Daniel and Kelly’s Extraordinary Universe - Listener Questions 62: Single photons, moon gold and particle interactions.

Episode Date: July 4, 2024

Daniel and Jorge answer questions from listeners like you! Send your questions to [e-mail] omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. I'm Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman, host of the psychology podcast. Here's a clip from an upcoming conversation about how to be a better you. When you think about emotion regulation, you're not going to choose an adaptive strategy which is more effortful to use unless you think there's a good outcome. Avoidance is easier. Ignoring is easier. Denials easier.

Complex problem solving takes effort. Listen to the psychology podcast on the. iHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, it's Honey German, and I'm back with season two of my podcast. Grazias, come again. We got you when it comes to the latest in music and entertainment with interviews with some of your favorite Latin artists and celebrities. You didn't have to audition?

No, I didn't audition. I haven't audition in like over 25 years. Oh, wow. That's a real G-talk right there. Oh, yeah. We'll talk about all that's viral and trending, with a little bit of cheesement and a whole lot of laughs. And of course, the great vivras you've come to expect. Listen to

the new season of Dasis Come Again on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. It's important that we just reassure people that they're not alone and there is help out there. The Good Stuff podcast, Season 2, takes a deep look into One Tribe Foundation, a nonprofit

fighting suicide in the veteran community. September is National Suicide Prevention Month, so join host Jacob and Ashley Schick as they bring you to the front line of One Tribe's mission. One Tribe saved my life twice. Welcome to Season 2 of the Good Stuff. Listen to the Good Stuff podcast on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

Every case that is a cold case that has DNA. Right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime. On the new podcast, America's Crime Lab, every case has a story to tell. And the DNA holds the truth. He never thought he was going to get caught. And I just looked at my computer screen. I was just like, ah, gotcha. This technology is already solving so many cases.

Listen to America's Crime Lab on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, Daniel, how should we open this episode? Maybe we should just think about the topic and try to come up with something funny. Can we think of anything funny after 600 episodes? I think we might be scraping the bottom of the barrel of creativity here. How about we just jumped the shark? Or have we jumped the shark already? I don't know why people are so down on jumping the shark.

That sounds like a lot of fun to me. Jumping shark? I guess it depends on the shark. Like a whale shark? That's pretty harmless. Great white shark. I'd rather steer clear. I'd jump a dark matter shark any day.

Okay, we might have just jumped a shark for real. Time. A dark matter shark? What are you talking about? I have a special coming out of the Discovery Channel, dark matter weather patterns, tornadoes and sharks. It's a darknado? You just named it. Well, I had to jump at the chance, you know. I'm a cartoonist and the author of Oller's Great Big Universe. Hi, I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist and a professor at UC Irvine, and I'm not a great water skier.

Are you a great skier at all or any kind of skiing? I'm bad at all sorts of high speed, dangerous, and expensive sports. But you want to jump the shark, though? That's a little bit contradictory there. I guess you can jump the shark and not be good at skiing. Yeah, aspirations don't have to be realistic, right? Yeah, I guess you don't want to jump the gun on that. But anyways, welcome to our podcast, Daniel and Jorge,

Explain the Universe, a production of IHeart Radio. In which we try to jumpstart your understanding of the nature of the whole universe. Everything that's out there in the cosmos, we seek to understand it and to break it down and explain all of it to you. This is your one-stop shop for getting all of your questions answered about literally everything in the universe. That's right. We are literally jumping at the chance to leap to conclusions about our amazing,

universe so that we can understand it more and know not only how it all works but also what is our place in it and what does it mean for us to be here talking about it but we're also not shy to admit when we don't know the answer which is the case for most questions because it's not all that hard to get yourself to the forefront of human understanding or confusion about the nature of this amazing beautiful and kind of crazy cosmos so we encourage you to engage your brain and to think about it yourselves. Do you understand how it works? What questions do you have about how this universe operates? Yeah, because it's with questions that all of science starts, questions that are not just asked by scientists, but also people like you, because there are still a lot of questions

out there for us to try to find the answer to. And we want to hear your questions. We want to know when there's something that doesn't make sense to you. Maybe something that we said or something that you read or just an idea that you had about the universe that isn't quite clicking in your brain. Send it to us to Questions at Danielanhorpe.com. We really do right back to everybody. And sometimes we pick those questions to answer on the podcast, or at least try to answer it,

or at least talk about it, or at least admit we don't know the answer. But it takes us a whole hour to figure that out. Sometimes we just jump over the question on water skis instead of answering it because that's all we're capable of. Wait, so wait, the question is a shark in this analogy? Would you rather the shark jumps over us? I mean, I don't know how that works.

