Andrew Dunkley: Hi there.

Welcome to a Q and A edition of Space Nuts.

My name is Andrew Dunkley, your host.

Good to have your company again.

Uh, questions coming today from Pete.

Uh, he's looking at the collapse of the universe.

Wants to know where he needs to be when it happens, so he gets a good view.

Actually, I think it's about something else.

Uh, we've also got a question from Tad, who has brought up a really interesting point about falling into a black hole.

From an observer's perspective.

If we were to watch someone or something do, uh, really is a.

A great piece of science to talk about.

Uh, Mark is, uh, bringing up something from an episode four years ago, I think.

Antimatter, uh, stars.

And Dave, um, wants to know about the best time and place to aim a camera for low, uh, light astrophotography.

Uh, that is a great question.

Uh, I've had so much trouble with that myself.

We'll get stuck into it right now on this edition of space nuts.

Voice Over Guy: 15 seconds.

Guidance is internal.

10, 9.

Ignition sequence start.

Space nuts.

5, 4, 3.

2.

1.

2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Space nuts.

Astronauts report it feels good.

Andrew Dunkley: And here he is again.

Professor Fred Watson Astronomer at large.

Hello, Fred Professor Fred Watson: Hello, Andrew.

Fancy seeing you here.

Andrew Dunkley: Yes, yes.

And we're in similar coloured shirts today.

Professor Fred Watson: That's right.

I think we're very chic.

Andrew Dunkley: Judy reckons green's my colour, but I've never really liked green.

But anyway, she's more of a fashionista than I am, so I'll take her word for it.

Uh, how you been?

Professor Fred Watson: Very well, thank you.

Yes, um, all seems to be going well so far.

Andrew Dunkley: You look and sound as well as the last time I saw you.

Professor Fred Watson: Well, that's right.

I've, you know, uh, it's, uh, it's.

It seems like only a few minutes ago.

It does, doesn't it?

Andrew Dunkley: Funny that, um.

That's because of a black hole.

Professor Fred Watson: It could be a black bill.

Andrew Dunkley: Although we must point out that this will be your last show for a short while.

You're taking a bit of a trip which will take, um, you into time zones that are just not compatible with life on Earth in Australia.

So, um, uh, we will be, uh, bringing our, uh, stand in Jaunty Horner in to look after things while you're away for about 7ish weeks, something like that.

We, we knew this was going to happen this year with me away for three months and you away for, uh, a couple of months.

So we knew this was going to happen and we, we planned ahead so that the show could go on.

So, um, anyway, we'll um, we'll look forward to chatting with, with Jonty and wish, uh, you well on your trip.

Um, where.

Professor Fred Watson: We'Ve got about two and a half weeks in Japan.

Uh, then we're back in Australia very briefly and then we're off up to Ireland for a Dark sky conference and, uh, skipping over to the UK to hang out with my family for a little bit in the uk and uh, that'll take us to the end of November.

Andrew Dunkley: Why wouldn't you?

It's just a short hop, isn't it, really?

Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, that's right.

Yeah.

It's stupid.

Going to uk.

That's right, yeah.

So we'll do a few, uh, things.

We're going to, uh.

Marnie's got a nice itinerary for us.

We're going to go to places that I have wanted to go ever since I was a child and never made it in the uk.

So that's fantastic.

We'll tell you about it when we get back.

Andrew Dunkley: Love to hear about it.

Um, we better get into, uh, the questions.

Professor Fred Watson: Yes, yes.

Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, I guess so.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Our first question's an audio question coming, uh, from Pate Fred Watson and Andrew.

Pete: Pete from Longpoint got a question.

I know that there's contested as to what's going to happen in the future with the universe.

The kind of dang, or however it's pronounced, or expansion or the Big Rip or whatever.

The question if, if the universe is going to collapse back in itself.

I get the concept of the gravity bringing sort of physical matter back together and I know that's only what, 5% of the universe, but I don't understand how that would work with the.

Basically pulling light backwards.

So you have light is expanding ever increasingly, obviously at the speed of light.

