing ever seen in the universe, and it got me thinking,

0:04:40.880 --> 0:04:44.240
<v Speaker 3>is there's such a thing as an event where maybe

0:04:45.360 --> 0:04:50.160
<v Speaker 3>a chain reaction explosion in space? Maybe it's a binary

0:04:50.320 --> 0:04:55.200
<v Speaker 3>system supernova, would the other stargo nova as well? Or

0:04:56.360 --> 0:04:59.320
<v Speaker 3>instead of maybe just disintegrating planets, is it possible for

0:04:59.400 --> 0:05:00.960
<v Speaker 3>like the core of a planet to heat up so

0:05:01.000 --> 0:05:04.840
<v Speaker 3>that it explodes. Just piqued by curiosity and thought I'd

0:05:04.839 --> 0:05:05.440
<v Speaker 3>ask the question.

0:05:05.600 --> 0:05:08.479
<v Speaker 1>Thanks, WHOA all right? So I could imagine like looking

0:05:08.480 --> 0:05:11.480
<v Speaker 1>out at the stars at night and seeing like things

0:05:11.520 --> 0:05:14.240
<v Speaker 1>starting to explode in a chain reaction, and being like

0:05:14.720 --> 0:05:16.400
<v Speaker 1>I should have put my kids to bed before this

0:05:16.480 --> 0:05:18.560
<v Speaker 1>happened so they couldn't see it.

0:05:18.760 --> 0:05:18.960
<v Speaker 4>Yeah.

0:05:18.960 --> 0:05:21.120
<v Speaker 2>I was wondering what inspired this question. Maybe Tim was

0:05:21.160 --> 0:05:24.400
<v Speaker 2>worried that, like, if something goes wrong in one star

0:05:24.600 --> 0:05:27.360
<v Speaker 2>and ends cataclysmically, if you could set off a chain

0:05:27.400 --> 0:05:30.400
<v Speaker 2>reaction that like destroys the whole universe or something, or

0:05:30.480 --> 0:05:32.640
<v Speaker 2>if we're safe because every star is so far from

0:05:32.640 --> 0:05:35.280
<v Speaker 2>the other stars that their fates are all independent.

0:05:35.640 --> 0:05:37.120
<v Speaker 1>Sounds like Tim and I would have a good time

0:05:37.200 --> 0:05:39.160
<v Speaker 1>catastrophizing together out of Friday Night.

0:05:40.320 --> 0:05:42.200
<v Speaker 2>But it's a great question because it makes us think

0:05:42.200 --> 0:05:45.000
<v Speaker 2>about the relationship between one star and another and also

0:05:45.080 --> 0:05:48.240
<v Speaker 2>what it takes to like send a star to explode

0:05:48.320 --> 0:05:50.720
<v Speaker 2>or to disintegrate a planet. It is a fun question.

0:05:50.839 --> 0:05:53.320
<v Speaker 2>It sort of thinks about the whole universe as if

0:05:53.360 --> 0:05:55.080
<v Speaker 2>there were elements of a chemical reaction.

0:05:55.279 --> 0:05:58.120
<v Speaker 1>Right, that's true. But let's start with what's happening inside

0:05:58.120 --> 0:06:00.799
<v Speaker 1>of one star, and then we'll scale up to multiple stars.

0:06:01.200 --> 0:06:04.599
<v Speaker 1>You do have chain reactions happening in each star, right,

0:06:04.720 --> 0:06:05.160
<v Speaker 1>that's right.

0:06:05.240 --> 0:06:08.479
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, And a chain reaction essentially is a reaction which

0:06:08.520 --> 0:06:11.560
<v Speaker 2>sets the stage for itself, you know, which makes it

0:06:11.600 --> 0:06:13.960
<v Speaker 2>more likely for it to happen. And so like a

0:06:14.000 --> 0:06:17.480
<v Speaker 2>fire is a chain reaction because the combustion produces heat,

0:06:17.680 --> 0:06:21.400
<v Speaker 2>and that heat triggers more combustion, and so there's a

0:06:21.440 --> 0:06:25.000
<v Speaker 2>loop there, right, or a chain where one's link leads

0:06:25.000 --> 0:06:27.200
<v Speaker 2>to the next link. And as you say, inside a

0:06:27.240 --> 0:06:29.640
<v Speaker 2>star is a sort of a chain reaction because we

0:06:29.640 --> 0:06:33.360
<v Speaker 2>have fusion happening inside a star. You have gravity squeezing

0:06:33.400 --> 0:06:35.839
<v Speaker 2>this hot ball of hydrogen and maybe a little bit

0:06:35.880 --> 0:06:39.960
<v Speaker 2>of helium together, and it creates the conditions necessary for fusion,

0:06:40.279 --> 0:06:44.039
<v Speaker 2>heat and density, and then fusion itself produces more heat

0:06:44.320 --> 0:06:47.400
<v Speaker 2>and that increases the chances of fusion. The odds of

0:06:47.440 --> 0:06:50.520
<v Speaker 2>getting fusion grow very steeply with temperature. So the hotter

0:06:50.640 --> 0:06:53.760
<v Speaker 2>it is, you mean, the faster those particles are whizzing around,

0:06:54.160 --> 0:06:56.440
<v Speaker 2>the more likely you are to have fusion. So heat

0:06:56.600 --> 0:06:58.000
<v Speaker 2>makes fusion more possible.

0:06:58.279 --> 0:07:00.120
<v Speaker 1>Now we have to get to the really exciting part,

0:07:00.160 --> 0:07:03.880
<v Speaker 1>which is the explosions are explosions the results of all

0:07:03.920 --> 0:07:07.200
<v Speaker 1>of the fusion getting out of control. No, when do

0:07:07.240 --> 0:07:08.279
<v Speaker 1>we get the explosions?

0:07:08.400 --> 0:07:08.640
<v Speaker 4>Yeah?

0:07:08.760 --> 0:07:11.920
<v Speaker 2>Essentially you can think of a star during its normal lifetime,

0:07:12.000 --> 0:07:14.760
<v Speaker 2>during the millions or billions of years that it's burning

0:07:14.800 --> 0:07:18.200
<v Speaker 2>stably before it explodes, as in something of a balance.

0:07:18.320 --> 0:07:18.480
<v Speaker 4>Right.

0:07:18.480 --> 0:07:21.880
<v Speaker 2>You have gravity squeezing in, right, making things hot and dense,

0:07:22.160 --> 0:07:24.680
<v Speaker 2>and what it would like to do if it wasn't constrained,

0:07:24.960 --> 0:07:26.880
<v Speaker 2>is turned that into a black hole. Right. Gravity is

0:07:26.920 --> 0:07:29.440
<v Speaker 2>always just pushing and pushing and pushing, and if there's

0:07:29.520 --> 0:07:32.920
<v Speaker 2>nothing else but gravity, everything would collapse into a black hole.

0:07:33.480 --> 0:07:36.800
<v Speaker 2>But in the star you have lots of forces resisting gravity,

0:07:37.160 --> 0:07:39.560
<v Speaker 2>and when the star is burning, the primary force at

0:07:39.560 --> 0:07:42.920
<v Speaker 2>the frontier resistant gravity is fusion itself, which is pushing

0:07:43.040 --> 0:07:46.800
<v Speaker 2>out with radiation, right it produces all this heat, this energy,

0:07:47.080 --> 0:07:49.760
<v Speaker 2>it's pushing the star out. So fusion is pushing the

0:07:49.760 --> 0:07:52.480
<v Speaker 2>star out. Gravity is pushing the star back in, and

0:07:52.520 --> 0:07:55.440
<v Speaker 2>there's a balance there, and if you upset that balance,

0:07:55.680 --> 0:07:59.320
<v Speaker 2>then yes, the star can go kaboom. And there's basically

0:07:59.360 --> 0:08:02.200
<v Speaker 2>two ways for the star to go supernova. There's the

0:08:02.280 --> 0:08:06.080
<v Speaker 2>core collapse supernova and then there's the special fancy type

0:08:06.160 --> 0:08:09.440
<v Speaker 2>one A supernova, and the core collapse is the one

0:08:09.480 --> 0:08:11.800
<v Speaker 2>that we mostly think about. This is like the sort

0:08:11.800 --> 0:08:15.160
<v Speaker 2>of vanilla supernova. What happens is the fusion is doing

0:08:15.160 --> 0:08:18.120
<v Speaker 2>its job. It's turning hydrogen into helium, and then if

0:08:18.120 --> 0:08:20.760
<v Speaker 2>it's hot enough, it's turning helium into carbon, and if

0:08:20.760 --> 0:08:23.160
<v Speaker 2>it's hot enough, it's turning that carbon into neon and

0:08:23.360 --> 0:08:25.960
<v Speaker 2>oxygen and all sorts of heavier stuff all the way

0:08:26.040 --> 0:08:30.440
<v Speaker 2>up to iron. But fusing those heavier elements requires more temperature,

0:08:30.520 --> 0:08:33.280
<v Speaker 2>so a star might not be hot enough to fuse

0:08:33.320 --> 0:08:37.040
<v Speaker 2>a certain element. For example, right now, our star confuse hydrogen,

0:08:37.080 --> 0:08:39.720
<v Speaker 2>but it can't fuse helium. So what happens to the

0:08:39.760 --> 0:08:41.959
<v Speaker 2>helium or the core of our star it just sits

0:08:41.960 --> 0:08:44.920
<v Speaker 2>there and kind of gets in the way. It's like ash,

0:08:45.000 --> 0:08:47.720
<v Speaker 2>it's like the product of a fire. And if you

0:08:47.800 --> 0:08:51.040
<v Speaker 2>have too much of that without climbing over that temperature

0:08:51.080 --> 0:08:53.960
<v Speaker 2>threshold where you can burn it, also it starts to

0:08:54.000 --> 0:08:57.040
<v Speaker 2>put the fire out. So smaller stars reach their hotest

0:08:57.040 --> 0:08:59.520
<v Speaker 2>temperature and can't burn something. So, for example, our star

0:08:59.559 --> 0:09:02.160
<v Speaker 2>can't burn helium. If the star was larger, it would

0:09:02.160 --> 0:09:04.000
<v Speaker 2>get hotter at its core and it would burn a

0:09:04.040 --> 0:09:06.720
<v Speaker 2>heavier element, or a heavier element, or an even heavier

0:09:06.760 --> 0:09:09.040
<v Speaker 2>element all the way up to iron. When you get

0:09:09.120 --> 0:09:12.360
<v Speaker 2>up to iron, no star can burn iron and produce

0:09:12.600 --> 0:09:16.160
<v Speaker 2>energy because when you fuse iron together, it actually costs energy.

0:09:16.200 --> 0:09:19.959
<v Speaker 2>It cools the star. So the short version of the

0:09:20.000 --> 0:09:23.320
<v Speaker 2>story is, at some point you've done so much fusion

0:09:23.520 --> 0:09:25.959
<v Speaker 2>and you've made something that you can no longer burn

0:09:26.040 --> 0:09:29.480
<v Speaker 2>that's interfering with your fusion, and so fusion is failing

0:09:29.559 --> 0:09:32.360
<v Speaker 2>and gravity starts to win, and the star starts to

0:09:32.400 --> 0:09:35.880
<v Speaker 2>collapse because remember the reason it wasn't collapsing was fusion

0:09:35.960 --> 0:09:39.840
<v Speaker 2>pushing out against gravity, and now you've knocked out those supports,

0:09:40.120 --> 0:09:45.400
<v Speaker 2>gravity wins, the star implodes, and that implosion then triggers

0:09:45.440 --> 0:09:48.160
<v Speaker 2>a moment when the star is hot enough to do

0:09:48.200 --> 0:09:51.719
<v Speaker 2>stuff like burn iron and make super heavy elements, and

0:09:51.760 --> 0:09:54.880
<v Speaker 2>that triggers the explosion, which is the supernova. So the

0:09:54.920 --> 0:09:58.040
<v Speaker 2>core collapse supernova comes when the core is not hot

0:09:58.160 --> 0:10:01.079
<v Speaker 2>enough to burn the ash that's left over, which then

0:10:01.080 --> 0:10:03.240
<v Speaker 2>triggers the collapse and then an explosion.