That would be pretty cool. Sort of like freewheely. But instead of like an orca, it's a shark, jumping over us? Free the sharks to do their own tricks, man. Why are they always the subject of the tricks and never the object? But is it jumping over us or jumping at us? That's a big difference. Or maybe it's jumping over me to you.

That's an acceptable scenario. Perhaps. But I'm jumping at the chance to dig into these. listener questions. Oh, I see, I see. You're trying to jump, start this back on track. Busted. Because I jumped the rail. Is that, are we pushing it too much now? But yeah, we do like to answer listener questions. And so today we'll be tackling. Listener questions number 62. That's right. We are very happy to be talking about questions you have here on the podcast. So again, please don't be shy. write to me. I will answer your questions. Questions at Danielanhorpe.com. And sometimes I'll hear

a question I think, ooh, I bet Jorge has something funny to say about this or I don't know how to answer this just yet. Maybe I should do some research and then we'll talk about it on the podcast. Well, the answer is usually no. I don't have anything funny to say. I try. I try. But, you know, when we're talking about Dark Mad of Sharks, I mean, how can you top that? The jokes just write themselves, don't they? They do, yeah. But yeah, we're answering listener questions here today, and we have three great questions.

We have a question about the double slit experiment and photons. We have a question about what the moon is made out of. It's kind of a cheesy question. And we also have a question here about how particles interact or not interact with things like you and me. Yeah. Super fun questions. Thank you, everybody, for sending in your questions,

and especially these volunteers, who are brave enough to send me the audio of themselves asking the questions. And so our first question comes from Renando. Hi, Jorge. Hi, Daniel. I was wondering, whenever we read about the double-slit experiment, we eventually read something like, we'll get an interference pattern even if we shoot a single photon. My question is, how the hell do we know there's a single photon? if you can make any measurements for obvious reasons. Thanks for the great podcast.

You guys rock. All right. Well, this question is kind of creating an interference pattern in my head. I'm not quite sure I understand it. This question is about the double slit experiment and the weird quantum behavior that emerges when you slow it down, so you're sending single particles through it one at a time.

And he's essentially asking, like, how can you do that? How can you make a single particle gun? How do you know that you're sending one particle through the experiment at a time? Interesting. So I guess we should maybe start by recapping what the double slit experiment is. It's sort of a classic experiment that it's always used in explanations of quantum physics and physics classes to sort of explain the wave slash particle nature of matter, right?

Even light. Although originally it was used to demonstrate the wave-like nature of light. 200 years ago before we had any understanding of how light worked, people were debating is light a particle, is light a wave, and the prevailing theory at the time was that it was a particle, but then Young did this experiment with two slits. Basically, you shine a light at a wall, but you have two little slits in the wall. Each slit then serves as a source of light. And beyond that, you have a screen, and he saw an interference pattern in the screen, which is the kind of thing you expect to see if you have two sources of waves. Waves can add up to enhance each other. or they can work in opposite directions to cancel each other out. And that's exactly the kind of interference pattern that Young saw on the screen. So he proved that light has these wave-like properties using his original double slit experiment, which was a bombshell at the time. Interesting.

Is this an experiment people can do at home? Like if I take a little piece of cardboard, you know, cut out two slits on it next to each other, and then I shine a flashlight. Am I going to see an interference pattern? Is possible to do this experiment at home? It's a little bit touchy because you need very thin slits and you need those slits to be close together. So it's not just like any two slices in a piece of cardboard are going to give you this behavior. It depends on the wavelength of light.

The width of the slits and the distance between them has to be connected to the wavelength of light. So it's a little bit tricky to get right. But it is possible. I mean, Young did it 200 years ago. So it's not like you need fancy laser technology or anything. Meaning if I just put two random slits next to each other, it won't work. Yeah, you'll probably just get two geometric shadows. Do what?