Um, basically what happens with that in the event there is a collapse back to another singularity?

Um, yeah, I'm confused.

Thanks guys.

Andrew Dunkley: I think a lot of people are, uh, um, yeah, he was referring to the Gnab Gib, which is the reverse Big Bang.

Yeah.

Uh, but it's an interesting question because if, if it does happen, rather than a Big Rip, uh, the, the universe stops expanding and then starts receding back in on itself.

What does happen to the light and the dark matter and all that other stuff that we don't understand.

Professor Fred Watson: So, um, uh, this.

No, thanks very much, Pete.

Great question.

Uh, which has arisen because I, um, think it might be.

While you were away, Andrew, we covered the new observations that have come from the dark energy, uh, instrument, um, which is on a, on a, on the mail telescopes, a telescope very similar to our Anglo Australian telescope which is uh, which has been surveying the universe as you do with such instruments, um, getting the redshifts, which means the distances of all the galaxies and building up a map.

And that map um, has just the first hint that dark, the acceleration of the universe which we attribute to this dark energy, whatever it is, uh, that the acceleration of the universe is actually slowing down.

It's still only a hint, it's not confirmed yet.

But if the acceleration is slowing down then it does raise once again the possibility that we talked about a lot in the 1970s and 80s.

Uh, the idea of an eventual collapse, a reversal of the expansion of the universe to a collapse.

Uh, and the end product of that often called the Big Crunch.

But we like the GNAB gib.

That was the name that Brian Schmidt gave to it.

It's a great name.

So what happens in the Gnab gib?

Well, um, it is interesting.

You've got gravity taking over and it doesn't just sort of bring together the objects in space, it doesn't just collapse all the galaxies towards one place, it actually collapses space time with it.

Um, because the, you know, the, the matter bend space.

We know and that bending is effectively what you, what you would call the collapse uh, in the run up to the, or the run down to the Ganab gib.

And so in a sense, uh, the light, uh, so, so what I'm saying is that um, the, the distances that, that across the, the distances that we measure between galaxies becomes less.

But, but it's because the space time has shrunk basically.

Uh, and so not just that the galaxies have got closer together.

And that means uh, that yes, light will still continue to travel through space time at 300,000 kilometres per second, but that space time has got less space in it.

Um, and so the light just shrinks with the universe.

It doesn't kind of escape or anything that many gazillions of photons that are currently traversing the universe and will continue to do that, uh, as long as things are shining and there's energy to provide that they will have shorter distances to go.

Uh and we will find that the universe just gets smaller.

As it gets smaller, the light goes with it and we end up with a bundle of stuff, uh, subatomic particles, including photons, particles of light, a whole lot of stuff that is going to hit an almighty singularity, uh, uh, which we might call the GNAB gib.

Yeah, wow.

Andrew Dunkley: Um, correct Me if I'm wrong, but didn't we talk in the past about a time where the universe will become dark and cold and there won't be any light?

Professor Fred Watson: Well, um, that's right.

If the universe continues expanding, then eventually there will be light there, but it won't be able to reach you because it'll be beyond your.

Your horizon.

Uh, so, uh, the light will still be going through the universe, but that light source will be receding from us, um, too fast for the light ever to get to us.

So, yes, it becomes dark and dreary.

Uh, but, yeah, light is still there.

Andrew Dunkley: Uh, all right, there you go, Pete.

Um, it will all be cataclysmic and horrible, and, uh, we'll all be a lot shorter.

Professor Fred Watson: Every dimension.

Andrew Dunkley: Indeed, yes.

Although I'm starting to like the idea of a big rip.

Because a big rip might open us to another universe and we could all escape.

Professor Fred Watson: Well, yeah, maybe.

Well, of course, you with the big.

The gnab gib, you could get the big bounce.

Uh, you know, it could just bounce back.

So you've suddenly got an expanding universe immediately.

Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, it's hard to get your head around.

And I understand why Pete feels confused, because it really is beyond our imagination in many ways, isn't it?

Professor Fred Watson: That's right.

Andrew Dunkley: Thanks, Pete.