0:10:03.679 --> 0:10:06.319
<v Speaker 1>That was a great explanation. Okay, so you said our

0:10:06.600 --> 0:10:08.920
<v Speaker 1>sun is not hot enough to make iron, so we've

0:10:08.920 --> 0:10:11.440
<v Speaker 1>got a bunch of helium. Does it matter what form

0:10:11.520 --> 0:10:15.080
<v Speaker 1>the ash takes, they all explode no matter what kind

0:10:15.080 --> 0:10:16.760
<v Speaker 1>of ash is made, or do you get a different

0:10:16.800 --> 0:10:19.079
<v Speaker 1>result if the ash is helium versus if the ash

0:10:19.120 --> 0:10:20.240
<v Speaker 1>gets to the iron fase.

0:10:20.400 --> 0:10:22.960
<v Speaker 2>Yes, So not every star is going to go supernova, Like,

0:10:23.000 --> 0:10:25.440
<v Speaker 2>for example, our star is not going to go supernova.

0:10:25.520 --> 0:10:27.800
<v Speaker 2>It's not big enough. It's going to accumulate a lot

0:10:27.840 --> 0:10:30.160
<v Speaker 2>of helium in its core, and then near the very

0:10:30.400 --> 0:10:33.640
<v Speaker 2>end it's gonna have a brief moment like maybe minutes

0:10:33.840 --> 0:10:36.520
<v Speaker 2>in the billions year long life cycle of the star

0:10:36.880 --> 0:10:39.599
<v Speaker 2>where it can burn that helium and a helium flash

0:10:40.000 --> 0:10:42.440
<v Speaker 2>and make a little bit of heavier stuff, but it

0:10:42.440 --> 0:10:46.160
<v Speaker 2>doesn't have enough gravity to actually collapse. Fusion is gonna

0:10:46.160 --> 0:10:48.040
<v Speaker 2>happen in the outer layers because the core is going

0:10:48.120 --> 0:10:50.400
<v Speaker 2>to be cold helium, and then you're gonna have this

0:10:50.480 --> 0:10:53.000
<v Speaker 2>helium flash and it's gonna blow off those outer layers

0:10:53.000 --> 0:10:54.840
<v Speaker 2>and you're gonna be left with a white dwarf, which

0:10:54.880 --> 0:10:58.439
<v Speaker 2>is just a hot blob of stuff. It's not fusing anymore.

0:10:58.440 --> 0:11:01.240
<v Speaker 2>It's just like a big rock sitting there in space glowing,

0:11:01.960 --> 0:11:04.880
<v Speaker 2>just a white dwarf. If it were bigger, then it

0:11:04.880 --> 0:11:08.439
<v Speaker 2>would have enough gravity to actually collapse and cause a supernova.

0:11:08.600 --> 0:11:10.840
<v Speaker 2>So our star is not going to become a supernova

0:11:10.920 --> 0:11:15.480
<v Speaker 2>unless there is a route for white dwarfs to become supernova's.

0:11:15.720 --> 0:11:18.280
<v Speaker 2>White dwarfs are just hot stuff sitting there in space,

0:11:18.720 --> 0:11:21.920
<v Speaker 2>not fusing. Gravity's trying to squeeze them, but it's resisting

0:11:22.000 --> 0:11:24.200
<v Speaker 2>because of the chemical strength of the stuff. The same

0:11:24.240 --> 0:11:26.920
<v Speaker 2>reason why like the Earth doesn't collapse into a black hole.

0:11:26.920 --> 0:11:30.800
<v Speaker 2>It's got chemical strength supporting it. But if something comes

0:11:30.800 --> 0:11:34.560
<v Speaker 2>along and pours extra material onto the white dwarf, then

0:11:34.600 --> 0:11:37.520
<v Speaker 2>it can increase its gravity, and gravity can overcome that

0:11:37.640 --> 0:11:40.320
<v Speaker 2>strength and cause it to collapse and make a special

0:11:40.400 --> 0:11:43.079
<v Speaker 2>type one a supernova. This happens if you have a

0:11:43.080 --> 0:11:46.400
<v Speaker 2>white dwarf that has like a sister star nearby, and

0:11:46.440 --> 0:11:48.520
<v Speaker 2>it eats some of that sister star and then it

0:11:48.559 --> 0:11:52.480
<v Speaker 2>gets triggered into a supernova. So that's the second kind

0:11:52.520 --> 0:11:55.960
<v Speaker 2>of supernova. So our star could eventually have a Type

0:11:55.960 --> 0:11:57.600
<v Speaker 2>one a supernova, but it's not going to have a

0:11:57.600 --> 0:11:58.960
<v Speaker 2>core collapse supernova.

0:11:59.440 --> 0:12:02.840
<v Speaker 1>So already got into part of the answer then for

0:12:02.960 --> 0:12:05.880
<v Speaker 1>why you don't get chain reactions because some of the

0:12:05.960 --> 0:12:09.400
<v Speaker 1>stars in between can't explode. They're just not the right kind.

0:12:09.440 --> 0:12:12.320
<v Speaker 1>They're little, they don't have sisters they can eat. Why

0:12:12.320 --> 0:12:14.520
<v Speaker 1>do we always get to annibalism. I don't know, we do.

0:12:15.200 --> 0:12:17.319
<v Speaker 1>And so you can't get the chain reaction because there's

0:12:17.360 --> 0:12:19.720
<v Speaker 1>a lot of stars, you know, in the line that

0:12:19.800 --> 0:12:21.600
<v Speaker 1>are just not capable of exploding.

0:12:21.720 --> 0:12:23.520
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, you need the right kind of star. And so

0:12:23.600 --> 0:12:25.640
<v Speaker 2>the answer to this question is that it's very unlikely

0:12:25.720 --> 0:12:28.280
<v Speaker 2>to have lots of chain reactions, but it could be

0:12:28.320 --> 0:12:31.760
<v Speaker 2>possible if you set up the conditions just perfectly. And

0:12:31.800 --> 0:12:33.920
<v Speaker 2>I'm a big science fiction reader, and so when I

0:12:33.960 --> 0:12:37.400
<v Speaker 2>got this question from Tama, was reminded of this snippet

0:12:37.480 --> 0:12:40.240
<v Speaker 2>from a Laring Niven novel Ring World, And there's a

0:12:40.240 --> 0:12:42.199
<v Speaker 2>scene where they talk about how in the center of

0:12:42.200 --> 0:12:45.240
<v Speaker 2>the galaxy the stars are all packed together really really close.

0:12:45.720 --> 0:12:48.400
<v Speaker 2>One star goes nova, it releases a lot of heat

0:12:48.440 --> 0:12:51.480
<v Speaker 2>and gamma rays, and that heats of the neighboring stars

0:12:51.559 --> 0:12:53.720
<v Speaker 2>with then blow and it sets off a chain reaction.

0:12:53.840 --> 0:12:56.400
<v Speaker 2>So it's super cool idea that you could like have

0:12:56.440 --> 0:12:59.400
<v Speaker 2>this like set of fireworks going off in the galaxy.

0:13:00.000 --> 0:13:01.920
<v Speaker 2>In order to make this work, you really need exactly

0:13:01.920 --> 0:13:05.360
<v Speaker 2>the right conditions, and what he describes in Ring World

0:13:05.440 --> 0:13:08.440
<v Speaker 2>probably wouldn't happen the way he described it, because adding

0:13:08.480 --> 0:13:12.000
<v Speaker 2>heat to a star doesn't actually cause it to explode.

0:13:12.480 --> 0:13:15.199
<v Speaker 2>Remember we talked about core collapse supernova. The reason they

0:13:15.240 --> 0:13:18.160
<v Speaker 2>collapse is because they're not hot enough. They can no

0:13:18.200 --> 0:13:21.640
<v Speaker 2>longer do fusion to burn the ash that's at their core.

0:13:22.120 --> 0:13:25.160
<v Speaker 2>So adding heat to a star actually supports it actually

0:13:25.200 --> 0:13:28.880
<v Speaker 2>makes it more likely to live longer. It prevents its collapse.

0:13:28.880 --> 0:13:33.040
<v Speaker 2>It doesn't trigger its collapse. Right, These stars explode because

0:13:33.080 --> 0:13:35.560
<v Speaker 2>they no longer have fusion happening at their core.

0:13:36.120 --> 0:13:38.520
<v Speaker 1>Is that true? Even if the ash is iron like

0:13:38.600 --> 0:13:41.840
<v Speaker 1>the end of the process, even adding more heat won't help.

0:13:42.000 --> 0:13:44.920
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, exactly, because the process of fusing iron SAPs heat

0:13:44.960 --> 0:13:46.480
<v Speaker 2>from the core. So you have a bunch of iron

0:13:46.520 --> 0:13:48.839
<v Speaker 2>there and the stars trying to fuse it, but that

0:13:49.000 --> 0:13:52.240
<v Speaker 2>fusion process is gobbling the energy instead of creating energy.

0:13:52.240 --> 0:13:55.000
<v Speaker 2>It's like the opposite of a chain reaction. And if

0:13:55.000 --> 0:13:58.080
<v Speaker 2>you have an external source of heat that's fueling that,

0:13:58.080 --> 0:14:01.600
<v Speaker 2>that's providing that energy, then you can sustain the star longer.

0:14:02.240 --> 0:14:06.480
<v Speaker 2>So a core collapse supernova isn't triggered by external heat

0:14:06.559 --> 0:14:10.280
<v Speaker 2>like radiation from another star. But the other kind of supernova,

0:14:10.280 --> 0:14:13.880
<v Speaker 2>the type one A supernova, is triggered externally. Right, you

0:14:13.920 --> 0:14:16.960
<v Speaker 2>have a white dwarf which otherwise wasn't going to go supernova,

0:14:17.320 --> 0:14:19.800
<v Speaker 2>and you get a deposition of new material from some

0:14:20.000 --> 0:14:23.280
<v Speaker 2>neighboring star that does trigger it to go over this

0:14:23.360 --> 0:14:26.480
<v Speaker 2>threshold and then go supernova. And so I asked a

0:14:26.480 --> 0:14:29.600
<v Speaker 2>friend of mine, David Vartagnan, he's a scientist who studies

0:14:29.640 --> 0:14:32.800
<v Speaker 2>supernova's he's a Hubbele Einstein fellow at the Carnegie Observatories,

0:14:32.800 --> 0:14:36.800
<v Speaker 2>and he said, quote, this may be possible for thermonuclear supernova,

0:14:36.880 --> 0:14:39.800
<v Speaker 2>which requires some version of runaway nuclear chain reactions on

0:14:39.840 --> 0:14:43.280
<v Speaker 2>the stellar surface. It's possible to change this if situations

0:14:43.320 --> 0:14:46.280
<v Speaker 2>are just right. So the idea is that you have

0:14:46.480 --> 0:14:49.520
<v Speaker 2>like a series of these white dwarfs, and you add

0:14:49.560 --> 0:14:52.160
<v Speaker 2>material to one of them, it goes supernova and then

0:14:52.200 --> 0:14:55.960
<v Speaker 2>deposits material on the next nearby white dwarf, which causes

0:14:56.000 --> 0:14:58.560
<v Speaker 2>that to go supernova. Dot dot dot. You have a

0:14:58.640 --> 0:14:59.280
<v Speaker 2>chain reaction.