Two geometric shadows. Like, you know, when you do shadow puppets, you hold up a flashlight, you put your hand in front of it, creates a shadow on the wall, and the shape of the shadow is exactly the same as the shape of your hand, right? That's the idea. It's a geometric shadow. But if you zoom in on the edges of that, you'll see there really are very small fringe effects. Those are the wave-like behaviors of that. Oh, so you can see it.

If you really zoom in carefully, yeah. And then to get an interference pattern, you need like two small slits that exhibit those wave-like behaviors at the fringes and then they have to be close together so they can interfere. And now do I need like a laser or will a flashlight work? No, any source of light will work.

You don't need a laser. A laser is just like a single coherent source of light of a single frequency. But you don't need that. Any flashlight would work. But then there's the quantum version of it because Young's version says, okay, light is like waves and it's no big deal

that waves can interfere. It's cool that light. is like waves, but the fact that waves interferes not a big deal. The quantum version of this experiment says, well, if light is made out of packets, then you could turn that light source down. So instead of sending like huge numbers of photons, so you're getting these waves, you're now sending individual photons through the experiment. And the cool thing is you still see an interference pattern, even when there's only one

photon in the experiment at once. That's the quantum version of it. Whoa, well, okay. Maybe let's take a step back here. So when I shine a light through these double slits, I get an interference pattern on the wall. And by interference, it means like it alternates between light and dark spots on the wall. Exactly. The two sources are interfering.

You have dark spots where the two sources are waving in opposite directions by the time they hit the wall so they cancel out. And bright spots where they're waving in the same direction so they add up coherently. They make a brighter source. You get these stripes dark and light and dark and light on the wall that give you the interference pattern. Right, like this sort of works with just regular like water waves, right? I have like a very still lake and I put a little plate with two slits on it and then I create some waves and the waves go through the slits. On the other side of the slits, the waves are going to ripple in, but they won't look like one smooth wave.

It'll look like it's this ripple pattern. Yeah, exactly. Each slit acts at basically a point source of those waves. So you get these two circular waves coming out from each slit and then those interfere. And, you know, waves interfering is also not a new or weird thing. It happens all the time with sound. Like you walk around your living room and you hear your TV better or worse. That's because the acoustics of your living room, things are cancelling out or adding up or bouncing off of each other.

Or noise canceling headphones work this way. They create exactly the sound necessary to interfere with the outside sound to cancel it out. They push and pull in the opposite way so that you hear nothing. So waves interfering is a totally intuitive phenomenon. This is just light doing it. That's the classical version. The quantum version is super cool because now what's interfering? You have a single photon going through the experiment at a time.

The quantum version says that still gives you an interference pattern. Right, right. And that's a weird thing because like in the water experiment, like water is this medium, right? It's like this wave is broad. It's acting in many places at the same time and it's interfering over here. And it's adding the wave over there. and so you expect it to be ripple at the end, but if you're just throwing like a single droplet of water,

maybe you wouldn't expect that, right? Like if I shoot like one atom of water, like H2O, a molecule of H2O at two slits, I might expect it to either make it through one of the holes or maybe hit the wall and then nothing will come out the other side. Exactly, but photons are not little drops of water. They are quantum objects,

and they have a probability to go through one slit or the other slit, and it's the wave function, that corresponds to those probability that's doing the interfering. So if the photon is allowed to have both possibilities, its wave function includes it going through both and that wave function can interfere with itself. And so that's what's doing the interfering.

The wave function for the photon is doing the interfering when you have a single photon in the experiment. That's why it's the quantum version because classical objects can't do that. They're just in one location. Well, as I understand it, it's the probability that's interfering with itself, right? But at the end, when it hits the wall, it's still going to be like one dot or not a dot, right?

Yeah. To be technically accurate, it's the wave function that's doing the interfering, not the probability. Probabilities don't interfere. It's the wave function itself, but that's technical detail. The concept is right. It's the possibility that it's going through the other slide that's doing the interfering. And then when it hits the screen, now it's interacting with a classical object. And so Copenhagen, quantum mechanic says, now the universe has to make a choice.

