StarTalk Podcast: X-ray Astrophysics with Neil deGrasse Tyson

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments
Captions
- Hello YouTubeiverse. This is your personal astrophysicist. Coming up, Cosmic Queries edition of StarTalk, this one on X-rays in the universe. (upbeat music) This is StarTalk, I'm your host, Neil deGrasse Tyson, your personal astrophysicist, and today it's a Cosmic Queries X-ray imaging astrophysics edition. You didn't think we had one of those, did you? Well we did because we have one of the world's experts in that very subject sitting with me right now. I've got with me Kim Arcand, Kim, welcome. - Thank you. - [Neil] I gotta get your title correct here. - It's a long one. (laughs) - [Neil] Visualization and Emerging Technology Lead for the Chandra X-ray Observatory. - Yes. - [Neil] Wonderful, And they didn't just pull you out of the ether, you've got some chops. I'm holding your book called Magnitude: Scale of the Universe. And I love this, on the cover it's got a mouse, a human brain, a bowling ball, a hot air balloon, and earth. It's like what scales are they? (laughter drowns out speaker) And you open the book and it lays that stuff out. And it talks about when things are big and small and how to think about them relative to one another. And this stuff we confront every day in modern astrophysics. - Cool. - How do you wrap your head around the scale of things? And you need to visualize it to know how to do it best 'cause otherwise we fumble ourselves trying to explain it, and so, beautiful book. - Thank you. - And thanks for bringing a copy here. And my co-host, Chuck. - Hey, Neil, how are you? - Welcome back to StarTalk. - Absolutely, it's a pleasure, yes. - All right, and you're tweeting @ChuckNiceComic. - Yes. - [Neil] And you are Instagraming at? - KimberlyKowal. - [Neil] Kimberly? - Kowal, K-O-W-A-L, it's my maiden name. Just had to throw that in there. - Now why you gotta do that? - 'Cause it's an old, from an old Yahoo email. Don't ask, don't ask. - Okay so Kimberly Kowal. - Kimberly Kowal. - Yes, K-O-W-A-L. - Okay, Kimberly Kowal. - Kowal. Yes. - Okay. Yeah. But since you're a visual person, Instagram. You have some kick-ass images. - I do love Instagram, yes. - Yeah, so we're gonna all look for that. - That'd be fun. - Yeah, so you got some questions for us, Chuck? - Absolutely. - Let's do this. - Yes, you know we have, of course, solicited questions from all over the interwebs. And we've got some good ones here, but we always start with a Patreon patron because Patreon patrons give us money. - Oh. - Right. - Yeah, yeah, yeah. - And since we're cheap whores-- - I'm slowly getting used to that. - [Chuck] Yeah, you don't like that. You don't like anything to do with money. - No, no, it's just money-- - This was my idea. I'm like, give us money, we'll do whatever you want. - [Neil] Right. (laughs) First question. - All right, first question. What would be the most exciting find that you would have via X-ray telescope. Like, what would be the piece de resistance, so to speak, this is what he says, okay, and this is Deezus quién, from Patreon. - [Neil] Patreon, okay. - Deezus. - Well, I mean, I think there's a lot of, if you asked that question of a number of different people, there'd be a lot of different answers. I think like for me in general with astronomy-- - You're making the images so you get to-- - I know, I do, I do. - You can top pick here. - I get it top pick, it's too exciting. For me, just with my biology background, anything to do with finding life, possibility for life on other planets. I mean, when I first started working for Chandra, exoplanets weren't really a thing. Like, this is like late '90s, and they weren't really, I think maybe there were like one or two discoveries at that time. - A few. Yeah, the first was 1995. - Right, exactly, so-- - They're all the rage now. - Yes, they are all the rage. Now there's thousands of them, I think. And Chandra has some interesting capabilities to study especially the effects of the host star and how that might have habitability issues with its, you know, children planets. So I think anything to do with exoplanets, for me, that would be super exciting. - So this is extra information brought to us by X-rays about these objects we already know of. - Right. - How about objects that we would know nothing of, were it not for their X-ray signature? - So, all right-- - What would you put at the top of that list? - Oh, all right, I think-- - 'Cause really, your X-rays for exoplanets are supplementing other data. - They're helping the bigger puzzle. - The bigger puzzle. - Yes, yes, yes. - Give me one where X-rays are the only pieces in the puzzle. - Well, so I'm too much like a multi-wavelength astronomy junkie here. (overlapping chattering) - You're asking me to choose one of my children. - That's exactly how I feel. - This is the Sophie's Choice. - And I would never pick one of my kids over the other. And they're listening, so I know that for a fact. So anyways, but yeah, I feel like these days it's all about how the different kinds of light are each one tool in the toolbox of astronomy, right? - [Neil] Very good. - And it's truly about how all of those pieces fit together. So X-ray astronomy compliments really well with radio astronomy, with optical, I mean, it's really, it's hard to pick just one. - Okay, so this is the healthiest way to think about that. That you are a cog in a wheel, a puzzle piece to a larger organized understanding of the universe - [Kim] Right. - [Chuck] Yeah, I mean-- - And with the addition of gravitational wave science, like, that's-- - Whole new window (overlapping chattering) - So a multi-messenger, it gets exciting, I mean, there's just, there's a lot to go there, so I can't just pick one. - You can't pick one. (overlapping chattering) All right, there you go. - All right, there it is. - Can't just have one. - Nope. - There you have it. - I like the cog-- - And are you showing off your cellphone here, look at-- - Maybe. - [Neil] Look at that, okay? - It's beautiful, this is actually-- - Your cellphone is gorgeous. - This is an image-- - So that's a skin, or a cover? - It's a little case, it's a little case. - A little case. - I mean, this is NGC 602, it's a beautiful stellar evolution area of baby stars being born. (overlapping chattering) - A stellar nursery, lots of babies in there. (Chuck imitates baby crying) And you've got this, the purple is the X-ray data from Chandra, and then there's also some infrared data from Spitzer, and some optical data-- - Chuck, are you making crying babies? - That's my baby star, that's my baby star. (Chuck imitates baby crying) (Neil laughs) - And I just randomly found this on Amazon one day, which was, I think, so cool, and I was like, I know that image. - Because? - It's NGC 602, 'cause I worked on it. (overlapping chattering) - You created that image. - Well, with a team, I mean, nobody, one person ever does anything-- - Sure, of course. - Right. That, you scientists are always so damn humble, you know what I mean? - Well, You can't be, otherwise we'll smack you down, 'cause you could