Great question.

Hope you're well.

Uh, let's go to a question from Tad.

Uh, this one's really interesting.

Uh, we understand that due to extreme gravitational time dilation, from the perspective of an outside observer, anyone falling into a black hole takes an infinite amount of time to cross the event horizon, even if, from that person's perspective, they actually do in real time.

Uh, if this is true, how do black holes and their event horizons even form in the first place, from an outsider's perspective?

And does this mean that technically nothing has ever fallen into a black hole from our perspective here on Earth?

I love this question.

Thank you, Tad.

Uh, he's bringing up the point where if you're watching someone fall into the.

Into a black hole because of the.

The effect, the gravitational effect on time space, it never happens, but that person experiences it in real time until they get spaghettified.

So, um, yeah.

How come we see black holes when this effect should suggest we.

We should never see it happen?

Is that.

Is that what I'm.

Is that what he's saying?

Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, yeah.

How do black holes form in the first place?

Andrew Dunkley: Uh.

Professor Fred Watson: So it, uh, yes.

So in that regard, that time dilation is a kind of optical illusion because the thing has crossed the event horizon, whatever it is.

Uh, has contributed to the mass of the black hole.

So, uh, the reality is, yes, you're, you know, if it's you, you get spaghettified and then you get absorbed by the black hole itself a gazillionth of a second later.

Um, it's from the outside perspective.

Uh, I've always struggled with this actually in trying to envisage it because, yeah, you imagine some poor person who's fallen into a black hole.

Um, it's be like the, um, you know those, uh, chalk things on the road where somebody's got hit by a car.

There'd be this chalk mark of somebody, uh, on the surface of the event horizon.

Um, uh, but they'd also, uh, uh, along with that person, there'd be everything else that's gone into it.

And black holes are notorious for accreting material.

So all the stuff that's spiralling into it from an outsider's perspective just ends up looking as though it's stuck on the surface of the event horizon, even though it's actually been absorbed by the black hole.

So it is a kind of optical illusion.

Yes, it's very weird.

It, uh, just means that from, you know, what it highlights is, uh, it's all about your reference frame.

Uh, our reference frame is an, um, observer looking out, looking in from the outside.

If you've got the reference frame of the person who's falling into the black hole, things are a lot different.

We, uh, can watch, um, you know, from the sidelines and cheer people on as they fall through the black hole event horizon.

All, uh, we see is them frozen on the event horizon.

Uh, which must be a very messy place with all the stuff that's falling into it.

Andrew Dunkley: Yeah.

Professor Fred Watson: So, um, I, yeah, I, you know, it to me, that transforms what the event horizon might look like.

It's probably not that nice sphere of darkness that we imagine, but it's got splattered with lots of stuff.

And in fact, we know that the magnetism of a black hole actually plays a huge role in, um, directing material so that some of the stuff is actually accelerated perpendicular to the accretion disc, uh, backward, up, upwards and downwards.

And that in itself is a process.

It's very hard to get your head around how stuff that's swirling in towards a black hole suddenly gets dragged up, uh, and shot out the poles of the black hole, top and bottom.

Um, so a lot of hard work to conjecture.

I hope that helps Tad to envisage what's going on.

Uh, um, because it's all about your perspective, basically.

Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, yeah.

Uh, so the black hole, uh, has happened.

My brain had an idea and it just fell into a black hole.

Now, um, I can't remember, but, uh, we.

We see the black hole because it's already happened.

Is that.

Professor Fred Watson: Well, yeah, the black.

The black hole's been created in.

I mean, typically in the collapse of a.

Of a star at the end of its life.

Uh, so that's a straightforward gravitational collapse.

The material of the star, uh, basically collapses down so that nothing will hold it out and it becomes this singularity, a point of infinite density, which is how we define it.

Um, and that's.

It's during that collapse that the event horizon forms.

And you've got that.

As I said, it's an optical illusion.

That's the main point to recognise.

It's an optical illusion as seen from the outside, um, that nothing reaches a black hole.

M Mm.