Now it has to choose from the various possibilities. And the cool thing is, every photon is the same probability distribution to land somewhere on the screen. So you shoot individual photons through one at a time. Each one, even if it has the same initial conditions, can land in a different place on the screen. And you slowly build up the same original interference pattern that you saw when you had a brighter source of light. Well, maybe let's walk us through this scenario. So I shoot one photon at a double slit and follow along with the photon. What happens to that photon?

Well, already we're in philosophical trouble because following along with a photon means like, where is the photon? But we can follow along with the wave function, right? The wave function says the photon could go through slit A or could go through slit B, right? It's not determined. But is the wave function moving or is it propagating from my flashlight? The wave function is not necessarily a physical thing, right? It describes possibilities. It's in a sort of abstract space of possible outcomes.

But it describes the photon and what the photon. might be doing as it moves through the universe. It just allows for multiple possibilities at once. So you have like the physical space of the photon and then the possibility space that the wave function exists in. So then what happens to the photon wave function when it hits the double slits? So the wave function for the photon says when you hit the double slit, you could either have gone through slit one or slit two and the wave function then acts as a source on

either side of those slits and then does the interference the same way we just talked about out for light interfering with itself or water waves interfering with themselves. Wave functions follow wave mechanics and so they can interfere in the same way. So you have these sort of like sources of possibility, if you like, from each slit and those possibilities are interfering at the screen. Is it sort of like the photon is going through both slits at the same time? Like it's both left and right, sort of like the Schrodinger's cat. Like it's going through both slits and it's coming out the other side of the both splits.

like if the cow was dead or alive. Very loosely speaking, it's sort of like that. But in reality, although you hear in popular science all the time, quantum particles can be in two places at once, that's not technically accurate. The more correct way to say it would be that they have the possibility to be in two places at once, and those possibilities can interfere.

It's not like the photon is coming out of both slits. It's that it has the possibility to come out of both slits. And in quantum mechanics, those possibilities can interfere with each other before the universe even decides which one is true or if it ever decides. When it comes out the other side, there's the two sources of waves of possibility and then both waves interfere

and then the result hits the wall. Yeah. Right? Like if I should just one foot and add this double slid. Some of them are going to hit the walls of the slit, right? Like some of them are going to be totally blocked. Yeah.

Some of them are not going to make it through, right? Yeah, we're only talking about the ones that make it through. Right, right. So then the ones that do make it through, I'm not going to see a wave in the wall I'm going to see like a little dot right where the photon hit yes so just a single photon

doesn't create a ripple right single photon just ends up on the wall single photon ends up on the wall where on the wall does it end up well that's determined by the wave function and the wave function has various possibilities for where that photon can end up

and those possibilities have interfered with themselves so you have an interference pattern of possibilities now when the universe says where does this one photon end up, it draws from the various possibilities. And there's a greater chance that ends up in the bright regions and a much lower, maybe zero chance that ends up in the dark regions. Every photon is a new role of the dye. It ends up in a different spot, even if the initial conditions are the same. But then over time, it builds up the interference pattern because each photon follows that possibility interference pattern. Right. Like I shoot one photon, it goes through,

it hits the wall in a certain spot. I shoot another photon. It hits it in another spot. shoot another photon, it hits it in another spot. It sort of seems random, but if I shoot like a bazillion photons, then they're going to make a pattern on the wall because they all have sort of the same possibility wave pattern. Exactly. So quantum mechanics is deterministic about the probability function on the wall.

It's not deterministic about an individual photon. Each one is drawn randomly from that distribution. So the laws of physics, instead of saying, I'm going to tell you exactly where a photon goes, Now they're saying, I'm going to tell you what the probability distribution is. Each individual photon is drawn from that probability distribution. And if you shoot enough photons, you're going to figure out what that distribution is. And that's the interference pattern on the screen.

Right. And I think it's because basically when you're shooting the photon, there's sort of an inherent uncertainty when I'm shooting the photon. Like I might think I know where the tip of my laser gun is, but actually when the photons come out, they have a certain fuzziness to them, right? They have a certain uncertainty or probability about where they actually are. So if there wasn't a double-slid barrier, that probability would just kind of spread out and hit the wall in an even way. It would just look like a fuzzy cloud of thoughts.