be wrong next week-- (overlapping chattering) And you're in the doghouse. - Exactly. - And you guys kind of all know, need each other-- - Nature is always more clever than any of us. (overlapping chattering) - Oh, I like that, "nature is always more clever "than any of us." - Oh, yeah - Completely agree. - Yeah, and sometimes it's more clever than all of us combined. - Wow. - [Kim] Yeah. - So one thing, so just to emphasize, your X-ray data is part of other data that's combined to make that image? - Yes, it's multi-wave length astronomy again at its best, this is kind of a great observatory classic with Chandra, Hubble, and Spitzer, which I think is really beautiful, and it just helps tell the story, you know, X-rays, I think, are thought of-- - Wait, so Chandra's X-rays, Hubble, it's obviously visible light. - Optical, typically. - And-- - Spitzer is infrared. - Spritzer is infrared, so two very different branches of the spectrum. - Oh, very much, yeah. - But combined to make one image, as though our eyes could see that broadly. - [Kim And Chuck] Right. - So if you had sensors in X-rays, visible and infrared-- - [Chuck] You'd be able to put this all together. - And you'd look up and you'd see that. - You'd see that, right. - Right. - So if you were Predator you could actually enjoy that-- - Or Geordi. - Or Geordi La Forge on Star Trek. (overlapping chattering) - You could tune that sucker up. - Yeah. - You know, Geordi had the opportunity not to be blind, and he turned it down. - Really? - Yeah, in an episode of Star Trek, you know? - I missed that one. - And I think it's because he actually saw your image - That's probably it, nice. (group laughs) - Well, the thing is, we are practically blind when you consider how narrow is the slice of the electromagnetic spectrum our retina shows us. We are practically blind. - Wow. - Yeah, we can see so little, just like a tiny sliver. - You know, you open a book and it has the rainbow, you know, the colors of the rainbow,, red, orange, yellow, Roy G Biv? - Right. - Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet, can't forget indigo. - Yes, yes, yes. - Right, and so it fills the page, and then, but you look at the entire range, and I'll recite that. Now, it goes from high energy to low energy, you go from gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet, violet, indigo, you do Roy G Biv backwards, right, violet, indigo, blue, green-- - Green, red. - Yeah. - No, no, green, yellow, orange, red, or orange, yellow, red. (overlapping chattering) - Okay, then you come out of the red, and you get infrared. - Infrared - And then you get microwaves, and then you get radio waves. - [Chuck] Wow. - When you put all that on one page, visible light is this tiny-- - It's a tiny little sliver. - Sliver. - So if you have, like, a piano in front of you, it'd be like human vision is middle C, and maybe a couple keys around it, that's it. - Yeah, barely an octave. - All the rest of the keys. - Not quite an octave around middle C-- - Now, so, are there any-- - So imagine listening to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony-- - With just like three keys. - With three keys. - Hammered out on three keys. (overlapping chattering) - That's terrible. - Yeah, so we're basically blind, so he did the right thing. - I hate my eyes now. - I know, they're pathetic. - God, I hate my eyes, so let me ask you this, then, are there any animals that see outside of the spectrum? - Oh, yeah. - Deer. - Deer? - Deer can see a little bit in ultraviolet. - A little ultraviolet? - Insects are all about ultraviolet. - Insects, bumblebees, yeah. - Cool, bumblebees see in ultraviolet, as well. - Yup, a little bit. - And you know that they like ultraviolet, okay, this is how we know that we are smarter than insects. - [Chuck] Okay. - Okay, evidence we are smarter than insects. - All right, cool, no one is stepping on us to kill us? No, go ahead. - We invented bug zappers, which are intense in ultraviolet, and they say, "I can't stop it," zap. - Exactly. - And that's how we know we're smarter than they are. And bug bulbs which you don't see much anymore 'cause they're kind of amber, they don't repel bugs, bugs don't see it, so their entire sensitivity to light is shifted towards the blue end into the ultraviolet, and it dangles off the other end some red and orange. So it's not that they avoid the red bulb over your picnic table, they don't see it at all. - They can't see it at all. - Yeah, and if you put a bug zapper at the end of the lawn, they all go to the bug zapper, so I just want you to appreciate that we are smarter than the bugs. - So the alien invasion comes and it's bugs we should just rely on our zappers, is that-- - Oh good, good. (overlapping chattering) - If they are bugs. - Yeah, but you know what, if an alien invasion, if they were smart enough to get here and we're too stupid to leave here, something tells me they're gonna have the equivalent of a bug zapper for us, like a concert where, you know, just like, "oh my god, a free concert"-- - Free concert and good food. - Right, exactly. Free concert and hamburgers, what? - Right. (overlapping chattering) - You know, we walk in and zap, right. (overlapping chattering) - And no one comes out to tell you not to go. - Exactly, 'cause everybody got zapped when they were there. Dude, that must be the best concert ever, it's been going on for six days and nobody's come out. Yeah. - That wouldn't be fun. - Yeah, we would be putty in the hands of a smarter species, for sure, all right, next question. - All right, here we go, Pintibot on Instagram wants to know this, "Since you guys were talking "about the different types of light in the spectrum, "what is the difference between Chandra X-ray Observatory "and James Webb Telescope," is it just the spectrum of light, or what else do they do that is different? - Let's start out with the orbit, so what orbit is Chandra in? - So Chandra is in a highly elliptical orbit that goes about a third of the way to the moon. Chandra is about the size of a school bus, it weighs maybe 4800 Kilograms, something like that, and-- - On earth. - Yes, exactly, exactly, very important detail. - On the moon it weighs one sixth of that. - Yeah, you know, actually the interesting thing about Chandra is it was, I'm pretty sure still was the heaviest thing that the space shuttle ever launched. - [Neil] Really? - And the fact that it was so massive meant that, and I didn't actually learn this until many years later, the fact that it was so massive meant that it was a more risky ride for the astronauts than it would have been with a lighter payload. - Right. - Their abort scenarios, for example, were more challenging, but I didn't know that at the time. So, yeah, so Chandra was large and in charge, and it was fortunately perfect-- - Large and in charge. - Everything went perfect to get it up into space, thanks to the astronauts-- - And so that's that orbit, and so James Webb is a million miles on the other side of the moon. - Right. - So they want that away from earth interference. - [Chuck] Right. - [Kim] Yeah. - So James Webb is an infrared-based