Andrew Dunkley: I'm sure we'll get some more questions on this one, but, uh, you've probably opened a can of spaghetti there, Tad.

Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, which is great because Jonty can deal with all of that.

Andrew Dunkley: Yes, he can.

Yeah.

Yes, that's for sure.

M All right, Tad.

Thank you for the question.

This is Space Nuts, a Q A edition with Andrew Dunkley and Professor Fred Watson Watson.

Three, two, one.

Space Nuts.

Now, uh, our next question's an audio question.

It comes from Mark.

Mark: Hi, it's Mark in London and Canada.

I just listened to an episode from March 2021 and Fred Watson mentioned the possible existence of an antimatter star and how.

Obviously we wouldn't want to get, uh, anywhere near it, but I was wondering, is it.

Is it possible?

Do they exist?

Uh, and how could we tell if we're looking at a star from Earth, can we tell if it's regular matter or antimatter or.

What if the entire Andromeda Galaxy was antimatter, would we have a way of, uh, figuring that out?

Professor Fred Watson: Thanks.

Mark: Bye.

Andrew Dunkley: M Uh, I would ask my Auntie Shirley, but she wouldn't know either.

Um, thank you, Mark.

Antimatter stars.

We did.

I remember us talking about them.

Uh, we do know there is antimatter.

Professor Fred Watson: There's just a hell of a lot.

Andrew Dunkley: Less of it than actual matter, if I recall correctly.

But if you've got, um, a molecule of matter and a molecule of antimatter and they collide, they just cease to exist.

Is that how it goes?

Professor Fred Watson: Yes, that's right, yeah.

Um, what you get, um, is so if you.

The difference between a normal matter particle, like, uh, an electron, and.

And, uh, its antimatter equivalent is the electrical charge is the opposite.

So the antimatter equivalent of an electron is a positron.

Um, it's got positive electrical charge.

Uh, and when two particles like that meet, they annihilate.

And what you get is a gamma ray.

You get a photon of gamma ray energy which has a uh, characteristic, a uh, characteristic frequency, um distribution.

In gamma rays we call it energy.

Uh, in light we think of it as wavelength, in radio waves we think it as frequency.

Uh, but it's the same thing basically, uh, different, different levels of energy.

So you get these gamma rays which will be emitted with a specific and characteristic frequency and that's the way that you might be able to detect an antimatter star.

Andrew Dunkley: Um.

Professor Fred Watson: I think this story actually goes back, it does go back to 2021.

I've just found the article that we referred to.

Stars made of antimatter might be lurking in the universe.

It's from Scientific American, a very authoritative source.

Um, but what they were starting the story with was something that happened in 2018 when uh, one of the experiments on the outside of the International Space Station which we talked about in the last episode with great warmth and admiration.

Um, it's one of those experiments may have detected uh, two basically uh, nuclei of anti helium.

Um, these are anti helium particles.

And so you mix that with normal helium and you get the gamma rays.

Um, and so the question is where, where does that come from?

And that was the um, the outcome of this, the, the suggestion that the easiest way to produce anti helium is inside anti stars.

Um, which we don't, still don't know whether they exist or not.

Uh, but really the, the point of Marx question is a good one.

Um, I don't think we know much more about this uh, since that you know that speculation.

Um, but what they're suggesting, uh, I might actually read uh, from that Scientific American article and acknowledge the source there.

It was written by Leto Supuna who's the author of that.

Um, and I think it sort of puts it a lot better than I can.

Antistars would shine much as normal ones do, producing light of the same wavelengths, but they would exist in a matter dominated universe.

And so as particles and gases made of regular matter fell into an antistar's gravitational pull and made contact with its antimatter, the resulting annihilations would produce a flash of high energy light.

That's the gamma rays I mentioned.

We can see this light as a, There you go.

We can see this light as a specific colour of gamma rays.

Um, and so one of the teams that they're Talking about took 10 years of data, uh, which amounted to roughly 6,000 light emitting objects.

They paired the list down to sources that shone with the right gamma ray frequency and that were not ascribed to previously catalogued astronomical objects.