But because I have the double-slid, it sort of messes with that probability wave. Exactly. In order to have the setup work, you need to create a beam of photons, which have the possibility to go through slit A or slit B. If your beam of photons was like already super-duper-pre-precise and you aimed it at slit, a with no chance of them going through slit B, then you wouldn't get the interference pattern. Buzzy enough beams so that an individual photon

has the possibility to go through A or B. Right, right. But maybe we should get to Ronaldo's question. Yeah, I was about to do that. But first thing, we should talk about what his question is. I don't quite understand. Is he talking about how do you measure a photon? What is he talking about?

Well, I think he's saying, how do you know a single photon is going through the experiment? Because in order to create this interference pattern, you need to not measure the photon. Like if you try to measure the photon whether it went through slit A or B, you collapse the wave function and destroy the interference pattern.

So you need to have single photons go through the experiment, but not touch them. So basically he's asking like, number one, technically how do you make a single photon anyway? And number two, how do you know that you did? You mean like how do you detect it in the wall? Yeah, like how do you tell the difference between one photon and two photons?

Like, how do you know you didn't have two photons in the experiment at the same time? Oh, well, Can you shoot one at a time? Yeah, I think he's asking, how do you do that? Oh, okay. How do you shoot a photon at a time? So it turns out to be quite tricky, right?

Like, number one thing you could do is like take your laser or your light source and just turn it down, right? So it's like rarely emit photons. If a beam of light is just like a huge number of photons, just turn it down and eventually it'll break up into little blips, right? That's tricky though because you can't really guarantee that you have single photons. You might still get two photons. a randomness to that process if what you want is like really absolute guarantee and that's what these quantum dudes are doing they want absolute guarantees that there are single photons in their experiments because they don't want philosophical loopholes right and so that's turned that to be

much more challenging but we do have technology to do this now what you can do is take a crystal which has a special property that it takes in a photon and it breaks it into two photons of half the energy. So you can use one photon to know that the other photon was there without touching it. So you take a beam of photons, you hit this special crystal, and it'll shoot out two photons in different directions. And you can detect the second one, be like, okay, I can tell that there was a photon there. I know when the photon is coming. And that tells me that there was a photon going in the other direction as well. You sort of split it into two. But I guess the question is, why do you have to do that? Like, couldn't you just put a camera on the other side? And whenever the camera detects,

a photon, it's like, oh, that was one photon. Yeah, but if you do that, then you've spoiled it, right? You can no longer send that photon into your experiment if you've detected it. No, you put it at the end on the other side of the slits. You mean just the screen? Yeah, just the screen. Isn't that what he's asking? Yeah, but how do you know that was just one photon, right? Because you only detected one.

You only saw it on your camera, right? We have cameras that can detect single photons, right? We have cameras that are sensitive to single photons, but we only know that they're sensitive to single photons because we have confirmed beams of single photons. photons using this crystal trick. Otherwise, you don't know if you're seeing a single photon or if you're seeing two photons right on top of each other. Oh, you're talking about the scenario where they're on top of each other.

That's the scenario we're trying to avoid. Yeah, we're trying to make sure we're really seeing an individual photon. Oh, and not like two. Yeah, exactly. Because it's only if you have a single photon in the experiment that the quantum version is weird. Otherwise, like, yeah, you had a bunch of photons, two photons interfered with each other. What's the big deal? We want to see a single photon and an interference pattern

because that proves that there's a quantum effect there. That shows us the wave function is doing some weird physical interference thing. So then the idea is that you send one but you split into two and so you catch one so you know that there's one and then the... But doesn't that create sort of like entanglement problems? Yes, the two are entangled, but not in a way that's going to spoil the quantum state of the other one for the experiment that you want to do. Like they're entangled in that their energy has to add up to the original photon,

but that's not a problem. All right. So then that's how you can tell that it was a single photon. Is that then Renaldo's answer? Yeah, I think so. And I think the other interesting answer to Ronaldo is that it's harder to do with photons

for these reasons. And people actually did it with electrons, single electrons, before they did it with single photons. So single photons sort of came after single electrons. Well, you can do it with anything, right? Any quantum particle.