0:15:00.360 --> 0:15:01.880
<v Speaker 1>Do my kids have anything to worry about?

0:15:02.320 --> 0:15:04.960
<v Speaker 2>You know, your kids do not have anything to worry about.

0:15:05.120 --> 0:15:07.480
<v Speaker 2>But if you are designing a universe and you want

0:15:07.480 --> 0:15:10.440
<v Speaker 2>to see this happen, you might be able to arrange it.

0:15:10.800 --> 0:15:12.240
<v Speaker 2>So if your kids grow up to be god or

0:15:12.280 --> 0:15:15.040
<v Speaker 2>masters of their own domain, they could set up a

0:15:15.080 --> 0:15:17.680
<v Speaker 2>supernova chain reaction if they so desire.

0:15:18.080 --> 0:15:22.440
<v Speaker 1>Malevolent guns, not the nice ones. Also, d'Artagnan super cool

0:15:22.520 --> 0:15:25.440
<v Speaker 1>last name, like the polar opposite of Wiersmith. I guess

0:15:25.440 --> 0:15:28.960
<v Speaker 1>maybe it reminds me of d'Artagnan like the Three Musketeers. Okay,

0:15:29.440 --> 0:15:32.280
<v Speaker 1>on that note, let's get back in touch with Tim

0:15:32.400 --> 0:15:34.640
<v Speaker 1>and see if he feels like his question was answered.

0:15:34.800 --> 0:15:37.120
<v Speaker 2>Answer the awesome question, Tim, hope you like the answer.

0:15:37.600 --> 0:15:41.320
<v Speaker 3>Oh, thanks for answering my question. Danielle and Kelly, Yeah,

0:15:41.680 --> 0:15:45.960
<v Speaker 3>you answered it. I'm pretty excited to know that under

0:15:45.960 --> 0:15:49.120
<v Speaker 3>the right circumstances, it can happen, so that it's possible,

0:15:49.480 --> 0:15:50.920
<v Speaker 3>But it doesn't sound like we're going to have a

0:15:50.960 --> 0:15:55.360
<v Speaker 3>spectacular fireworks show up exploding stars in our night sky

0:15:55.440 --> 0:15:59.960
<v Speaker 3>anytime soon. So glad your kids are safe and thanks

0:16:00.040 --> 0:16:00.800
<v Speaker 3>to answering my question.

0:16:17.280 --> 0:16:20.280
<v Speaker 1>All right. So next we have a question from Julian

0:16:20.440 --> 0:16:24.400
<v Speaker 1>from our discord, Daniel, if somebody wants to play with

0:16:24.480 --> 0:16:26.520
<v Speaker 1>us on discord, where do they find the link to

0:16:26.560 --> 0:16:27.320
<v Speaker 1>our discord?

0:16:27.480 --> 0:16:31.000
<v Speaker 2>Go to our website www dot danieland Kelly dot org

0:16:31.040 --> 0:16:33.120
<v Speaker 2>and you'll see an invitation there to the discorder. You

0:16:33.160 --> 0:16:35.920
<v Speaker 2>can come and talk and ask questions and make silly

0:16:36.000 --> 0:16:36.760
<v Speaker 2>jokes and.

0:16:36.680 --> 0:16:40.360
<v Speaker 1>Be our friends. All right, So let's listen to a

0:16:40.480 --> 0:16:42.080
<v Speaker 1>question from a New Zealander.

0:16:42.480 --> 0:16:45.320
<v Speaker 5>Hi, Daniel and Kelly. I'm Julian from New Zealand, a

0:16:45.360 --> 0:16:48.440
<v Speaker 5>longtime fan of the pod. What I'm interested in hearing

0:16:48.600 --> 0:16:51.680
<v Speaker 5>is your opinion on the possibility of non carbon based life.

0:16:52.600 --> 0:16:56.040
<v Speaker 5>Given the practically infinite size of the universe, it seems

0:16:56.040 --> 0:16:58.800
<v Speaker 5>to me that we should consider other life chemistries as

0:16:58.920 --> 0:17:02.440
<v Speaker 5>probable rather than But I'm interested to hear your thoughts

0:17:02.440 --> 0:17:04.840
<v Speaker 5>on this and whether they would be any practical wife

0:17:04.840 --> 0:17:09.360
<v Speaker 5>for us to search for barmakers from other platforms. Thanks,

0:17:09.520 --> 0:17:11.120
<v Speaker 5>and keep up the great work. Bye.

0:17:11.480 --> 0:17:13.400
<v Speaker 2>I love this kind of question because it takes us

0:17:13.440 --> 0:17:16.000
<v Speaker 2>like out of the mindset that life on Earth is

0:17:16.000 --> 0:17:18.439
<v Speaker 2>the only way life can be. So I'm dying to

0:17:18.480 --> 0:17:19.879
<v Speaker 2>hear your thoughts about this, Kelly.

0:17:20.280 --> 0:17:22.560
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, well, so I was really excited when I got

0:17:22.560 --> 0:17:24.440
<v Speaker 1>this question because it had the word life in it,

0:17:24.880 --> 0:17:27.000
<v Speaker 1>and then as I dug a little farther in, I

0:17:27.080 --> 0:17:30.920
<v Speaker 1>realized this was a chemistry question, and I remain excited.

0:17:31.320 --> 0:17:33.240
<v Speaker 1>But here we go. Let's do this, all right. So

0:17:33.640 --> 0:17:37.760
<v Speaker 1>there's about ninety four naturally occurring elements on the periodic table,

0:17:37.920 --> 0:17:41.119
<v Speaker 1>but the scaffold for life seems to be made of

0:17:41.160 --> 0:17:44.000
<v Speaker 1>carbon in every case that we've ever looked at, So

0:17:44.600 --> 0:17:47.240
<v Speaker 1>why carbon and why not something else?

0:17:47.440 --> 0:17:49.960
<v Speaker 2>So there's ninety four naturally occurring elements. So you're talking

0:17:49.960 --> 0:17:52.639
<v Speaker 2>about basically the building blocks of life out there in

0:17:52.680 --> 0:17:56.159
<v Speaker 2>the universe. But if we're starting on a rocky planet,

0:17:56.200 --> 0:17:58.600
<v Speaker 2>I guess we're assuming that there's like a good chunk

0:17:58.960 --> 0:18:01.400
<v Speaker 2>of silica and carbon and this kind of stuff, because

0:18:01.400 --> 0:18:03.680
<v Speaker 2>that's what you need to make a rocky planet, right, yep,

0:18:03.720 --> 0:18:04.399
<v Speaker 2>all right, cool?

0:18:04.560 --> 0:18:07.760
<v Speaker 1>You said that the sun makes everything up to iron.

0:18:07.880 --> 0:18:10.200
<v Speaker 1>Is that right? Yeah, that's right, So we would expect

0:18:10.280 --> 0:18:13.199
<v Speaker 1>everything up to iron to be fairly plentiful in the universe,

0:18:13.280 --> 0:18:14.000
<v Speaker 1>Is that fair to say?

0:18:14.200 --> 0:18:17.040
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, although there's a fascinating distribution of which elements are

0:18:17.040 --> 0:18:19.560
<v Speaker 2>more common and which ones are less common, which involves

0:18:19.600 --> 0:18:22.360
<v Speaker 2>a lot of chemistry, but we'll dig into it one day.

0:18:23.600 --> 0:18:25.800
<v Speaker 1>So the three criteria to sort of like enter us

0:18:25.800 --> 0:18:30.879
<v Speaker 1>in here is one abundance. So you wouldn't expect nobellium

0:18:30.960 --> 0:18:32.760
<v Speaker 1>to be the backbone for life because there's not a

0:18:32.760 --> 0:18:35.040
<v Speaker 1>lot of it out there, But the more common things,

0:18:35.119 --> 0:18:37.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, they'd be easier for organic organisms to find

0:18:37.640 --> 0:18:39.800
<v Speaker 1>and incorporate into their bodies. And so what are some

0:18:39.880 --> 0:18:41.520
<v Speaker 1>of these common atoms?

0:18:41.800 --> 0:18:44.520
<v Speaker 2>So the universe is mostly hydrogen, you know, because we

0:18:44.560 --> 0:18:47.399
<v Speaker 2>started with hydrogen and stars have been making heavier stuff

0:18:47.440 --> 0:18:49.800
<v Speaker 2>for a while, but we're pretty early on in the

0:18:49.840 --> 0:18:53.160
<v Speaker 2>history of the universe, So mostly hydrogen. Like seventy four

0:18:53.200 --> 0:18:57.359
<v Speaker 2>percent of the universe by mass fraction is hydrogen, and

0:18:57.400 --> 0:18:59.479
<v Speaker 2>then a big chunk of it is helium, So like

0:18:59.520 --> 0:19:03.040
<v Speaker 2>twenty four percent, which is already like most of the universe,

0:19:03.080 --> 0:19:06.080
<v Speaker 2>you got seventy four percent plus twenty four percent leaves

0:19:06.119 --> 0:19:09.040
<v Speaker 2>only two percent of the universe is left. But the

0:19:09.040 --> 0:19:11.840
<v Speaker 2>next one is kind of a surprise. It's oxygen, right,

0:19:11.880 --> 0:19:14.840
<v Speaker 2>Oxygen is much more common than anything else that's not

0:19:14.960 --> 0:19:18.399
<v Speaker 2>hydrogen or helium. And then you got carbon and neon

0:19:18.600 --> 0:19:22.000
<v Speaker 2>and then iron, so those are the most common building

0:19:22.000 --> 0:19:23.080
<v Speaker 2>blocks in the universe.

0:19:23.320 --> 0:19:25.239
<v Speaker 1>Okay, all right, so let's go from there. So all right,

0:19:25.240 --> 0:19:28.119
<v Speaker 1>so abundance is criteria one. Yeah, so you need stuff

0:19:28.119 --> 0:19:30.000
<v Speaker 1>that's abundant, so we're not surprised to find out that

0:19:30.040 --> 0:19:32.439
<v Speaker 1>it's carbon, although carbon, as you're noted, is not as

0:19:32.480 --> 0:19:34.879
<v Speaker 1>abundant as things like hydrogen, but there's still plenty of

0:19:34.920 --> 0:19:37.920
<v Speaker 1>it on Earth for example. And then the next criteria

0:19:38.000 --> 0:19:40.480
<v Speaker 1>is that it needs to be versatile and able to

0:19:40.520 --> 0:19:44.439
<v Speaker 1>make a lot of complex molecules. So the proteins that

0:19:44.480 --> 0:19:47.320
<v Speaker 1>we have these are very complex, they fold up in

0:19:47.320 --> 0:19:49.520
<v Speaker 1>different ways, they're made up of lots of different kinds

0:19:49.560 --> 0:19:53.800
<v Speaker 1>of elements, and the signaling molecules that bacteria make, like

0:19:53.920 --> 0:19:57.639
<v Speaker 1>every biological organism has lots and lots of super complex

0:19:58.200 --> 0:20:00.400
<v Speaker 1>molecules that it uses to carry out all of its

0:20:00.480 --> 0:20:03.760
<v Speaker 1>various functions. So it's thought that ideally you would end

0:20:03.840 --> 0:20:06.520
<v Speaker 1>up with atoms that are able to bind with the

0:20:06.560 --> 0:20:09.919
<v Speaker 1>most stuff. And as we move our way across the

0:20:09.960 --> 0:20:12.919
<v Speaker 1>periodic table, moving across the columns, when you get to

0:20:12.960 --> 0:20:16.679
<v Speaker 1>the column that carbon is at the top of the

0:20:16.720 --> 0:20:19.600
<v Speaker 1>stuff in that column are able to bond with four

0:20:19.640 --> 0:20:22.160
<v Speaker 1>other things. And the reason for that is that they've

0:20:22.200 --> 0:20:25.720
<v Speaker 1>got Now we're getting into electron shells, and I totally

0:20:26.160 --> 0:20:28.840
<v Speaker 1>went down a like mental rabbit hole, being like, oh,

0:20:28.880 --> 0:20:31.199
<v Speaker 1>but electrons, they're not really like particles. Does it make

0:20:31.200 --> 0:20:33.040
<v Speaker 1>sense to think of them this way in shells anymore?