Um, so this left us with 14 candidates.

This is one of the authors, uh, talking, which in my opinion and my co author's opinion, two are, uh, not antistars.

Um, yeah, but they say if all those sources were such stars, that means one anti star would exist for every 400,000 ordinary ones in our stellar neck of the woods.

So we're still struggling to get our heads around this and I'm not sure whether any more of uh, these characteristic gamma ray flashes, uh, have been observed or what the latest is on this topic.

But it is a very interesting one, I think.

Um, thank you, Mark, for raising it again because it's one we should perhaps look at in a bit more detail.

Might try and dig out some stories for when I return to space nuts on um, antistars and see what we've got in that.

Uh.

Andrew Dunkley: Do you think they could exist for him?

Professor Fred Watson: I do think they could exist, yeah.

Um, I mean it's one of the big puzzles of the universe as to why there's so much matter and so little antimatter.

When our best theories of the origin of the universe suggest that antimatter and matter were created in equal, you know, in equal proportions.

So uh, it's, it's one of these, it is, it's one of these issues that um, is, keeps on bubbling up and uh, you know, challenging our understanding.

Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, uh, well, I'm probably dredging up the same joke I used four and a half years ago, but there's a lot of, there's a lot of doesn't matter in astronomy as well.

Professor Fred Watson: See, I can hear Jordy.

You got a lot of Jordy there.

Yeah.

Andrew Dunkley: Um, but yeah, antimatter stars are right up there with white holes.

Uh, we've never seen one.

But there's, you know, there's certain elements of science that think these things exist.

Um, but we've just never found the, the direct evidence or proof, have we?

Professor Fred Watson: No, that's.

Excuse me.

That's correct.

Um, just along those lines, there's something, um, that cropped, um, up about a week ago or two weeks ago.

Um, it's a gravitational wave event which I think dates back to 2019.

And you know, gravitational waves measured by LIGO and uh, Kagra and Virgo, the three big gravitational wave detectors in the world.

They um, uh, this particular, most Most gravitational waves come from, uh, either neutron stars colliding or neutron stars colliding with black holes or black holes colliding.

And they always have characteristic signature.

They spiral together and then when they come together at the end they produce this characteristic chirp, um, which is when they merge.

Um, and, uh, that usually lasts a few seconds that, um, run up to the chirp.

Uh, but this one in 2019 only lasted, I think it was a tenth of a second.

Uh, and one interpretation of that is that, uh, it was two very massive black holes.

I think.

I think that's the way around.

It goes.

Could be the other way around.

Anyway, a, um, recent paper from China, and I think this was two weeks ago, proposed that you could get nearly the same modelling, which, because they model these gravitational wave phenomena if, uh, it turned out that what you were looking at was not colliding black holes but a collapsing wormhole.

Um, and that's the first evidence that I think anybody has put forward for the existence of wormholes.

But it's still very conjectural because, um, the likelihood, you know, the model of just two black holes colliding actually fits the data slightly better than the model of the collapsing wormhole.

But people are still looking at these things as they are for white holes and, um, I hope also for antimotor stars.

Andrew Dunkley: Yes.

Yeah.

Well, um, I suppose there's so much to consider in the universe that some things just don't get the amount of time and attention they probably deserve.

But the workforce is spread so thin in astronomy and space science, I would imagine so, um.

Yeah, it's hard to deal with everything.

Professor Fred Watson: With everything.

That's right.

There's certainly enough questions to keep us busy for a long time.

The world of astronomy.

Absolutely.

Andrew Dunkley: Yeah.

All right, Mark, thank you.

Hope all is well in Canada.

Roger, you're live right here.

Professor Fred Watson: Also, space nuts.

Andrew Dunkley: Our final question comes from Dave.

And, uh, Dave is from Inverel in Northern, uh, New South Wales, Australia.

As someone who is lucky enough to enjoy fairly low light pollution where I live, I like to attempt some nighttime photography now and then.

Lately I've been using the nightcap app on my phone.

I've got that one as well.