Yeah, exactly. Netrinos. Chart, shark particles, right? But then would that make it the double shark jumping experiment? The jump shark experiment jumps the shark itself. He squeezed the shark. All right. Well, great question, Ronaldo. Thank you so much. Hopefully that answers your question. The idea is that scientists are coming out with the clever experiments. And so you can say that it would just one with greater confidence. Yeah. These are great questions. Thank you very much for asking them. And I encourage

everybody out there to send us your questions to questions at danielanhorpe.com all right we have two more awesome questions one of them is about what the moon is made out of and the other one is about how particles interact or not interact with all of us so stay tuned for that but first let's take a quick break The holiday rush, parents hauling luggage, kids gripping their new Christmas toys. Then, at 6.33 p.m., everything changed. There's been a bombing at the TWA terminal. Apparently the explosion actually impelled metal glass.

The injured were being loaded into ambulances, just a chaotic, chaotic scene. In its wake, a new kind of enemy emerged. And it was here to stay. Terrorism. Law and order criminal justice system is back. In season two, we're turning our focus to a threat that hides in plain sight. That's harder to predict and even harder to stop. Listen to the new season of Law and Order Criminal Justice System on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Imagine that you're on an airplane and all of a sudden you hear this. Attention passengers. The pilot is having an emergency and we need someone, anyone, to land this plane. Think you could do it? It turns out that nearly 50% of men think that they could land the plane with the help of air traffic control. And they're saying like, okay, pull this. Do this, pull that, turn this. It's just, I can do it in my eyes closed.

I'm Mani. I'm Noah. This is Devon. And on our new show, No Such Thing, we get to the bottom of questions like these. Join us as we talk to the leading expert on overconfidence. Those who lack expertise lack the expertise they need to recognize that they lack expertise.

And then, as we try the whole thing out for real. Wait, what? Oh, that's the run right. I'm looking at this thing. See? Listen to No Such Thing on the IHeart Radio app. Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. I had this overwhelming sensation that I had to call it right then.

And I just hit call. I said, you know, hey, I'm Jacob Schick. I'm the CEO of One Tribe Foundation. And I just wanted to call on and let her know. There's a lot of people battling some of the very same things you're battling. And there is help out there. The Good Stuff Podcast Season 2 takes a deep look into One Tribe Foundation, a nonprofit fighting suicide in the veteran community.

September is National Suicide Prevention, month. So join host Jacob and Ashley Schick as they bring you to the front lines of one tribe's mission. I was married to a combat army veteran and he actually took his own life to suicide. One tribe saved my life twice. There's a lot of love that flows through this place and it's sincere. Now it's a personal mission. Don't have to go to any more funerals, you know. I got blown up on a react mission. I ended up having amputation below the knee of my right leg and a traumatic brain injury because I landed on my head. Welcome to season two of the good stuff. Listen to the good stuff podcast on the iHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

A foot washed up a shoe with some bones in it. They had no idea who it was. Most everything was burned up pretty good from the fire that not a whole lot was salvageable. These are the coldest of cold cases, but everything is about to change. Every case that is a cold case that has DNA. Right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime. A small lab in Texas is cracking the code on DNA. Using new scientific tools, they're finding clues in evidence so tiny you might just miss it. He never thought he was going to get caught, and I just looked at my computer screen. I was just like, ah, gotcha. On America's Crime Lab, we'll learn about victims and survivors, and you'll meet the team behind the scenes

at Othrum, the Houston Lab that takes on the most hopeless cases to finally solve the unsolvable. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. If the moon has been littered with meteorites and asteroids, then would it not be an excellent source of valuable elements? Platinum seems connected to molten material. Gold seems connected to supernova, asteroids, and meteoroids. Nickel seems connected to materials, meteorites, and the Earth's core. One thing I know is you will wonderfully set me straight. Thank you very much for everything you guys do.

All right. Basically, I think Bruce wants to know if he should go to the moon to do some gold panning. I think Bruce is asking us to invest in his moon mining company. Yeah, there you go. It's called my moon. Oh, moon of mine. We moon. But yeah, interesting question. Like, what is the moon made out of? And does it have maybe some of the valuable materials or metals that we're sort of running out of

here on Earth or that we find really precious here on Earth because, you know, wasn't the moon sort of made at the same time as the Earth or came from the same rock? Yeah, I think this is an interesting twist on like asteroid mining. The idea there is that there are heavy metals like gold and platinum and whatever and everything in the solar system was made out of the same basic stuff. So the Earth has a lot of gold and platinum in it. The moon must have some. Asteroids have some.