0:20:33.040 --> 0:20:35.680
<v Speaker 1>Because maybe their entire functions and let's not go down

0:20:35.720 --> 0:20:37.520
<v Speaker 1>that rabbit hole for today, or maybe we should.

0:20:39.280 --> 0:20:42.120
<v Speaker 2>No, In terms of bonds, I think it's totally reasonable

0:20:42.200 --> 0:20:45.560
<v Speaker 2>to count the number of electrons because even if electrons

0:20:45.600 --> 0:20:49.480
<v Speaker 2>are waves or particles or something else alien, they follow

0:20:49.480 --> 0:20:51.879
<v Speaker 2>the rules of quantum mechanics, which dictate how many you

0:20:51.920 --> 0:20:54.520
<v Speaker 2>can have in each energy level, and that's what determines

0:20:54.560 --> 0:20:56.600
<v Speaker 2>the whole structure of the periodic table. Right The reason

0:20:56.640 --> 0:20:59.879
<v Speaker 2>we put carbon and silicon and germanium and tin and

0:21:00.119 --> 0:21:02.960
<v Speaker 2>lead in the same column is that they all need

0:21:03.040 --> 0:21:06.480
<v Speaker 2>four electrons to complete a shell. And if all the

0:21:06.520 --> 0:21:08.919
<v Speaker 2>electrons are filled in the shell, then the atom doesn't

0:21:08.920 --> 0:21:11.320
<v Speaker 2>like to interact very much, is very happy. And so

0:21:11.359 --> 0:21:14.400
<v Speaker 2>carbon and silicon both need four electrons to complete their shell.

0:21:14.440 --> 0:21:16.359
<v Speaker 2>And so I think you're saying that's why they like

0:21:16.440 --> 0:21:18.000
<v Speaker 2>to interact with four things.

0:21:18.200 --> 0:21:20.960
<v Speaker 1>So they can interact with as many as four things,

0:21:21.080 --> 0:21:22.960
<v Speaker 1>or they can interact with fewer and have like double

0:21:23.000 --> 0:21:25.240
<v Speaker 1>bonds with one of those things, for example. But their

0:21:25.280 --> 0:21:29.239
<v Speaker 1>ability to interact with the maximum number of things that

0:21:29.280 --> 0:21:32.800
<v Speaker 1>you can get interactions with on the periodic table allows

0:21:32.840 --> 0:21:38.119
<v Speaker 1>them to form these super complicated molecules that are necessary

0:21:38.160 --> 0:21:39.159
<v Speaker 1>for complex life.

0:21:39.240 --> 0:21:41.240
<v Speaker 2>So can I ask you a naive chemistry question, like

0:21:41.280 --> 0:21:44.200
<v Speaker 2>I don't understand why carbon is in this situation where

0:21:44.240 --> 0:21:46.840
<v Speaker 2>it can make the most bonds. Like I get that

0:21:46.880 --> 0:21:50.439
<v Speaker 2>it has four valence electrons out of the octet and

0:21:50.480 --> 0:21:53.560
<v Speaker 2>so it needs four more. But then you got nitrogen,

0:21:54.000 --> 0:21:56.440
<v Speaker 2>it's got five. Why can't they use its five electrons?

0:21:56.480 --> 0:21:58.840
<v Speaker 2>Or you got boron it's only got three. It could

0:21:58.840 --> 0:22:01.880
<v Speaker 2>take five more electrons, So why can nothing make five bonds?

0:22:02.440 --> 0:22:07.320
<v Speaker 1>Well, good start, Okay, Nitrogen tends to bond with three

0:22:07.359 --> 0:22:09.920
<v Speaker 1>other things to fill its aid to get to eat,

0:22:10.000 --> 0:22:13.680
<v Speaker 1>whereas boron tends to donate it's three to other things

0:22:13.840 --> 0:22:16.640
<v Speaker 1>as opposed to bonding with five things. I see.

0:22:16.680 --> 0:22:18.680
<v Speaker 2>So carbon sits right there in the sweet spot out

0:22:18.680 --> 0:22:21.000
<v Speaker 2>of the octet. It's got four so it can make

0:22:21.040 --> 0:22:23.080
<v Speaker 2>four bonds. That's pretty cool.

0:22:23.240 --> 0:22:25.080
<v Speaker 1>Yes, And so it's in the position to be the

0:22:25.119 --> 0:22:28.000
<v Speaker 1>backbone four the most complicated kinds of molecules that you

0:22:28.040 --> 0:22:28.360
<v Speaker 1>can make.

0:22:28.640 --> 0:22:30.440
<v Speaker 2>I have another basic question, which is like why do

0:22:30.560 --> 0:22:34.080
<v Speaker 2>we call life carbon based? Like I get carbon is useful,

0:22:34.080 --> 0:22:35.880
<v Speaker 2>but like, why can't we just have a big mix

0:22:35.920 --> 0:22:38.840
<v Speaker 2>of different kinds of chemistries. Why does carbon have to

0:22:38.840 --> 0:22:41.560
<v Speaker 2>be in everything, in every part of life.

0:22:41.880 --> 0:22:43.480
<v Speaker 1>So I think part of why we end up with

0:22:43.520 --> 0:22:46.840
<v Speaker 1>a lot of carbon as the backbone to a lot

0:22:46.840 --> 0:22:50.720
<v Speaker 1>of this stuff is because carbon not only combined with

0:22:50.760 --> 0:22:53.280
<v Speaker 1>a lot of things, but it also forms really strong bonds,

0:22:53.280 --> 0:22:55.400
<v Speaker 1>so it's stable. The kind of molecules that it makes

0:22:55.440 --> 0:22:58.240
<v Speaker 1>are stable. So, for example, if you moved down the

0:22:58.320 --> 0:23:00.520
<v Speaker 1>column that has carbon to other things that are also

0:23:00.600 --> 0:23:05.359
<v Speaker 1>able to bond for things, silicon can also bond four things,

0:23:05.400 --> 0:23:09.399
<v Speaker 1>but that bonding is happening in an even farther out shell,

0:23:10.080 --> 0:23:12.439
<v Speaker 1>and because it's farther away from the nucleus, the bonds

0:23:12.440 --> 0:23:13.719
<v Speaker 1>that it forms are less strong.

0:23:13.920 --> 0:23:17.240
<v Speaker 2>You're saying that silicon is like carbon in the outermost

0:23:17.240 --> 0:23:20.639
<v Speaker 2>electron orbitals, but it's a more complex, heavier nucleus, so

0:23:20.640 --> 0:23:24.120
<v Speaker 2>it's got more electrons. So this outermost electron orbitals are

0:23:24.160 --> 0:23:27.400
<v Speaker 2>further from the core and they're not as tightly bound,

0:23:27.480 --> 0:23:29.280
<v Speaker 2>and so things are a little more loosey goosey.

0:23:29.560 --> 0:23:32.000
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. So carbon has two shells, an inner shell with

0:23:32.040 --> 0:23:34.199
<v Speaker 1>two electrons and then this outer shell with four and

0:23:34.200 --> 0:23:36.600
<v Speaker 1>then the ability to bond to four other things. And

0:23:36.640 --> 0:23:39.760
<v Speaker 1>then silicon has three shells, and so it's got you

0:23:39.880 --> 0:23:41.919
<v Speaker 1>two in the center, eight the one out from that,

0:23:42.080 --> 0:23:43.919
<v Speaker 1>and then it's got four in the outer one and

0:23:43.960 --> 0:23:47.240
<v Speaker 1>the ability to bind with four other things. But because

0:23:47.280 --> 0:23:49.920
<v Speaker 1>that shell where the binding is happening is farther away

0:23:49.960 --> 0:23:54.280
<v Speaker 1>from the nucleus, the bonds that it produces are weaker.

0:23:55.320 --> 0:23:58.520
<v Speaker 1>And so the thought is that when chemical reactions happen

0:23:58.600 --> 0:24:00.639
<v Speaker 1>a lot of times, what's happening is that one of

0:24:00.680 --> 0:24:04.800
<v Speaker 1>the things that bonds to for example, like a carbon backbone,

0:24:05.040 --> 0:24:06.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, gets sort of like pulled off when a

0:24:06.640 --> 0:24:10.359
<v Speaker 1>reaction happens. And when something gets pulled off, carbon is

0:24:10.400 --> 0:24:13.040
<v Speaker 1>strong enough that the backbone stays together and that molecule

0:24:13.040 --> 0:24:16.440
<v Speaker 1>stays complete. But when you've got silicone as the backbone,

0:24:16.520 --> 0:24:21.080
<v Speaker 1>when something breaks off as part of reaction, that process

0:24:21.119 --> 0:24:24.760
<v Speaker 1>of breaking off could also break the backbone of the silicon.

0:24:25.440 --> 0:24:27.800
<v Speaker 1>And so the idea is that carbon is not only

0:24:28.320 --> 0:24:31.399
<v Speaker 1>something that allows you to make super complex molecules, but

0:24:31.400 --> 0:24:34.680
<v Speaker 1>it's also strong enough to allow reactions to happen. I

0:24:34.760 --> 0:24:37.000
<v Speaker 1>think if you had anything else that was like creating

0:24:37.000 --> 0:24:41.280
<v Speaker 1>the backbone for these complicated molecules, the thought is they

0:24:41.280 --> 0:24:43.760
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't be complex enough or they wouldn't be strong enough

0:24:43.800 --> 0:24:44.840
<v Speaker 1>to survive reactions.

0:24:45.480 --> 0:24:48.000
<v Speaker 2>So you need some sort of backbone to hold things

0:24:48.040 --> 0:24:51.119
<v Speaker 2>together while you have this sort of interaction, these chemistry

0:24:51.160 --> 0:24:52.000
<v Speaker 2>of life happening.

0:24:52.200 --> 0:24:54.520
<v Speaker 1>Yes. Yes, And so through this conversation we've hit on

0:24:54.560 --> 0:24:59.119
<v Speaker 1>the three criteria the abundance, versatility, and complexity, which is

0:24:59.160 --> 0:25:03.120
<v Speaker 1>those bonding sites, and then the stability when reactions are happening.

0:25:03.440 --> 0:25:05.119
<v Speaker 1>So those are the three things that we think are

0:25:05.160 --> 0:25:09.080
<v Speaker 1>most important. We've talked about why silicon is thought to

0:25:09.280 --> 0:25:12.359
<v Speaker 1>maybe not be ideal for these reactions, so you'll often

0:25:12.400 --> 0:25:15.040
<v Speaker 1>hear discussions about like, well, could life be silicon based?