Uh, with, uh, the meteor setting, he says to try and capture some meteor photos.

Uh, I find the best time to see a great falling star is just as I'm getting the phone set up, ready to start shooting.

Just wondering if you have any advice for when to try and capture a meteor on camera.

Example, uh, time of night, direction, et cetera.

Or should I just uh, wait until a good meteor shower turns up.

Uh, and how many meteors would we expect to see collide in our atmos, uh, collide with our atmosphere on any given night.

Um, also, uh, great to hear you back Andrew and hearing.

Enjoy, uh, hearing your travels.

Uh, when you talk of Iceland, it makes me very keen to return.

Can I ask which company you cruised with?

Dave from Inverel.

Yes, you can.

Uh, the uh, the answer, uh, is Princess.

It was Princess Cruises.

Uh, we made the news early in the cruise when we got smashed just um, southwest corner of Australia by a squall that knocked the ship over, not completely 7 degree list which we took three hours to straighten up.

I had to go up to the bridge and help the captain by, you know, using my weight to stand at the.

No, I didn't.

Uh, but uh, it was um, pretty hair, uh, raising for a while there.

We uh, made the news all over Australia apparently.

But um, yeah, it was the Princess Cruise Line.

Um, and we've been with them many times on other cruises and they're uh.

I, I really enjoy them.

Um, they probably uh, it's debatable but I think food wise they're probably the best.

But yes, um, now, and you mentioned the.

Sorry, go on.

Br.

Professor Fred Watson: I was just going to say if you want to avoid uh, the rigours of sea travel, you could come with Dark Sky Traveller.

We go up to Iceland pretty regularly too.

Yes, well, there's a thought.

Andrew Dunkley: Yeah.

Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.

Andrew Dunkley: So the downside of cruising is it's slow.

Yeah, I mean it's very relaxing.

But if you do want to get somewhere in a hurry, it's probably not the way to do it.

Um, and uh, Dave also mentioned the nightcap app.

Uh, I do have that one on my phone.

I haven't had an opportunity to really use it because it's um, there's too much light around here.

Professor Fred Watson: Uh, what does it do, Andrew?

What's the, what's the purpose of the nightcap?

Andrew Dunkley: I haven't got my phone with me but uh, you can preset it to photograph in low light and, and you can either put it in manual mode or you can have this series of presets where you can, if you know what you want to photograph, it will set up the phone to create the exact situation you need to take that particular photograph.

Yeah, yeah, it's really, it's really good software.

Um, but I haven't really had a chance to use it properly.

But it can do time lapse and all sorts of things.

It's really good gear.

Uh, so yeah, when and where and how to take low light photographs, Fred Watson, of meteors.

Professor Fred Watson: That was meteors crucial thing.

Yeah.

From Dave's question.

And yeah, so Dave up in Verrel will have pretty easy access to dark skies.

Andrew Dunkley: Uh, yeah, that's, you know why?

You know why?

Because they're not putting the electricity on up there for another 10 years.

Professor Fred Watson: Okay.

Uh, sorry.

Andrew Dunkley: Everyone asks, in the 30 odd years I've lived here people have often asked do you have electricity where you are?

Um, so I couldn't help that joke.

Professor Fred Watson: No.

Well you do.

We did in Kun Durban as well but we were at the end of the line and uh, so if ever there was a thunderstorm we usually left our electricity, they were gone.

Andrew Dunkley: Ah yeah, we had that problem the first 15 years we lived here.

Professor Fred Watson: Um, but they do have electricity in Varel and they also have dark skies.

Relatively easily accessible by just driving up a few few kilometres further up the highway one way or the other.

Um, so, so meteors.

Um, yeah.

Dave's question, how many meteors are coming in?

Uh, quite a large number.

We think it's something like 100 tonnes, 50 to 100 tonnes a day meteoritic material hits the atmosphere that's worldwide.

Uh, but that means there are billions of meteors streaking through the atmosphere because most of them are specks of dust.

Um, and they can, yeah, sporadic meteors as they're called, they can whiz through the earth's atmosphere at any time.