telescope, and again, different parts of the spectrum were tuned differently, and so they have their targets of interests, their objects of affection in the universe are different. But then you bring them all together, and you get the full picture. - So now you mentioned the orbits, this is a question coming from Chuck Nice on Facebook. (group laughs) - Chuck Nice, in person. - Chuck Nice here in the office. - Oh, wait, let me just comment about, I have to say something more about James Webb. - Go ahead. - So Chandra's in this big elliptical orbit, so it's orbiting earth James Webb is in a Lagrangian point. It is a point where all forces that would otherwise move it are stable, and so you put it out there, and it takes very little station keeping to just keep it there, and this is the, these famous Lagrangian points are where we imagine you'd build stuff 'cause you can just get all your hardware, and just load it there - Just leave it there, right. - You leave it there-- - And just let it hang around. - Just hang. - Right. - It's the garage patch of the solar system. - It's what it is, it'll collect it, if, oh, I need a bolt or a screw, there it is, just floating right by. - It just hangs right there. - It doesn't fall to anybody's surface. So they were imagined to be a little more useful than they've turned out to be, turns out we can make things that are orbiting, it's not that hard, 'cause once you bring something up into orbit, it orbits with you. - With you, right. - Yeah, yeah, so it's not, but anyhow-- - Although I do love the Lagrangian point, like, as a place, you know? - It has cool name. - It's a total cool name. - You know, right? - Exactly. - Lagrange. (overlapping chattering) (group laughs) - All right, so now let me ask you this. - Okay. - As these orbits happen, are they, are they staying on a fixed point, or are they observing different quadrants as they move around? - So Chandra goes a third of the way to the moon at its farthest point, and then goes about 1600 kilometers to earth at its closest point, so it's this nice elliptical orbit, and it's got, they did that for, like, optimal observing capabilities so that it has the most time to essentially be looking out at the universe. - Gotcha. - But, you know-- - Far away from earth. - Far away from earth, exactly. But yeah, I think what's really interesting about, well, for one thing, I think it must have gone, like, 2.7 billion mile, I mean, kilometers by now over 20 years, which is, I think, fantastic and I think about, like, Chandra's never had a day off in, like, 20 years doesn't even have, like, an hour off-- - She works hard for the-- - Right, I know. And how perfect that had to work when it was launched. So anyway, I'm not sure what James Webb is doing but-- - Right, so, well it's not up yet, of course. Right. - True, when it goes. - At the time of this broadcast, but, so these things have gyros that enable you to know where you are and where you're pointing and so you give it, send coordinates up there, and you pick out your object of interest and gather data. So there are some, I think I understand the point of that question, there are some telescopes that only observe one patch of sky. - [Chuck] Right, exactly. - [Kim] Sure, yes. - And it's hammer that for, and they get better, deeper data, Kepler did that. - Right. - Kepler was one patch of sky looking, there was a lot of stars, but it was still one patch looking for exoplanets. And, 'cause it had to go back looking for variations in the host star - Right. - So one set of data's not good enough, you gotta go back and back and back and then-- - [Chuck] And compare all the different images-- - Compare all the data, right, right, right, so, and let me take this moment, let's go over just who these people are, okay, so James Webb was the, he was head of NASA during the 1960s. - Cool. - Yeah, and, but he was, I think he was the first person who we named a telescope after that was not a scientist, so I think-- - What? - [Neil] There might have been some political stuff going on in the back room. - That's kind of cool, though, I kind of like James Webb-- - And I think that was the first naming before launch too right? - Oh yeah, yeah, normally you name it after a person after launch, just in case it blows up or something. - Right. - Bad luck. - Your name blows up with the thing. - Chandra was AXAF for a long time and AXAF-- - I forgot all about that. - Doesn't quite roll off the tongue-- - AXAF? - Yeah, X-ray Astrophysics Facility or something. - Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility-- - Yeah, yeah, astrophysics, yeah, yeah. - But then it was renamed Chandra after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, who was a very famous Indian-American Nobel Laureate who studied things like white dwarfs and stuff like that, so-- - Very nice. - And he also did, I probably have a book by Chandra, let me see here, hold on. - Oh, look at that. - How funny. - There it is. - Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. - Yeah. - Radiative Transfer, so one of the more brilliant among us. - Okay, I'm through, I can't even with you. - What, what? - [Chuck] I'm just done with you. - What, what? - [Chuck] Like seriously - What, you've got issues? - Yeah, I got issues 'cause I'm not an, this is the crap, not the crap-- - It is? - But this is what you're reading? - Yes. - [Chuck] You're sitting around reading this? Give me this for a second. - No. - Give it here, give me that book for a second. - What? - I can't believe that, okay, people at home, I just-- - Open any page. - I'm just, wait, let me just open it up, okay, here's the page, I swear to God-- - [Neil] Oh, you're gonna read us-- - I'm gonna read. - It's not light reading. - I'm gonna read it to you, I'm gonna read it to you-- - [Neil] Chuck's bed time stories from Radium Transfer - Here it is, exactly. "Principles of invariance," what is that? What is that? - A squiggly line. (laughs) - What is that, squiggly line, squiggly line doodle sign. (Neil laughs) And by the way-- - Okay, so-- - This just goes on for page after page after page of this. Some of the pages are just nothing but actual equations, just after equation after equation. I have seen Chinese newspapers that are easier to understand than this. - All right, so Chuck, if you write a book like this, you get a telescope named after you. (Chuck and Neil laughing) - That is true. - Unbelievable. - So he's wrote several books that really were the definitive word on those subjects, and they're still used in graduate school. - Yeah, and it was a naming contest. We actually had a contest for the naming and it was a teacher and a high school student that picked the name Chandra as the winning entry. - Oh, very cool. - See, they knew. - So yeah, they knew, they did some excellent research and did not mind the equations. - So we've gotta take a break. - Okay. - We have more questions coming up on the X-ray universe with Kim Arcand. - Right. - Did I say that right? - You did. - It's French, but I'm Americanizing it. - You tried to French it, it was good. - Did I try to French it, Arcand. - Yes - Kimberly Arcand, Chuck Nice, we'll be back in a few moments. We're back, StarTalk Cosmic Queries, the X-ray edition, and I've got the leading visualization person for the Chandra X-ray Telescope, Kim Arcand. Kim, welcome to StarTalk, you're a first timer. - Thanks, yeah. - I hope we get you back. - Yeah. - And Chuck. - Hey. - Always there. - Yep. - You're there for me. - I am always here for you, my friend. - [Neil] Love you, man. - I love you, too. - Okay, so what do you have? - Let's go to ugh, these people. (Neil laughs) (Neil mumbles) God. (Neil laughs) You just made this name up. - What, all right, go. - Addi Adamir Adamaroidia? Adamaroidia, I'm gonna go with that, on Instagram wants to know how many more stars can we detect with a Chandra X-ray observatory than we can see with our naked eye, and can we detect exoplanet transits? - Oh good, well, we've talked about exoplanets a little bit-- - So can I reshape that question? - [Kim] Yeah. - I look up at the night sky, the human eye can see about, in the total sky that is below and above you, about 6,000 stars, a few nebulae with the naked eye. So how boldly different, if you could just turn on X-ray vision in a Chandra sense, what do you begin to then notice, what begins to pop? - I think it's more than just the stars. So I guess it's quality over quantity, right? It's not just the numerical number that we're gonna be looking at, but more about, like, telling about what they are, so, for example, if you looked at a patch of the sky of Orion Nebula, for example, and you looked at that in optical light-- - It's the closest stellar nursery to the sun in the constellation, among the stars of the constellation Orion. - Cool. - You can look at that in optical light, and you'll definitely see a lot of stars, but as soon as you look at an X-ray light you're gonna see, in the same tiny, small patch, you might see, like, I don't know, 1,700 X-ray sources. But those aren't gonna just be plain old stars, I mean, you know, not that stars are just plain and old but you know what I mean, you might see binaries, you might see black holes, you might see other types of these celestial objects, so I guess for me it's just, yeah, it's not the quantity so much as the quality of what you're studying. And then you're also gonna see diffused emissions, kind of like some of that hot bath that those stars might be sitting in. - So hot gases will radiate X-rays, and you're not gonna see that with your naked eye, and you're not gonna see it with your regular telescope, either. - Right. - Right. - Right, so the whole new world opens up. - Right, another example would be something like Cassiopeia A, the supernova remnant, right? So you could look at that in optical light, and you'll see-- - Chuck, you're nodding like you knew all about Cassiopeia. - Listen, what can I say? - It's a good one It's a famous one. - What can I say? Even though it's not like it was a, you know, it's not like it's something that is very esoteric, you know what I mean, to be honest. - But a supernova exploded, I forgot the year that that happened, but there's a remnant of this exploded star and we kind of knew it was there, but now Chandra gives us a whole other view of it. - A whole other world, it's really amazing to look at. I mean, you can look at it with optical light from, like, the Hubble Space Telescope, and you'll this beautiful filamentary structure. I'm a very visual person, obviously, so I'm, like, lacking my images, but you'd see this nice delicate filamentary material around the 10,000 degree mark right? Kind of looks like a hollow shell and so you can look at Cass A with the Chandra Observatory, and it looks completely different, it's, like, literally death come alive, it's this solid looking sort of-- - Death come alive? - Thing, yeah, well, it's death, but, you know, it does lead to future generations of stuff-- - It's animated death. - Yeah, it is, in a kind of way, it is moving, it's evolving-- - Oh, just go on with your bad self, oh. - I'm feeling very poetic. - Man, I can't, I got nothing, I got nothing. (group laughs) - But it's amazing because you can trace, like, where the iron is dispersed, and where the argon and the silicon is, and it just makes this incredibly gorgeous nebula to look at. - New stars arise from the ashes of that which has burned. - Nice. - That's exactly it. - Now can I hang with you all? - I like that. - That's very nice. That's poetic. - That was very cool. - So is Cass A, I always forget, is that the brightest source of X-rays in the sky, or is there another? - No, Sco X-1 is. - Oh, Scorpius, Scorpius X-1 is, okay. - Yeah, but Cass A is really bright, and it's great for Chandra-- - Okay, now, see, now, you had to do it, didn't you? - What, what, what? - You had to go, you know, I was cool with Cass A, okay? And then you had to go to Sco. - Sco. - Look, and what is Scorpio, and what is-- - Scorpius, the constellation. - Oh, Scorpius. - The constellation, yes. - Okay. - Now I'm old enough, okay, I'm older than all you all, okay, I worked at the Center for Astrophysics, which is a big X-ray place up in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as an undergraduate. - Nice. - [Kim] Oh, I didn't know that. - And for my summer project, I worked on one of the earliest X-ray telescopes that were launched. So there's Uhuru, which was an X-ray telescope, and-- - Right, and the receptionist on Star Trek. - Uhura. (overlapping chattering) Brother, Uhuru, or Uhura? (group laughs) But she was not the receptionist, dude, she was a lieutenant, first of all. - Yeah. - This is true. - And a communications officer, so the first telescopes that go up, they just kind of look for anything that gave up X-rays, and then it created a catalog and they numbered the X-ray sources within each constellation, so, by order of brightness. And so in Scorpius, the brightest one was X Sco X-1. - [Chuck] So Sco X-1 is, but is-- - And there's also a Cygnus X-1. That's a good black hole candidate, and so when you see the X and the one, it was like, we got our first X-ray telescope, and we got, Cass A was named before we had X-rays, so. - And so now, the detection of those, so, you know-- - Oh, by the way, those early telescopes, it was just to know that they're even there at all. - That's what I was gonna say. - Right - Yeah, yeah, so now you got Chandra-- - Exactly, and that's what I love about X-ray astronomy, is like, I mean, there are a lot of people on this planet whose whole lives have been the length of X-ray astronomy, like, the field is so young, I think, I mean, it really got going late '40s, early '50s, and then by the time I was-- - Well, from when they had detectors, yeah. - Exactly, and by the time I was born, there was a good detector on Skylab. By the time my kids are born, and, like, you know, Chandra had launched, and XMM-Newton was launched, and now they're working on new generations of X-ray telescopes and detectors-- - So Chandra was '92 or '99? - '99. (overlapping chattering) - 2019 is the 20th anniversary. - That's the 20, okay. - Yeah, this summer. - Now before that, you're looking at images, like, 100 