0:25:15.560 --> 0:25:17.960
<v Speaker 1>And one reason we think that's unlikely is because you

0:25:18.040 --> 0:25:20.480
<v Speaker 1>might get a lot more breakdown of chemical structures when

0:25:20.520 --> 0:25:24.240
<v Speaker 1>reactions happen. But another thought, water is really important for

0:25:24.280 --> 0:25:27.040
<v Speaker 1>a lot of biological processes. In fact, when we look

0:25:27.080 --> 0:25:28.960
<v Speaker 1>to see where we think life is in the universe,

0:25:29.000 --> 0:25:31.560
<v Speaker 1>one of the criteria we use is whether or not

0:25:31.560 --> 0:25:34.720
<v Speaker 1>there's water there. Water is a helpful solvent, which means

0:25:34.720 --> 0:25:37.879
<v Speaker 1>it helps move around like nutrients and molecules and stuff

0:25:37.920 --> 0:25:43.600
<v Speaker 1>like that. But when carbon binds with water, you make

0:25:43.920 --> 0:25:46.520
<v Speaker 1>carbon dioxide, which is like a gas that we can

0:25:46.520 --> 0:25:50.600
<v Speaker 1>breathe out. But when silicon binds with water, you make

0:25:50.640 --> 0:25:54.479
<v Speaker 1>silicon dioxide, which is sand. And so it's thought that

0:25:54.560 --> 0:25:57.280
<v Speaker 1>sand is probably not something that's like conducive to the

0:25:57.320 --> 0:26:02.480
<v Speaker 1>creation of life, And so that is another proposed reason

0:26:02.520 --> 0:26:04.959
<v Speaker 1>why we don't see silicon based life forms, although some

0:26:05.040 --> 0:26:07.679
<v Speaker 1>labs have managed to do like directed evolution studies to

0:26:07.720 --> 0:26:11.280
<v Speaker 1>get more silicon into molecules. But I feel like that's

0:26:11.400 --> 0:26:15.160
<v Speaker 1>very different than a molecule as part of a living

0:26:15.200 --> 0:26:17.280
<v Speaker 1>being that has no carbon at all.

0:26:17.880 --> 0:26:19.560
<v Speaker 2>So that all does make sense to me as an

0:26:19.600 --> 0:26:22.680
<v Speaker 2>explanation for like why the kind of life that we

0:26:22.880 --> 0:26:28.240
<v Speaker 2>have needs carbon and why having even silicon wouldn't make

0:26:28.280 --> 0:26:31.200
<v Speaker 2>the kind of life we have possible, But doesn't convince

0:26:31.280 --> 0:26:34.200
<v Speaker 2>me that a totally different kind of life wouldn't be possible.

0:26:34.440 --> 0:26:36.320
<v Speaker 2>I mean, if we sat here before there was any life,

0:26:36.359 --> 0:26:39.440
<v Speaker 2>and we were just like looking at atoms and speculating, like, hey,

0:26:39.480 --> 0:26:42.600
<v Speaker 2>what could be complicated enough to have weird things like

0:26:42.680 --> 0:26:44.159
<v Speaker 2>life arise? I don't know that we would have been

0:26:44.160 --> 0:26:47.399
<v Speaker 2>able to predict like carbon is useful. There's a lot

0:26:47.400 --> 0:26:50.000
<v Speaker 2>of complexity in the universe that we failed to predict.

0:26:50.200 --> 0:26:53.679
<v Speaker 2>So isn't it possible that silicon is complex enough to

0:26:53.720 --> 0:26:56.560
<v Speaker 2>do something else which could be the basis of life,

0:26:56.600 --> 0:26:59.639
<v Speaker 2>even if it's like very different and maybe even pretty sandy?

0:27:00.720 --> 0:27:02.480
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I think maybe. And also, you know, if you

0:27:02.560 --> 0:27:06.199
<v Speaker 1>move over to nitrogen where you've got three binding sites

0:27:06.320 --> 0:27:10.280
<v Speaker 1>instead of four, it's not immediately obvious to me that

0:27:10.720 --> 0:27:14.320
<v Speaker 1>you couldn't have simple life with a little bit less complexity,

0:27:14.320 --> 0:27:16.800
<v Speaker 1>and that you need four and nitrogen wouldn't be enough.

0:27:16.800 --> 0:27:18.920
<v Speaker 1>And so I did find myself while I was reading

0:27:18.920 --> 0:27:21.840
<v Speaker 1>through these explanations wondering if we are to some extent

0:27:22.440 --> 0:27:24.560
<v Speaker 1>a little bit too constrained in our thinking based on

0:27:24.600 --> 0:27:26.919
<v Speaker 1>the life that we observe here. But you know, on

0:27:26.960 --> 0:27:29.440
<v Speaker 1>the other hand, you know, maybe you would have expected

0:27:29.440 --> 0:27:33.040
<v Speaker 1>to have seen a couple examples of like nitrogenous life

0:27:33.440 --> 0:27:34.520
<v Speaker 1>on this planet.

0:27:34.320 --> 0:27:34.760
<v Speaker 2>Here on Earth.

0:27:34.800 --> 0:27:37.080
<v Speaker 1>You mean, yeah, yeah, here on Earth, but we don't

0:27:37.119 --> 0:27:39.640
<v Speaker 1>see that. Yeah, so I don't know, but different temperature

0:27:39.760 --> 0:27:42.920
<v Speaker 1>or pressure conditions might make nitrogen or silicon based life

0:27:42.960 --> 0:27:46.399
<v Speaker 1>a little bit more likely to exist. But this is

0:27:46.440 --> 0:27:49.240
<v Speaker 1>their current I think best understanding of why it's carbon

0:27:49.280 --> 0:27:52.680
<v Speaker 1>based based on our end of one of life forms

0:27:52.680 --> 0:27:54.160
<v Speaker 1>that happen to have carbon backbones.

0:27:54.359 --> 0:27:55.960
<v Speaker 2>Well, why do you think it is that we have

0:27:56.200 --> 0:27:58.760
<v Speaker 2>one kind of life here on Earth? Like all life

0:27:59.200 --> 0:28:02.000
<v Speaker 2>shares the same basic biochemistry and we think there's probably

0:28:02.040 --> 0:28:04.560
<v Speaker 2>a single common ancestor why don't we live on a

0:28:04.600 --> 0:28:09.760
<v Speaker 2>planet where life arose independently multiple times and coexists. Is

0:28:09.760 --> 0:28:11.560
<v Speaker 2>if for the same reason that we have like one

0:28:11.600 --> 0:28:14.440
<v Speaker 2>species of humans because we kill all the other ones

0:28:14.520 --> 0:28:16.919
<v Speaker 2>and we can't tolerate it, or do you think it

0:28:17.040 --> 0:28:17.800
<v Speaker 2>just arose once?

0:28:18.200 --> 0:28:19.119
<v Speaker 1>I really don't know.

0:28:19.280 --> 0:28:21.040
<v Speaker 2>I need answers, Kelly, I need answers.

0:28:21.800 --> 0:28:24.240
<v Speaker 1>I don't think anyone knows. Calm down, Daniel, You know

0:28:24.320 --> 0:28:26.919
<v Speaker 1>that on this podcast we usually don't have the answers.

0:28:26.640 --> 0:28:28.080
<v Speaker 2>I know, but it's so frustrating.

0:28:29.119 --> 0:28:32.040
<v Speaker 1>It is surprising to me that like in one ocean,

0:28:32.119 --> 0:28:34.840
<v Speaker 1>we didn't end up with, you know, in one puddle

0:28:35.320 --> 0:28:37.680
<v Speaker 1>life arose, and then in another puddle on the other

0:28:37.720 --> 0:28:41.160
<v Speaker 1>side of the planet, life arose, and we still see

0:28:41.200 --> 0:28:43.640
<v Speaker 1>signs of both of those. I don't know. I don't know.

0:28:44.120 --> 0:28:45.440
<v Speaker 1>I'd love to know the answer, but I don't.

0:28:45.520 --> 0:28:47.720
<v Speaker 2>It's so frustrating to only have this one example and

0:28:47.760 --> 0:28:50.479
<v Speaker 2>to not know how to generalize and what's typical and

0:28:50.520 --> 0:28:54.160
<v Speaker 2>what's weird. So it'd be fun to find even just

0:28:54.200 --> 0:28:57.479
<v Speaker 2>one more example of life somewhere else, and maybe on

0:28:57.520 --> 0:28:59.520
<v Speaker 2>that planet there's several different kinds of life and several

0:28:59.560 --> 0:29:03.160
<v Speaker 2>different kinds of chemistries of that life would be amazing.

0:29:03.600 --> 0:29:06.040
<v Speaker 1>That would be absolutely amazing, And it would blow my

0:29:06.080 --> 0:29:08.160
<v Speaker 1>mind if we found, like, for example, bacteria in the

0:29:08.240 --> 0:29:11.480
<v Speaker 1>lava tubes or underground on Mars, and if it ended

0:29:11.560 --> 0:29:13.720
<v Speaker 1>up that that was like an independent evolution of life.

0:29:14.240 --> 0:29:17.280
<v Speaker 1>I feel like that would be the coolest discovery of

0:29:17.320 --> 0:29:18.280
<v Speaker 1>my lifetime for sure.

0:29:18.360 --> 0:29:20.760
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, And I think this is a really healthy way

0:29:20.800 --> 0:29:23.440
<v Speaker 2>to think, Like, let's look at the example we have,

0:29:23.560 --> 0:29:26.719
<v Speaker 2>and let's wonder which of these things might be different.

0:29:26.760 --> 0:29:28.640
<v Speaker 2>It's a good way to like try to think outside

0:29:28.680 --> 0:29:30.840
<v Speaker 2>the box, even though it's really hard for us to

0:29:30.880 --> 0:29:32.840
<v Speaker 2>imagine what else could be out there. And I'm sure

0:29:32.960 --> 0:29:36.880
<v Speaker 2>that we're failing to describe the complexity of non Earth life,

0:29:36.880 --> 0:29:38.560
<v Speaker 2>but at least we're making the effort right where like

0:29:38.840 --> 0:29:41.680
<v Speaker 2>trying to understand what could be outside the box of

0:29:41.720 --> 0:29:44.800
<v Speaker 2>our thinking. How you mentioned briefly how water is super

0:29:44.840 --> 0:29:47.240
<v Speaker 2>important for life on Earth, but then I think you

0:29:47.280 --> 0:29:49.560
<v Speaker 2>said something about how it's maybe not necessary, how you

0:29:49.600 --> 0:29:52.640
<v Speaker 2>could have life without water, what could replace water.

0:29:52.960 --> 0:29:56.280
<v Speaker 1>So there's lakes of liquid ethane and methane on Titan,

0:29:56.320 --> 0:29:59.400
<v Speaker 1>which is a moon of Saturn, and it's possible that

0:29:59.440 --> 0:30:01.840
<v Speaker 1>these could be used as solvents to sort of move

0:30:01.960 --> 0:30:05.360
<v Speaker 1>stuff around a living organism instead of water if you

0:30:05.400 --> 0:30:08.280
<v Speaker 1>don't have water present, And maybe this could create different

0:30:08.320 --> 0:30:10.840
<v Speaker 1>kinds of life forms or create the sort of conditions

0:30:10.880 --> 0:30:13.959
<v Speaker 1>necessary for something else to become the backbone of life

0:30:14.240 --> 0:30:16.600
<v Speaker 1>instead of carbon. But I think we're a little bit

0:30:16.920 --> 0:30:20.560
<v Speaker 1>far away from sending probes out there to deliver samples back.

0:30:20.600 --> 0:30:25.160
<v Speaker 2>But fun NASA, that's right, We're doing as much as

0:30:25.200 --> 0:30:27.120
<v Speaker 2>we can to try to think our way outside the box.