People talking about this stargazing I was doing at uh, Sea Lake uh in rural Victoria last week, um, quite a few people were spotting meteors as they flashed through the sky.

I was looking at screens so I missed a, most of them.

Um, but uh, probably the time to uh, really concentrate on uh, if you serious and I think you kind of need an all sky lens effectively for good meteor photography.

Um, um, uh, the new generation of phones do have very wide angle lenses but they're not fisheye in the sense that you can see the whole sky.

Uh, but they're wide enough probably to use the snag with them is that they've got a low uh, uh aperture.

So a high focal ratio, uh, you know the ratio of the focal length to aperture and what you need is a low focal ratio to give you fast imaging, it's what we call a fast lens.

Whereas these wide angle ones tend not to have that.

Uh, and so you're tossing up you know, the relative merits of a very wide angle view or likely to capture more meteors or a narrow angle of view.

But greater sensitivity, so you'll see fainter meteors.

So, um, that's, you know, taking all that into consideration.

I, um, haven't tried meteor photography with my phone.

I've done a lot of aurora borealis photography with it and that works really well because they're sensitive.

But it will be an interesting thing to try.

Uh, it's the fact that you need the shutter open for a long time.

But I guess what you can do is just keep on taking short snapshots.

Um, the point I was going to get to is when you think about the Earth, uh, in its orbit around the sun, uh, the forward facing side of the orbit is where you are after midnight.

So after midnight means that you're on the leading edge of the Earth and that's where you're going to get the most meteors.

Basically, uh, as the Earth, uh, ploughs through the various clouds of dust, you've got meteor showers which come from big clouds of dust that the Earth goes through.

But these things are always best seen in the early morning, um, when you're on the side after midnight.

So that's the best advice I can give.

I'd be interested to hear how you get on Dave and, uh, what sort of results you might get.

Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, yeah.

And if you do get a couple of good ones, send them in and we'll, we'll, um, post them on our Facebook page or you can post them yourself on the Facebook group, whatever you like.

Um, love to see what you come up with.

We do get, um, some great astronauts of photography from space, uh, arts listeners on the Facebook group sometimes.

So, yeah, um, more than happy to, uh, have you, uh, post them on that page, Dave, and hopefully that will help.

But, uh, yeah, uh, the idea of having to get up and do it at the middle of night, not, not appealing.

But, uh, that's life in astronomy, isn't it, Fred Watson?

Professor Fred Watson: Tis a bit, yeah.

Andrew Dunkley: Yeah.

All right, Dave, thanks very much for your question.

Don't forget, if you've got a question, send it in to us because we'd love to try, uh, and answer it.

No guarantees, of course, uh, but you go to our website, spacenutspodcast.com spacenuts IO Click on the AMA tab and you can send, uh, uh, questions there, audio or text.

Just remember to tell us who you are and where you're from and we'll do the rest.

Or Huw in the studio will, if he ever turns up again.

He didn't turn up today.

I don't know what he was doing.

Probably trying astrophotography in the middle of the day.

Just never listens to us.

That's his problem.

Uh, Fred Watson, thank you as always and, uh, bon voyage.

Have a safe journey.

Uh, enjoy your time in, in Japan and Ireland and the, uh, UK and uh.

Yeah, and, and look forward to hearing about your travels when you get back.

And we will welcome, uh, Jonty Horner from the University of Southern Queensland, uh, with, um, Space Nuts for the foreseeable future.

So take care, Fred Watson, and thank you.

Professor Fred Watson: Thank you, Andrew.

Uh, I'll miss you all, but, um, I'll be glad to come back and, uh, talk to you sometime before Christmas.

Andrew Dunkley: Okay, catch you then, professor, uh, Fred Watson Watson, astronomer at large, and from me, Andrew Dunkley.

Thanks again for your company.

We'll see you on the very next episode of Space Nuts.

Until then, bye bye.

Voice Over Guy: You've been listening to the Space Nuts Podcast.

Available at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio or your favourite podcast player.

You can also stream on demand at bitesz.com This has been another quality podcast production from bitesz.com