times, kind of, dimmer or fainter, right? - Much fainter, and, I mean, it started out, like, looking at the sun to just get X-rays from the sun first, 'cause it's a nice nearby target-- - Is the sun bright enough, you think? - Exactly, Chandra can't look at the sun 'cause it's so bright. - Beause it's too bright, okay, yeah. - It would, like, fry Chandra off, but-- - I can look at the sun, nevermind. - All right, no one should be looking at the sun, how's that? (group laughs) Especially not Chandra, but yes, and then with, like, Uhuru and Einstein, like, all these other missions, it's just been an amazing compact amount of X-ray astronomy that's happened in just a handful of decades-- - But it took a normal course of evolution, so you first got to note, you want to learn that there's any kind of source of X-rays at all. - [Kim] Something to detect, exactly. - Here, there, there, but they're blunt instruments, right? Then you kind of wonder what it is, you might do some calculations, but still, you don't know. And the later generations, you say, "Now that I know they're there, and I know what kind "of signal it's giving me, let me devise a detector "that can more precisely measure that," or measure something dimmer, and so like you were saying, you'd see the dimmer ones, you'd get more precision in your image, you start making X-ray images. - Right, and now Chandra's images are so sharp and beautiful, I mean, when you're looking at things like supernova remnants, and it's just so much detail that you're seeing, nevermind what the next generation of X-ray telescopes will be able to do, like, a hundred times more sensitive. - Will the next generation say, "You know, back in 2019, "Kim thought she had high-resolution imaging"? - I'm sure, I hope they do. - "But she was, she had nothing." - "We had nothing," yes, that would be perfect. - That would be great. - That would be the best thing. - The best thing if you were obsolete-ified by better telescopes. - Doesn't everybody want that? - Yeah. - Yeah. - All right, should we go another question? - Yeah, let's do it. - Let's do this. This is, Chris Cherry from Instagram says, "What is the "next light spectrum we'll be observing in the universe?" Or, "observing the universe in?" - All of them, all of the above? I mean, not just, (laughs) I mean, I guess it depends on what they mean by the question, if they mean what's next to be launched, I mean, hopefully the James Webb will be the next to be launched, and that'll be infrared. And then beyond that, it's whatever's in the budget, and what other agencies are able to do-- - Great answer, "Whatever's in the budget." (laughs) - Right? - That's funny. - I mean, it's-- - I love that answer. (overlapping chattering) Great answer. - It's true. - Yeah. (laughs) - Yeah. - What's the next spectrum, "Whatever's in the budget." (overlapping chattering) - But ideally, all the light, we want all the light. - Right. - You know? - Very cool. - But here's an interesting challenge, okay? So radio waves have a very long wavelength, and one bits of evidence of that is, those who remember televisions that had rabbit ears, they're detecting radio waves as television signals, and the the length of the rabbit ear is commensurate with the length of the radio wave that it's trying to capture, so that's, okay. So suppose you want to detect a radio wave that's a meter long, or 10 meters long, or a kilometer long, how are you going to detect that? You need a detector that is at least that size, so you can get a whole wavelength in there, or at least half a wavelength, you need some fraction of that wavelength hitting and being able to focus it. Suppose there's something out there that makes a radio wave that is the diameter of earth's orbit around the sun, who's detecting that? So there could be phenomena in the universe that is washing across the entire solar system and we don't have detectors that can pick it up. - Wow. - I do like radio waves. If I had to pick a second favorite beside X-rays, I think it would be radio waves. - [Neil] That's a nice pair of waves right there. - Yeah, they really are, they're really complimentary. It's true, even though they're on opposite parts. - They're opposite parts, but they're good. - But opposites attract I mean it really does-- - Plus they're highly used in our culture, radio waves for communication, and X-rays for medicine. - X-rays for health. - Health, yeah. - Yeah. - Yeah. - Very, very cool. - All right. - All right, could there be a, oh, sorry, Julie H, who comes to us @TimeTraveling on Twitter, I like that, She says, "Could there be technology like Street View "on Google Maps that visits various points, "just points in the universe?" - Oh, that's a great question. - Interesting question, right? - Yeah, so we have Google Mars, I think it's called, you can look that up, GoogleMars.com, or maybe it's Mars.Google.com, whatever, that it's almost like Street View of some of the data on Mars, and that's really amazing, getting more three dimensional, which I think is the point she's kind of getting at there. Data of our universe is really hard. Once you're going beyond nearby objects in the solar system, and you're going farther out past the stars, it's really hard to get some sort of usable dimensional data on that to then turn into a 3D model that you can tour in like a street view type of map. - So you think, you don't do 3D modeling for Chandra? - We do. - You do? - It's just hard. (laughs) - Oh, okay, okay. - But we do, yeah, actually, I do have a 3D model here. - We do things not because they're easy-- - But because they're hard. - So you brought to show and tell. - I did bring something for show and tell because, again, I'm a very visual person. - This is an audio show. - Which does not help the audio folks, I know. - Well it, but it-- - But we can describe it. - Yeah, so it is a kind of globular looking structure, and it has many different nodes that are jutting out from it, and-- - It looks like a tumor removed from somebody's body. - It really does. - Yeah, so, but there's a reason for that. (laughs) - If you've ever-- - You know what it looks like? It looks like a fossilized, no, calcified coral, that's what that looks like. - Oh, very good. - Yes, yes, it does, yes. - That good? - Yes, so-- - Wow, Neil. That was excellent. - Why it looks biological, though, it's because we actually use-- - [Neil] Why it's what, you say? - Why it looks biological, it's because we actually used brain imaging software adapted from some local area brain scientists in the Boston area to make it, that, we used their software. So that's why it looks more brainy ish or biological ish than you would probably expect otherwise. - That's funny because before we sat down I picked this up and I said, "Is this like a firing neuron?" - Right, right, right. (overlapping chattering) Yes, well, I mean, if you look at visuals from the micro versus the macro, now you're speaking my language 'cause of my biology background, but you can see so many similarities in the way that you process those data, right? But what you're holding is a 3D model of Cassiopeia A, our