0:30:27.160 --> 0:30:29.520
<v Speaker 2>But really what we got to do is actually climb

0:30:29.600 --> 0:30:32.520
<v Speaker 2>outside the box, go to these crazy places in our

0:30:32.560 --> 0:30:36.280
<v Speaker 2>own backyard where there could be other examples of life

0:30:36.560 --> 0:30:39.280
<v Speaker 2>right there waiting for us to discover them. And the

0:30:39.320 --> 0:30:42.480
<v Speaker 2>crazy thing is that all it does is cost money, right,

0:30:42.520 --> 0:30:45.240
<v Speaker 2>and we spend more money on an aircraft carrier than

0:30:45.280 --> 0:30:48.360
<v Speaker 2>it would cost to discover life on Titan. So let's

0:30:48.400 --> 0:30:50.400
<v Speaker 2>go do it, people, Let's go buy some knowledge.

0:30:50.520 --> 0:30:55.240
<v Speaker 1>That's like a good investment to me to ching. All right, Julian,

0:30:55.800 --> 0:31:00.160
<v Speaker 1>I did my best with the chemistry question, but if

0:31:00.200 --> 0:31:02.840
<v Speaker 1>you don't feel like you've got a sufficient answer, let

0:31:02.920 --> 0:31:04.960
<v Speaker 1>us know, and maybe we'll have to pull in a

0:31:05.040 --> 0:31:07.920
<v Speaker 1>chemist to help us answer this question. But I'm looking

0:31:07.960 --> 0:31:09.200
<v Speaker 1>forward to hearing what you had to.

0:31:09.120 --> 0:31:12.280
<v Speaker 5>Say, Danielle and Kelly fist Off. I was a little

0:31:12.280 --> 0:31:14.400
<v Speaker 5>bit worried that I might get kicked off the Discord

0:31:14.480 --> 0:31:18.280
<v Speaker 5>channel for asking such a chemistry heavy question, but it

0:31:18.400 --> 0:31:21.520
<v Speaker 5>was really inspiring to you guys looking at it and

0:31:22.200 --> 0:31:25.320
<v Speaker 5>tackling a subject where you're not necessarily the most comfortable,

0:31:25.360 --> 0:31:28.000
<v Speaker 5>and so thanks very much, and that does definitely answer

0:31:28.000 --> 0:31:57.120
<v Speaker 5>my question. Thanks again, Yes, bye.

0:31:47.000 --> 0:31:49.600
<v Speaker 1>All right, Now for something a little more philosophical.

0:31:50.280 --> 0:31:53.080
<v Speaker 4>I was listening to your episode about thinking like a physicist.

0:31:53.640 --> 0:31:55.280
<v Speaker 4>It got me thinking about different theories that I've been

0:31:55.280 --> 0:31:57.320
<v Speaker 4>proposed over the last few decades, which led me to

0:31:57.360 --> 0:32:01.840
<v Speaker 4>Hawking radiation. There isn't any observation or experimental data confirm

0:32:01.920 --> 0:32:05.520
<v Speaker 4>Hawking radiation, yet the physics community seems to have accepted it.

0:32:06.240 --> 0:32:09.000
<v Speaker 4>My question is why do some theories get accepted and

0:32:09.040 --> 0:32:11.560
<v Speaker 4>others don't. Please help me figure out where my thought

0:32:11.560 --> 0:32:13.560
<v Speaker 4>process might be wrong. Thank you for all you do.

0:32:14.080 --> 0:32:16.959
<v Speaker 2>All right, great question, Eric, I love this because it

0:32:17.040 --> 0:32:20.560
<v Speaker 2>dives into the process of science itself. Not as much

0:32:20.560 --> 0:32:23.280
<v Speaker 2>as the science questions we're asking, but how as a

0:32:23.280 --> 0:32:27.760
<v Speaker 2>community we decide that something is part of the canon

0:32:27.920 --> 0:32:29.920
<v Speaker 2>or something is not. It's a great question.

0:32:30.400 --> 0:32:33.840
<v Speaker 1>It's a great question. Let's start, though, with what is

0:32:33.960 --> 0:32:36.280
<v Speaker 1>Hawking radiation so we can then, you know, compare other

0:32:36.320 --> 0:32:36.920
<v Speaker 1>theories to it.

0:32:37.600 --> 0:32:41.120
<v Speaker 2>Hawking radiation is an amazing little bit of science. We

0:32:41.320 --> 0:32:44.320
<v Speaker 2>talked in the podcast a lot about the biggest question

0:32:44.560 --> 0:32:49.000
<v Speaker 2>in modern physics is how to reconcile gravity with quantum mechanics.

0:32:49.000 --> 0:32:51.200
<v Speaker 2>Nobody knows how to do it. This program of quantum

0:32:51.240 --> 0:32:53.680
<v Speaker 2>gravity we've talked about string theory, we've talked about post

0:32:53.760 --> 0:32:56.880
<v Speaker 2>quantum gravity, this loop quantum gravity, all sorts of efforts,

0:32:56.960 --> 0:32:59.560
<v Speaker 2>nobody knows how to do it, nobody's had any success.

0:33:00.040 --> 0:33:04.880
<v Speaker 2>Accept Stephen Hawking figured out like one little corner of it.

0:33:05.480 --> 0:33:09.160
<v Speaker 2>He used a really clever mathematical trick to understand what

0:33:09.400 --> 0:33:12.960
<v Speaker 2>happens to quantum fields when they're near a black hole.

0:33:13.520 --> 0:33:16.120
<v Speaker 2>So he doesn't have like the big answer to how

0:33:16.120 --> 0:33:20.400
<v Speaker 2>to unify these things or what is the gravity of particles,

0:33:20.960 --> 0:33:23.720
<v Speaker 2>or to do all the calculations. He just was able

0:33:23.720 --> 0:33:26.440
<v Speaker 2>to figure out what happens to quantum fields when they're

0:33:26.520 --> 0:33:30.200
<v Speaker 2>near a black hole using a really clever little mathematical trick.

0:33:30.480 --> 0:33:31.520
<v Speaker 1>And how did he do that.

0:33:33.160 --> 0:33:35.480
<v Speaker 2>It's totally worth digging into it for a minute because

0:33:35.520 --> 0:33:38.479
<v Speaker 2>the story of Hawking radiation, as it's often told in

0:33:38.600 --> 0:33:42.600
<v Speaker 2>popular science accounts, is pretty much totally wrong and doesn't

0:33:42.640 --> 0:33:46.040
<v Speaker 2>describe what was actually done and what Hawking actually figured out.

0:33:46.400 --> 0:33:49.600
<v Speaker 2>The popular story is a story of what happens to particles.

0:33:49.640 --> 0:33:52.360
<v Speaker 2>Do you have fields near an event horizon and they

0:33:52.400 --> 0:33:56.600
<v Speaker 2>fluctuate and create like a particle antiparticle pair. One particle

0:33:56.640 --> 0:33:59.000
<v Speaker 2>falls into the black hole and the other one doesn't,

0:33:59.080 --> 0:34:02.120
<v Speaker 2>and so escapes and that's your Hawking radiation. And the

0:34:02.160 --> 0:34:04.200
<v Speaker 2>problem with that account is that that's not at all

0:34:04.240 --> 0:34:06.800
<v Speaker 2>what we think happens. We don't know how to describe that.

0:34:06.800 --> 0:34:10.560
<v Speaker 2>That would require understanding like how gravity affects particles and

0:34:11.239 --> 0:34:14.799
<v Speaker 2>are those particles real anyway. Really, what Hawking did was

0:34:14.840 --> 0:34:19.000
<v Speaker 2>he thought about the mathematical solutions to the quantum wave equations,

0:34:19.080 --> 0:34:21.399
<v Speaker 2>like quantum fields have waves in them. Those waves are

0:34:21.400 --> 0:34:24.440
<v Speaker 2>particles or other kinds of ripples, and they slash around

0:34:24.520 --> 0:34:27.440
<v Speaker 2>and they follow rules. Those are wave equations, just like

0:34:27.480 --> 0:34:31.000
<v Speaker 2>the mathematics that describes waves in the ocean or waves

0:34:31.040 --> 0:34:34.360
<v Speaker 2>in traffic. Waves are everywhere, and the equations that describe

0:34:34.400 --> 0:34:37.840
<v Speaker 2>quantum fields are also wave equations. And when you solve

0:34:37.880 --> 0:34:40.279
<v Speaker 2>wave equations, you have to make sure that they line

0:34:40.360 --> 0:34:42.239
<v Speaker 2>up on top of each other and they match what

0:34:42.320 --> 0:34:45.040
<v Speaker 2>you see at boundaries and stuff like this. This is

0:34:45.080 --> 0:34:47.879
<v Speaker 2>how we figure out like reflection and refraction of light,

0:34:48.200 --> 0:34:51.200
<v Speaker 2>all sorts of wave equation stuff. And he figured out

0:34:51.200 --> 0:34:54.240
<v Speaker 2>what happens to those waves if you have a weird

0:34:54.320 --> 0:34:57.520
<v Speaker 2>barrier and event horizon. You add that to your quantum fields.

0:34:57.680 --> 0:34:59.840
<v Speaker 2>And he showed that what happens is you have to

0:34:59.840 --> 0:35:03.080
<v Speaker 2>have have a wave coming out of that event horizon.

0:35:03.600 --> 0:35:06.760
<v Speaker 2>So the short version is that the mathematics of quantum

0:35:06.800 --> 0:35:11.239
<v Speaker 2>fields require some outgoing radiation from an event horizon if

0:35:11.280 --> 0:35:13.279
<v Speaker 2>the quantum fields are ever going to work. So you

0:35:13.320 --> 0:35:15.719
<v Speaker 2>don't have to know what the gravity is for particles,

0:35:15.800 --> 0:35:18.600
<v Speaker 2>or what's happening inside that event horizon, or even why

0:35:18.680 --> 0:35:22.239
<v Speaker 2>you have an event horizon, but very generally, anytime that's

0:35:22.239 --> 0:35:24.640
<v Speaker 2>an event horizon near a quantum field, that's going to

0:35:24.640 --> 0:35:28.400
<v Speaker 2>be outgoing radiation. So that's really what Hawking radiation is.

0:35:28.400 --> 0:35:31.080
<v Speaker 2>That's the prediction. And again we don't have a complete

0:35:31.080 --> 0:35:35.160
<v Speaker 2>description of quantum gravity or understand how gravity affects little particles,

0:35:35.760 --> 0:35:38.520
<v Speaker 2>but he predicts that there's this radiation that comes out

0:35:38.560 --> 0:35:41.520
<v Speaker 2>of event horizons just to make the wave equation work

0:35:41.560 --> 0:35:42.560
<v Speaker 2>for quantum fields.

0:35:42.800 --> 0:35:45.560
<v Speaker 1>Okay, so this is a prediction, but it hasn't been tested.

0:35:46.000 --> 0:35:48.399
<v Speaker 1>So for something that you can't test, you can still

0:35:48.400 --> 0:35:50.239
<v Speaker 1>feel pretty good about it if it predicts a lot

0:35:50.280 --> 0:35:53.360
<v Speaker 1>of other things. So like, how good in general is

0:35:53.400 --> 0:35:55.640
<v Speaker 1>the evidence even if we can't directly test it.

0:35:55.680 --> 0:35:58.879
<v Speaker 2>There's absolutely no evidence for Hawking radiation. Okay, but it's

0:35:59.000 --> 0:36:01.840
<v Speaker 2>very cool because it connects to other kinds of physics.

0:36:02.080 --> 0:36:06.320
<v Speaker 2>It also lets you think about black holes thermodynamically. It

0:36:06.440 --> 0:36:09.360
<v Speaker 2>lets you think about black holes as things that have temperature.

0:36:09.840 --> 0:36:12.520
<v Speaker 2>In our universe, everything that's made out of some kind

0:36:12.560 --> 0:36:16.319
<v Speaker 2>of matter has a temperature and glows. Like the Sun

0:36:16.400 --> 0:36:19.520
<v Speaker 2>obviously glows it's really hot, but the Earth also glows.