good friend that we were talking about earlier, the supernova remnant. - That's so cool. - Yeah, 10, 11,000 light years away, and you're able to hold a version in your hand, essentially because of the Doppler effect, right? - So did you 3D print that? - Yeah, this is 3D printed. - Okay. - Yep, so we worked with-- - So the Doppler effect gives you depth information? - Right, exactly. - Okay. - So Tracey DeLaney, she was the scientist who first worked on this, she was at MIT at the time, and she was essentially figuring out what information was moving away and what was moving towards-- - Was she with their imaging lab, MIT has a big and famous imaging lab. - No, she wasn't actually. This was separate, but we hooked her up with the folks who were working on the medical imaging software translation, which was called Astronomical Medicine, and-- - That's cool, I like that. - And this was the result. - I like that hybridization. - Yeah, yeah. - This is fascinating, I love it. - So scale is an issue, though, obviously, when you're holding something that small, this is, like, four inches across for those listening, maybe-- - Okay, what we can do, maybe we'll photograph it, and we'll post it next to the audio. - But in real life, it's like, the surface area is maybe 40 million billion times the surface area of our sun and planets, and you can toss in Pluto, if you like, it doesn't matter. - Yeah, yeah, Pluto, yeah, or toss it out, it doesn't matter. (Kim laughs) - But, yeah, so 3D is hard-- - I buried my hatchet with Pluto, me and Pluto are good. - Oh, good, good, good. - All right, Chuck? - Only you have to bury the hatchet with-- - Pluto. - With that dwarf planet, I was about to say planet. - With a hound dog. - Yeah, yes, exactly - Blood hound, I think it is. - Yeah, yeah. All right, do we have time for one more? - Well, let me hear, let me hear the question. - All right, I'm gonna give you the question, this is Tom Rex from Facebook, he says, "Do you think virtual reality will "ever allow the human brain to "completely comprehend the immense distances "between planets, stars, and galaxies, "or is this something that we'll never fully grasp?" - And we will answer that after this break. - Nice. - See what I did there? (overlapping chattering) - It's called a tease. - It's called a tease. (overlapping chattering) This is StarTalk Cosmic Queries, X-ray astrophysics edition, we'll see you in a moment. - StarTalk Cosmic Queries X-ray astrophysics edition. We're celebrating the 20th Anniversary of the launch of the Chandra X-ray telescope, one of the great observatories, up there with Hubble and James Webb and the rest of them, each of them targeting their window to the universe. - Nice. - I got Kim, Kim Arcand. - Hello. - Yes. - And Chuck. - Yes. - So we left off, we left people dangling, where, can virtual reality help us comprehend the scale of sizes and distances and things? Let's make this a more broad visualization question. - [Chuck] All right. - Par of you job, Kim, is to get people to see things we don't otherwise see, or to grasp scale and texture and phenomenon that is not otherwise accessible to us looking on our Instagram account, so what role do you see that you play in getting us closer to the universe? - Oh, that's a great question. I think mostly my job is to just sort of oversee all the various visual platforms that we can take Chandra data to, I mean, we-- - [Neil] Oh, it's not just photographs? - Not just images, yeah, I mean, Chandra, one of the great things when you have a telescope that's been up there for so long is you just have a fantastic archive of data to work with and as technology has developed in other sectors, you have all of these new platforms to try it out with. So we were talking about 3D printing earlier, and the idea of what you do with 3D models-- - So you gotta stay current with all that. - You do. - And exploit it in it's service of-- - Yeah, when I started working for Chandra, Cassiopeia A was one of the first objects we ever looked at, right, and it was beautiful in a flat two dimensional image and I was amazed, never would I have imagined, fast forward 20 years, and I'm holding a version of it in my hand, or walking inside it in virtual reality. Like, those technologies were not a reality at the time, so with things like virtual reality, or augmented reality, mixed reality, data sonification using sound, there are all of these ways to take that-- - Data sonification? - Yes. - So add another sense to the interpretation of the data. - So, for example-- - Is this also good for blind people? - Exactly, Dr. Wanda Diaz actually has done a lot of work around that, my kind of perfect world would be a virtual reality application where you have the visual, of course, but then you have the layer of sound that's also spatially attached, so you know where things are, and then also, like, a haptic layer, so you can actually feel vibrations. - Haptic? - Touch. - So, like, you know, when your phone vibrates-- - Why didn't you just say touch? - 'Cause haptic is much a cooler word. - I know, it's called haptic technology, that's what we use, I don't know, but yes, essentially by being able to feel those vibrations as you're moving through the remnant, right? So there are all these applications, none of which were around-- - So moving through the remnant, so you have the 3D model and you become a journey, you journey through the model? - Exactly, exploring it. Now the scale is still hard, right-- - Oh my God, they used to have that at the Franklin Institute, it was a heart. - Yeah, oh, right, yeah, yes, correct. - And I remember-- - The living heart. - The living heart, you would walk through the heart. - Right, so think of that, except virtual, right? But then having cues of sound and touch, and it's a wholly different understanding and experience of that information. Now, going back to the question of scale, I mean, as soon as you get out of earth-size scale and even smaller than that, it's really hard for human understanding and relations of what we know. So whether that will actually help people understand and comprehend some of these vast scales, I don't know, but it helps-- - It might help, but here's the thing, it's just not, everything that we see, we imagine on the scale that we see it. - Right, exactly. - Because that's the scale in which we live, and so-- - The scale in which our senses were forged. - Correct, yes. - Exactly. - So the problem is that even if you were able to demonstrate it, your brain would be resistant to actually then re-visualizing it that way because you're so used to looking at, you know, the world through the eyes that you have, which is, like, Neil does this thing where he shows, which the first time I saw it, 'cause he did it for me, I was like, "Get out of here," and he showed me just where the moon and the sun and the earth are and it was, like-- - Relative to each other. - Relative to each other, and we just did it with a basketball and something else, and we did it in a regular room, and I'm like, "You gotta be kidding me." You know what I mean, so even being able to see it in-- - And those