0:36:19.520 --> 0:36:21.600
<v Speaker 2>It just glows in a wavelength of light that we

0:36:21.680 --> 0:36:25.160
<v Speaker 2>can't see. Glows in the infrared, and you glow, which

0:36:25.200 --> 0:36:28.200
<v Speaker 2>is why if somebody puts on night vision goggles they

0:36:28.200 --> 0:36:30.759
<v Speaker 2>can see you because they're seeing you in the infrared.

0:36:30.800 --> 0:36:33.640
<v Speaker 2>The light that you glow in, and your temperature determines

0:36:33.680 --> 0:36:35.680
<v Speaker 2>what you glow in. So as you get hotter, you

0:36:35.719 --> 0:36:38.760
<v Speaker 2>glow in higher frequency light, which is why, for example,

0:36:38.840 --> 0:36:41.360
<v Speaker 2>metal when you heat it up, gets red hot and

0:36:41.360 --> 0:36:45.160
<v Speaker 2>then white hot. For example. That's all just black body radiation.

0:36:45.360 --> 0:36:48.800
<v Speaker 2>Everything that has a temperature glows. So now if black

0:36:48.840 --> 0:36:52.080
<v Speaker 2>holes glow, you can describe them as having a temperature,

0:36:52.400 --> 0:36:56.279
<v Speaker 2>which is pretty cool, haha. Thermodynamics joke, and it lets

0:36:56.280 --> 0:36:59.840
<v Speaker 2>you use a whole other branch of mathematics and physics

0:37:00.160 --> 0:37:02.200
<v Speaker 2>we've developed for hundreds of years and apply it to

0:37:02.280 --> 0:37:05.160
<v Speaker 2>black holes and think about their entropy and stuff like this.

0:37:05.680 --> 0:37:08.440
<v Speaker 2>So people have been having a lot of fun using

0:37:08.600 --> 0:37:11.000
<v Speaker 2>black holes as a concept and playing around with the

0:37:11.000 --> 0:37:14.360
<v Speaker 2>mathematics of it. There's absolutely no evidence for hawking radiation

0:37:14.800 --> 0:37:18.040
<v Speaker 2>because if hawking radiation does exist in the universe, black

0:37:18.080 --> 0:37:20.919
<v Speaker 2>holes are too far away and hawking radiation is too

0:37:21.000 --> 0:37:24.200
<v Speaker 2>dim for us to see it. So it's possible that

0:37:24.239 --> 0:37:26.920
<v Speaker 2>black holes are all out there emitting this hawking radiation,

0:37:27.440 --> 0:37:29.960
<v Speaker 2>but we've never seen it, and it's very hard to

0:37:30.000 --> 0:37:33.319
<v Speaker 2>imagine how we could in the near future unless we

0:37:33.480 --> 0:37:37.440
<v Speaker 2>made artificial black holes here on Earth to study their radiation.

0:37:38.000 --> 0:37:42.319
<v Speaker 1>All right, So Stephen Hawking is like the rock star physics.

0:37:42.520 --> 0:37:46.719
<v Speaker 1>A rock star, y'all have like three And so to

0:37:46.719 --> 0:37:48.880
<v Speaker 1>what extent do you think this theory has been like,

0:37:48.960 --> 0:37:51.839
<v Speaker 1>quote unquote accepted because he's a rock star.

0:37:52.120 --> 0:37:54.920
<v Speaker 2>Well, I think this theory helped make him a rock star, right,

0:37:54.960 --> 0:37:58.239
<v Speaker 2>So there's some cause and effect there. But Eric's question

0:37:58.320 --> 0:38:00.319
<v Speaker 2>is a good one, like why do people pick up

0:38:00.360 --> 0:38:02.359
<v Speaker 2>on this theory and run with it and build on

0:38:02.400 --> 0:38:04.720
<v Speaker 2>top of it and other stuff is sort of dismissed.

0:38:04.760 --> 0:38:07.800
<v Speaker 2>You know, we have, like Stephen Wolfram got a theory

0:38:07.800 --> 0:38:10.560
<v Speaker 2>of everything that not very many people are working on

0:38:10.880 --> 0:38:14.080
<v Speaker 2>has become accepted. Lots of fringe theories out there that

0:38:14.160 --> 0:38:16.879
<v Speaker 2>nobody's taking up. You know, you have to remember that,

0:38:16.960 --> 0:38:21.359
<v Speaker 2>like science is not some official institution where things get

0:38:21.360 --> 0:38:23.400
<v Speaker 2>graded and accepted or rejected.

0:38:23.680 --> 0:38:24.200
<v Speaker 1>It's just a.

0:38:24.120 --> 0:38:26.879
<v Speaker 2>Bunch of people, and people work on the things they're

0:38:26.920 --> 0:38:30.640
<v Speaker 2>excited about. And the reason hawking radiation has become kind

0:38:30.680 --> 0:38:33.239
<v Speaker 2>of mainstream is that because it opened the door to

0:38:33.600 --> 0:38:37.200
<v Speaker 2>working on other things. Thinking about black holes as thermodynamic

0:38:37.239 --> 0:38:40.640
<v Speaker 2>objects and calculating their temperature and thinking about information. It

0:38:40.800 --> 0:38:42.759
<v Speaker 2>sort of left things for people to do and to

0:38:42.840 --> 0:38:45.279
<v Speaker 2>work on and to build on top of them. But

0:38:45.360 --> 0:38:48.160
<v Speaker 2>you know, that's just personal judgment. People decided, hey, this

0:38:48.239 --> 0:38:50.640
<v Speaker 2>is fun and interesting, I'm going to go work on this,

0:38:51.160 --> 0:38:53.120
<v Speaker 2>and so people just sort of vote with their feet,

0:38:53.400 --> 0:38:56.959
<v Speaker 2>whereas other ideas that might be more valid or better

0:38:57.000 --> 0:39:00.920
<v Speaker 2>descriptions of nature are not getting as much a because

0:39:01.320 --> 0:39:03.920
<v Speaker 2>maybe there's not an obvious problem to work on, or

0:39:03.960 --> 0:39:06.600
<v Speaker 2>there's nothing to do there, or it just doesn't seem

0:39:06.640 --> 0:39:09.600
<v Speaker 2>as fun. People have a sort of a simplistic view

0:39:09.640 --> 0:39:13.080
<v Speaker 2>of how science works and what is science, and think

0:39:13.080 --> 0:39:16.680
<v Speaker 2>that like science has to be experimentally proven before is accepted,

0:39:17.160 --> 0:39:20.520
<v Speaker 2>but there's no official stamp of accepted science. It's just

0:39:20.680 --> 0:39:22.799
<v Speaker 2>what are people doing, what are people working on, what

0:39:22.800 --> 0:39:25.719
<v Speaker 2>are people thinking about? And so it's possible that we

0:39:25.719 --> 0:39:28.279
<v Speaker 2>could discover that Hawking was totally wrong, or it could

0:39:28.320 --> 0:39:31.560
<v Speaker 2>be that Hawking's ideas lead us to understand quantum gravity

0:39:31.560 --> 0:39:33.440
<v Speaker 2>in some way, or it could be that it's a

0:39:33.480 --> 0:39:35.279
<v Speaker 2>dead end that he was able to figure this one

0:39:35.320 --> 0:39:37.480
<v Speaker 2>thing out, but it doesn't give us an opportunity to

0:39:37.480 --> 0:39:38.720
<v Speaker 2>discover anything else.

0:39:39.120 --> 0:39:41.440
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, So ruminating a little bit more on the human

0:39:41.480 --> 0:39:44.400
<v Speaker 1>side of science. I imagine that when you pick a

0:39:44.440 --> 0:39:47.080
<v Speaker 1>theory that you want to spend your career on, you

0:39:47.200 --> 0:39:49.319
<v Speaker 1>probably want to pick a theory that you think is

0:39:49.320 --> 0:39:51.160
<v Speaker 1>one of the ones that has the highest chance of

0:39:51.200 --> 0:39:54.680
<v Speaker 1>being right. I know that people are okay with working

0:39:54.719 --> 0:39:57.120
<v Speaker 1>on theories and finding out that they're wrong, because that

0:39:57.239 --> 0:39:59.600
<v Speaker 1>is an answer and answers are important. But I think

0:39:59.600 --> 0:40:02.000
<v Speaker 1>that probably you pick the ones you want to be correct.

0:40:02.000 --> 0:40:04.640
<v Speaker 1>But I wonder if when you're picking these ideas, how

0:40:04.719 --> 0:40:06.640
<v Speaker 1>much does it also have to do with what is

0:40:06.800 --> 0:40:09.920
<v Speaker 1>testable and what's not. Like even if you think an

0:40:09.920 --> 0:40:12.760
<v Speaker 1>idea is correct, but you can't really test it directly,

0:40:12.800 --> 0:40:14.840
<v Speaker 1>and maybe that makes it hard to like get grants

0:40:14.880 --> 0:40:16.960
<v Speaker 1>to fund your lab or something like how do you

0:40:16.960 --> 0:40:19.839
<v Speaker 1>think these various human factors sort of all add up?

0:40:20.280 --> 0:40:20.480
<v Speaker 4>Yeah.

0:40:20.520 --> 0:40:24.239
<v Speaker 2>I think in theoretical physics, whether it's immediately testable is

0:40:24.280 --> 0:40:27.799
<v Speaker 2>not always one of the top considerations. I think one

0:40:27.800 --> 0:40:30.920
<v Speaker 2>of the top considerations is can I make progress in

0:40:30.960 --> 0:40:34.120
<v Speaker 2>a reasonable amount of time? Like, personally, as a scientist,

0:40:34.200 --> 0:40:37.000
<v Speaker 2>when I choose projects, I could choose to work on

0:40:37.280 --> 0:40:40.000
<v Speaker 2>really big questions like hey, what came before the Big Bang?

0:40:40.239 --> 0:40:42.000
<v Speaker 2>But I have no way to make progress on that

0:40:42.080 --> 0:40:44.800
<v Speaker 2>in a reasonable amount of time. And as a scientist,

0:40:44.840 --> 0:40:46.719
<v Speaker 2>I have to produce science regularly, so I have to

0:40:46.800 --> 0:40:50.040
<v Speaker 2>choose projects where I can make some progress. And I

0:40:50.080 --> 0:40:52.240
<v Speaker 2>think this is a really important thing for young scientists

0:40:52.280 --> 0:40:56.800
<v Speaker 2>to learn, is to spot opportunities like, hey, here's something

0:40:56.880 --> 0:40:58.560
<v Speaker 2>where if we spend a couple of years on this,

0:40:58.640 --> 0:41:01.880
<v Speaker 2>we could actually learn something given the resources and the

0:41:01.880 --> 0:41:05.200
<v Speaker 2>skills that we have. Right, So it's sort of like

0:41:05.320 --> 0:41:08.279
<v Speaker 2>spotting a business opportunity. Oh, there's a market for this,

0:41:08.400 --> 0:41:10.920
<v Speaker 2>and we know how to do it, so let's jump

0:41:10.920 --> 0:41:13.719
<v Speaker 2>on that. And so in my research, for example, you

0:41:13.719 --> 0:41:16.279
<v Speaker 2>know we use machine learning, we're always like looking for

0:41:16.360 --> 0:41:19.320
<v Speaker 2>ways machine learning can solve problems that weren't solved before,

0:41:19.360 --> 0:41:21.960
<v Speaker 2>but again in a reasonable amount of time. So on

0:41:22.000 --> 0:41:24.480
<v Speaker 2>the theoretical physics side, people looking for problems where they

0:41:24.480 --> 0:41:27.759
<v Speaker 2>can make some progress, where there's an opening, but they're

0:41:27.760 --> 0:41:30.400
<v Speaker 2>not always concerned about like is this immediately going to

0:41:30.400 --> 0:41:34.120
<v Speaker 2>be testable, because science isn't just about experiments, you know.