are just planets. (overlapping chattering) - We're now talking about galaxies. - Exactly, yeah. - That's crazy. - So, yeah, I don't think the human brain could ever comprehend those vast scales, it's just too much. - Cool. - Yeah. - Oh, man, this is good stuff-- - I got another quick one, just while we're there. - Yeah. - You might ask, you see all these stars in these photos, and you say, will stars ever collide? Well, they do, rarely, but they do and they can, and it's interesting when that happens, but to appreciate how rare that is, if there were four bumblebees in the United States flying randomly, there's a higher chance that two of them will accidentally bump into one another than for two stars to collide in the galaxy. - [Kim] Oh, that's a good analogy. - That's a great analogy. - Yeah, that's a good one. - [Neil] Four bumblebees. - Just four bumblebees? - Bumblebees, so you look at their size and the distance between them, that's kind of what you're getting, the size of a star relative to the distances between them. - Right, that's a good one. - And by the way, if there's only four bumblebees, we're all dead 'cause there's no food. - Yes, we need them. - Nothing gets pollinated, all right. I hadn't thought about that, now I feel guilty, dude. All right, next question. - All right, this is-- - Before we go to lightning round. - Here we go, Johnathan Gallant wants to know this, "Hey, it's Jonathan "from Edmonton, how far away from," oh, you know what? We did this already, but I'm gonna give it to you anyway, he's taking it one step further than the last question, here's a followup, we'll call it, how far away are we "from a Star Trek-like stellar cartography room, "like they have on the Holodeck?" - In The Next Generation. (overlapping chattering) - Yeah, Next Generation, the Holodeck, yeah. - I really like that question. - It's a great question. - We are actually just stating to experiment with holograms, but screen-based holograms, so not just sort of appearing in the room-- - Not, "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope"? - Not yet, but-- - But. - Even screen-based holograms-- - That was really geeky. - I mean-- - Oh my gosh. - But that was good. - Oh my gosh, oh my gosh. - So-- - I didn't know you had it in you. - It's there, I mean, and I think with, like, missions like Gaia and others, you know, building this sort of nice 3D map, I mean, the universe is three dimensional-- - So the Gaia mission got 3D data on millions of stars in our galaxy. - Right. - Right, our world is 3D, so being able to bring some of that 3D nature into a way that we can visualize and understand it and then explore it, I think it's really important, I really do, and it's awfully fun. - Very cool. - Yeah. - Excellent, excellent. I don't even know if we have enough questions left for-- - For a lightning round? - The lightning round. - Well the we could just, we could just chill, chill with them. - All right. Let's chill with it, this is-- - Let me slip in a question here. - Go ahead. - So let's, can we just go back to basics? - [Kim] Yeah. - When you're gonna make a simple color image of something that has no color, and you're using your X-rays to do so, what are your steps? - Well, so first we get the data from whatever object it is. If we want to use Cass A as our example, the first thing-- - That's the favorite object of the day. - It's just the favorite object, it's actually one of my favorites, if I won't admit it, but we first get the data in, you know, when it first comes down, it's actually transmitted and coded in the form of ones and zeros. Then it goes through some software and then it's translated into a table that shows the x and y position of the observation, the time and the energy of each of those packets of light that struck the detector during the observation. Then it's, like, yet more software-- - Oh, by the way, we could measure visible light in the form of energy, we just don't, the way we do it is we measure it by color, so, oh, this is a blue photon and this is a red photon, and we just say it's blue and it's red, but if we did a Chandra thing on this, we'd say that this is the higher energy photon this is a lower energy photon, and the blue would have higher energy than the red. So it's really the same thing, but they have a whole other, the detectors measure this in energy, so the vocabulary and the steps are, are shaped for that. - Right, exactly. - Okay, sorry to interrupt, I just wanted to slap that in there, okay, go. - So more software, and we finally get the visual representation of the object, and I like to use that word, that term for a reason because I think there is this idea that these images of the universe are giant cosmic selfies, you know what I mean, snap, done, and they're not, they really do take people like me or like whoever to do the creation step because it is light that you can't see. So then you create the visual representation of the object and then you refine it, you have to get rid of artifacts or bad bits of data, you have to smooth it. You might have to crop in the field of view that you need and then usually the last step is color. And I like to, you know, slice and dice an image by energy level, essentially, so the lowest energy X-rays will be assigned red, the medium green, and the highest blue, unless we're adding it to optical image from Hubble, or Spitzer infrared image. - That means you can't take their color. - Exactly, you have to share. - You have to share the colors. - Sharing is very important. - We only have Roy G Biv, you gotta, you know, spread the love. - Sharing is very important. - Sharing is caring. - Exactly, sharing is caring, and then you compile it together and you get your color image, all the stuff you couldn't see, even if it's in optical range most of the stuff is, you can't see 'cause human eyes are so puny-- - [Neil] Feeble, yeah. - Wow, that is incredible, that's incredible. So you're actually layer this stuff, one on top of another, to form the image itself? - Right. - That's pretty-- - But your retina is doing that, so the codes of your retina, there are red sensitive cells, there are green sensitive cells, and there are blue, RGB. And light comes in, it triggers one cell or another, depending on how much energy it has, but we say it's depending on what color it is, right? I mean it's an energy thing, it's all about energy. And so you trigger a certain amount of the red, green, and blue, and if it's more red than blue, or more blue than red, it shapes what color it turns out to be that your brain interprets, so it's the same thing as your eyes. - Wow. - Or your computer screen, or whatever. - Yeah, that's, wow. - Yeah. - You ever looked at RGB instructions in the computer code? - Mm-hmm. - No. - It's just a level-- - I haven't. - Of how much one-- - You haven't? - I'm gonna be honest, I have not, you know what I go with? Default. - Okay. (laughs) - Safe place. - You don't go in and program it, okay, so the point is, if the colors are, you can make arbitrarily any color once you have the RGB, just the mixture of those three, and that's why, and it only works