0:41:34.239 --> 0:41:38.040
<v Speaker 2>Science is a big, complex dance that eventually leads to answers.

0:41:38.520 --> 0:41:41.759
<v Speaker 2>We hear a lot of criticism of string theory, for example, saying, oh,

0:41:41.800 --> 0:41:44.319
<v Speaker 2>it's not science because you can't test it, but you know,

0:41:44.400 --> 0:41:47.920
<v Speaker 2>it's a precursor to testing. Sometimes it takes something fifty years,

0:41:47.960 --> 0:41:50.560
<v Speaker 2>one hundred years before it bubbles up and produces something

0:41:50.560 --> 0:41:53.080
<v Speaker 2>that you can test. Doesn't mean that it wasn't science

0:41:53.200 --> 0:41:55.959
<v Speaker 2>until then that you retroactively go back and say, okay,

0:41:55.960 --> 0:41:57.760
<v Speaker 2>now we can test it. So the last one hundred

0:41:57.800 --> 0:42:00.520
<v Speaker 2>years count to science, whereas if it never to something

0:42:00.560 --> 0:42:02.800
<v Speaker 2>you can test that you say it never was science.

0:42:03.040 --> 0:42:04.880
<v Speaker 2>I think that's a little bit overly simplistic.

0:42:05.120 --> 0:42:07.640
<v Speaker 1>All right, Well, so continuing to think out loud here,

0:42:07.680 --> 0:42:09.800
<v Speaker 1>So you said that you don't work on questions related

0:42:09.840 --> 0:42:12.520
<v Speaker 1>to the Big Bang, because you can't produce science regularly

0:42:12.560 --> 0:42:16.319
<v Speaker 1>by doing that. So how do we get questions to

0:42:16.360 --> 0:42:20.000
<v Speaker 1>these really important problems that take a long time? Is

0:42:20.000 --> 0:42:22.440
<v Speaker 1>our system just not set up to answer those questions?

0:42:22.520 --> 0:42:24.440
<v Speaker 1>Or is it something so you know, for example, Darwin,

0:42:25.120 --> 0:42:27.120
<v Speaker 1>he came up with the idea of natural selection, but

0:42:27.200 --> 0:42:30.440
<v Speaker 1>it was like an idea that was the accumulated result

0:42:30.719 --> 0:42:33.680
<v Speaker 1>of observations that happened over like maybe decades. But he

0:42:33.800 --> 0:42:36.680
<v Speaker 1>was publishing a lot of like mollusk papers along the way,

0:42:36.800 --> 0:42:39.719
<v Speaker 1>or like, you know, observations on other things. So are

0:42:39.800 --> 0:42:42.239
<v Speaker 1>people working on the really big questions but just sort

0:42:42.280 --> 0:42:44.839
<v Speaker 1>of slowly in the background while producing something to keep

0:42:44.880 --> 0:42:47.880
<v Speaker 1>their jobs, or like, is it harder and harder to

0:42:47.880 --> 0:42:49.960
<v Speaker 1>get answers to those big questions that take a long

0:42:50.000 --> 0:42:51.880
<v Speaker 1>time today because of the way our funding system is

0:42:51.920 --> 0:42:52.279
<v Speaker 1>set up.

0:42:52.400 --> 0:42:54.719
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, there are people working on big questions. A great

0:42:54.760 --> 0:42:58.800
<v Speaker 2>example are things we call quantum foundations, like which of

0:42:58.840 --> 0:43:02.680
<v Speaker 2>the quantum mechanical interpretations of reality are real? The Copenhagen interpretation,

0:43:02.800 --> 0:43:05.719
<v Speaker 2>the Many World's interpretation. How do we grapple with all that?

0:43:05.920 --> 0:43:08.839
<v Speaker 2>Everybody thinks that's a big problem. A lot of people

0:43:08.920 --> 0:43:11.319
<v Speaker 2>have no idea how to make progress on it, and

0:43:11.440 --> 0:43:13.520
<v Speaker 2>so it's sort of a bit of a dangerous thing

0:43:13.600 --> 0:43:15.840
<v Speaker 2>to dig into for like a young scientist, because you

0:43:15.880 --> 0:43:17.960
<v Speaker 2>could jump into it, work for a couple of years,

0:43:18.040 --> 0:43:19.440
<v Speaker 2>make no progress, and then what do you have to

0:43:19.440 --> 0:43:21.680
<v Speaker 2>show for yourself. So it's the kind of thing that

0:43:21.800 --> 0:43:24.680
<v Speaker 2>people who are well established with like tangent positions i e.

0:43:24.920 --> 0:43:27.759
<v Speaker 2>Like Sean Carroll can dig into and try to make

0:43:27.760 --> 0:43:31.200
<v Speaker 2>some progress on and everybody understands it's really important, but yeah,

0:43:31.200 --> 0:43:33.200
<v Speaker 2>it's hard to know if you're going to make any progress,

0:43:33.239 --> 0:43:35.120
<v Speaker 2>and so a lot of people don't work on that.

0:43:35.600 --> 0:43:38.919
<v Speaker 2>There are also some places that specifically fund this kind

0:43:38.920 --> 0:43:41.200
<v Speaker 2>of work because they realize, hey, it's really important for

0:43:41.239 --> 0:43:44.000
<v Speaker 2>people to be thinking about these big questions or we're

0:43:44.040 --> 0:43:46.560
<v Speaker 2>never going to make any progress on them. And so

0:43:46.920 --> 0:43:50.840
<v Speaker 2>there's some places that specifically right grants just to support

0:43:50.840 --> 0:43:53.319
<v Speaker 2>that kind of research, but they're pretty few and far

0:43:53.320 --> 0:43:56.239
<v Speaker 2>in between. The bigger picture tendency and science I think

0:43:56.360 --> 0:43:59.759
<v Speaker 2>is towards short term promises. A lot of grants that

0:43:59.760 --> 0:44:02.600
<v Speaker 2>you right require you to know what you're going to

0:44:02.719 --> 0:44:05.400
<v Speaker 2>learn in advance and to have a lot of preliminary

0:44:05.440 --> 0:44:08.520
<v Speaker 2>data because this is arms race and science. You know,

0:44:08.600 --> 0:44:10.160
<v Speaker 2>this lab is already set up to do that. That

0:44:10.280 --> 0:44:11.359
<v Speaker 2>lab is already set up.

0:44:11.239 --> 0:44:11.560
<v Speaker 1>To do that.

0:44:12.120 --> 0:44:14.440
<v Speaker 2>And so a lot of science is more about these

0:44:14.480 --> 0:44:16.480
<v Speaker 2>sort of short term results, which I think is a

0:44:16.520 --> 0:44:20.880
<v Speaker 2>shame because we should be doing science as exploratory research. Say, hey,

0:44:20.960 --> 0:44:23.200
<v Speaker 2>let's see what happens if we give a bunch of

0:44:23.239 --> 0:44:26.040
<v Speaker 2>smart people money and time and see what they figure out.

0:44:26.560 --> 0:44:30.200
<v Speaker 1>Agreed, that's a big complaint of mind for the system.

0:44:30.440 --> 0:44:34.520
<v Speaker 1>All right, Well, have we said everything that we want

0:44:34.520 --> 0:44:35.680
<v Speaker 1>to say about Eric's question?

0:44:35.880 --> 0:44:37.440
<v Speaker 2>I think so. If I had to sum it up,

0:44:37.440 --> 0:44:39.479
<v Speaker 2>I would say to Eric that there is no such

0:44:39.520 --> 0:44:42.239
<v Speaker 2>thing as accepted science or not accepted science. It's just

0:44:42.440 --> 0:44:44.800
<v Speaker 2>the kind of things people are working on right now

0:44:45.320 --> 0:44:48.000
<v Speaker 2>that people are excited about, and it's a personal decision,

0:44:48.360 --> 0:44:51.280
<v Speaker 2>not some like institutional label we put on ideas.

0:44:51.520 --> 0:44:54.360
<v Speaker 1>And let's see what Eric has to say about that answer.

0:44:54.960 --> 0:44:57.319
<v Speaker 4>Hi, Danielle Kelly, this does help me understand better how

0:44:57.360 --> 0:44:59.480
<v Speaker 4>science works. I tend to make the mistake of thinking

0:44:59.480 --> 0:45:03.360
<v Speaker 4>looks science is monolithic with nothing but cold heart facts,

0:45:03.480 --> 0:45:06.000
<v Speaker 4>and I forget that behind the science are human beings.

0:45:06.160 --> 0:45:08.880
<v Speaker 4>My idea of the scientific method comes from high school,

0:45:08.920 --> 0:45:12.239
<v Speaker 4>which took a more simplistic approach. I think it's more

0:45:12.280 --> 0:45:14.960
<v Speaker 4>accurate to say science is more the art of human

0:45:15.000 --> 0:45:18.520
<v Speaker 4>curiosity than just cold, hard facts.

0:45:19.480 --> 0:45:20.479
<v Speaker 3>It is, after all.

0:45:20.440 --> 0:45:25.480
<v Speaker 4>Human beings and all their complexities that ultimately strive to

0:45:25.560 --> 0:45:28.600
<v Speaker 4>unravel the mysteries of the universe through a blend of

0:45:28.640 --> 0:45:32.839
<v Speaker 4>creativity and skepticism, and ultimately, if it is a good

0:45:32.840 --> 0:45:37.840
<v Speaker 4>idea that can stand scrutiny, it will become accepted. Hockey

0:45:38.000 --> 0:45:42.920
<v Speaker 4>radiation is a prime example of this. Thank you, Daniel

0:45:42.920 --> 0:45:45.280
<v Speaker 4>and Kelly for taking the time to help me understand

0:45:45.320 --> 0:45:47.920
<v Speaker 4>the process of science a bit more, and I certainly

0:45:47.960 --> 0:45:50.359
<v Speaker 4>appreciate everything you do. Take care.

0:45:57.600 --> 0:46:01.440
<v Speaker 1>Daniel and Kelly's Extraordinary Universe is produce by iHeartRadio. We

0:46:01.480 --> 0:46:03.920
<v Speaker 1>would love to hear from you, We really would.

0:46:04.080 --> 0:46:06.799
<v Speaker 2>We want to know what questions you have about this

0:46:07.000 --> 0:46:08.680
<v Speaker 2>extraordinary universe.

0:46:08.800 --> 0:46:11.759
<v Speaker 1>We want to know your thoughts on recent shows, suggestions

0:46:11.760 --> 0:46:14.799
<v Speaker 1>for future shows. If you contact us, we will get

0:46:14.800 --> 0:46:15.239
<v Speaker 1>back to you.

0:46:15.440 --> 0:46:18.960
<v Speaker 2>We really mean it. We answer every message. Email us

0:46:19.000 --> 0:46:22.120
<v Speaker 2>at Questions at Danielankelly.

0:46:21.280 --> 0:46:23.320
<v Speaker 1>Dot org, or you can find us on social media.

0:46:23.400 --> 0:46:27.200
<v Speaker 1>We have accounts on x, Instagram, Blue Sky, and on

0:46:27.280 --> 0:46:29.239
<v Speaker 1>all of those platforms. You can find us at D

0:46:29.680 --> 0:46:31.160
<v Speaker 1>and K Universe.

0:46:31.320 --> 0:46:32.839
<v Speaker 2>Don't be shy right to us