that way with light, don't try that at home with paint. - Right. - You mix RGB paint, you get mud. - You get mud, right, yeah, exactly. Yeah, no, I did know that, I just-- - And my boy figured that out. - Who? - Issac Newton. - Oh, really? - Issac Newton, yeah, he knew that people kind of maybe figured that white light can make a spectrum, but he took a spectrum, put it back through a prism, and made white light, and that freaked people out. How do you get red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, and get white? - White, right. - Yeah, yeah. - Yeah. - Well, thank you, Issac Newton, if it weren't for him, I would not have had a livelihood, not a livelihood, but I wouldn't have been sustained growing up, 'cause my father was a printer. - Oh, I didn't know that. - And that's what printers do. They actually take light, and they mix it to create color. - CMYK. - Yes, exactly, right. - Instead of RGB. - That's exactly right, and it's that exact same principle that you just said. - There you go. - Which is, yeah, that's excellent, man, very cool. Look at that, see how science is a part of your life, and you don't even know it, here I am eating because of Issac Newton. (Neil laughs) - It's a stretch, but it's okay. - But that is kind of the whole point of the show, Chuck, okay, you're acting like that's some new revelation about what we're doing here. - Okay. - Chuck, we got two minutes, so let's see, what do we have? - All, right here, SkyNetIsAware from Instagram says this, "So Chandra was originally launched in 1999. "How has the technology advanced since it was launched? "Do we have better technology 20 years later "that is more sensitive," so-- - Can I ask that differently? - Okay. - Sure. - Okay, you ready? - Yeah. - Okay, at what point do you say we've got such better technology, let's drop Chandra in the Pacific Ocean, and put up the better technology because you're spending money on something that was conceived and designed not 20 years ago, but 25 years ago, when it was still on the drawing board? - I mean if you have an embarrassment of riches in that situation, fantastic, but that's not the reality. So we don't yet-- - You don't have a way better X-ray telescope, sitting in the wings? - Ready to go right there? No, no. - Come on, 20 years ago. - Well, it's expensive though. - 1989? - It's expensive. - The Macintosh was four or five years old - You have to take turns. - There was no smartphones. - Yes, but Chandra is still cutting edge, it's still an amazingly, it's just an incredible piece of equipment still, I mean, they had to smooth Chandra's mirrors so much, like, all the technology that was necessary to create that hasn't actually lead to all of these fantastic spin-off technologies that we get to benefit from every day in medicine, in imaging, in-- - The focusing X-rays is a big thing. - I mean, it's huge, like, there's so much work that had to go into figuring that out. So I feel like we can ride off that for a while, I'm just saying, don't put Chandra in an early grave, it's doing beautifully. - Okay, all right. That's very cool, very cool, all right, do we have time for another one? - Can I end with a story? - Ooh, a story. - Let's do it. - Story time. - Oh, story time, okay, yeah, good. Let me get rid of these stupid questions. - Okay. (laughs) - Okay, go ahead. - So there's a guy, his name is Riccardo Giacconi, a generally, considered by, among us to be the father of X-ray astronomy, and he knew that if you gonna have, if you want to see X-rays, you have to do it from above the atmosphere because X-rays don't make it through the ozone, and other particles in our atmosphere. So you need something above the atmosphere if you're gonna see the universe in X-rays. Well, if you're gonna launch something, it can't be too heavy 'cause it's expensive to launch heavy things, it's gotta be light, it's gotta be portable, so he was one of the founders of American Science and Engineering, a company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. that pioneered small portable X-ray detectors. When was this, in the 1960s, what was going on in the 1960s? Oh, they were hijacking planes to Cuba, people were taking guns on planes. Congress said, we need a way to stop guns getting on planes, we need X-rays at airports. Bam, we have American Science and Engineering providing the first X-ray detectors at airports, enabled as these portable devices because they're trying to put them on a satellite into orbit. - [Chuck] Wow. - And he would ultimately get the Nobel Prize, as you, Kim, had introduced him earlier in the show. And I was on the committee, the Presidential Committee that awarded him the Presidential Medal of Science, and when you get the Presidential Medal of Science, everyone goes to the White House. So I get invited to the White House, and here comes Riccardo Giacconi to the White House to get the Presidential Medal of Science, and you go through the security house before you get into the White House itself, and what does he walk through? An American Science and Engineering metal detector. - [Chuck] Wow. - And it's like, whoa. - And does he have a, like, metal hip or plate in his head 'cause that would be awesome. - And then they tackled him to the ground, no. (laughs) I just thought that was so, it brought closure to the fact that the President is being protected by technology that he helped pioneer, and he's getting the Presidential Medal of Science for having pioneered just that. - X-ray astronomy is a gift that keeps on giving. - There you go. - There it is. And I tell that story in Accessory to War with my co-author, Avis Lang. - Nice. - And just, it's astronomy technology affecting security - It's one more way where our penchant for trying to destroy one another has led to a modern-day marvel. - A happy note. (group laughs) - We gotta end it there, Chuck. So Kim Arcand, thank you for coming on StarTalk. - Thanks, yeah. - Your first time, I hope we can get you again. - It was fun. - [Neil] You're not that far away, you're-- - No, not at all. - You're in Providence. - Yeah. - Providence, Rhode Island. - Indeed. - Yes, yes. And so it was great to have you on the list. - Thanks. - [Neil] Chuck, always good to have you. - My pleasure, Neil. - You've been listening to, possibly even watching StarTalk, Cosmic Queries X-ray astrophysics edition. I'm your host, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and as always, I bid you to keep looking up. (upbeat funky music)
Info
Channel: StarTalk
Views: 169,116
Rating: 4.9092684 out of 5
Keywords: StarTalk, Star Talk, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Chuck Nice, Kimberly Arcand, Kim Arcand, Cosmos, human eye, NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, James Webb Space Telescope, Lagrangian points, light spectrum, universe, Stellar Cartography, Star Trek, human brain, virtual reality, celestial objects, Chandra, visual imagery, visible light, Isaac Newton, podcast
Id: 9kA7q_GCVQ0
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 49min 12sec (2952 seconds)
Published: Thu Jul 18 2019
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.