But when you have a big body like the Earth or even the moon, moon has this molten phase and then things differentiate and a lot of the heavy valuable metals on earth have sunk down deep into the earth so they're not like sitting around on the surface but asteroids we think have a lot of gold and platinum in them and he's basically asking what about those asteroids that have hit the surface of the moon aren't they basically just like big blobs of heavy valuable metal sitting on the moon should we go up there and get it oh interesting so like uh i think you're saying that the earth, because it was a big ball of lava at some point, maybe the precious metals that we like so much today sunk to the center of the earth.

And so that's why it's so rare to find gold on the surface. Is that what you're saying? That's one reason. The other is that like gold and some of these other metals really like iron, and so they tend to mix with iron and form weird alloys, and then they sink as the iron sinks. So the heavier stuff tends to sink, especially if it's iron loving. but maybe an asteroid or a small body like the moon

which didn't have as much gravity maybe those metals are closer to the surface yeah I don't think he's interested in the gold that is part of the moon I think he's interested in the stuff on the surface because asteroids are hitting the surface of the moon all the time just like they're hitting the earth's atmosphere most of the time when they hit the earth's atmosphere

they melt or they explode or they turn to a fireball but that doesn't happen on the moon and the moon they just land on the surface they make a crater but they're still sitting there. And so in principle, if you wanted to mine asteroids, you could do it without going to the asteroid belt. You could just go to the surface of the moon and pick them up. But wouldn't that be the same as Earth?

Like don't we get asteroids hitting us all the time too? We do get asteroids hitting us all the time. The bigger ones survive and actually like early human civilization used it as a source of heavy metals. Like a lot of the swords and daggers in the very early times in human civilization were made from like star metals. It's pretty awesome. We have these daggers that we can prove

or come from like meteorites before humans figured out like how to do mining, right? There was a main source of heavy metals on the surface of the earth. Right, right? And that's how they got vibranium, right? In Wakanda. That happened, right? Jump the sharkium also.

That's right. We're jumping the panther. But I think the idea is that maybe like asteroids are richer in these metals perhaps because they haven't been a big ball of lava with a lot of gravity where they sank. out of reach, like maybe these asteroids have a higher concentration of these metals, right? Yes, exactly. They're being caught by the moon and staying on the surface of the moon.

Could we go pick them up? Yes, I think that's exactly the question. And it's, again, corollary to the question of like, should we go mine asteroids? And that seems like maybe harder because asteroids are further away than the moon. And, you know, the moon at least has some gravity, et cetera, et cetera. And so he's wondering, like, we can go to the moon. Shouldn't we just go there and pick these up? Well, obviously you need a metal detector

You can moon combing You do need a metal detector The answer is that it is possible But it's probably not worth the money It probably would cost you more To go and get those metals Than you would get for selling them back here on Earth Oh, I see

Because it costs so much to go to space It does cost so much to go to space It'd be really complicated also You know, there's like a lot of difficult issues Engineering-wise To establishing any sort of information infrastructure on the moon. You know, there's a lot of radiation. The temperature variations on the surface of the moon are crazy. They get really hot. Then it gets really cold. There's lower

gravity, which turns out to be like really hard to do work in if it's low gravity. And so just like establishing any sort of industry on the surface of the moon is difficult. And then there's the cost of like bringing it back. You know, you're going to launch from the surface of the moon and bring stuff back to Earth. It's expensive. But that should be easier, shouldn't it? Because the gravity on the moon isn't that high yeah probably just could you like toss it over to the earth to burn up in the earth's atmosphere

and waste all of your investment to catch it right before it hits earth maybe yeah that doesn't sound dangerous at all we're just like dropping heavy rocks into the gravity well of earth oops sorry that they hit your city well I mean if you missed then it'll get burned in the atmosphere but if you

right like you're not going to send like a manhand size ball of gold but you can I don't know send like car size balls and if you miss they'll just burn out no i'm not counting on the restraint of bruce and his investors to not go after the manhattan size blob of gold but i read an analysis of this because people thought a lot about this and they thought about asteroid mining whatever and one quote i read said if there were gold bars on the moon the best thing you could do economically is to leave them there like it would cost you more even if they were like perfect

gold bars just sitting on the surface of the moon, it would cost you more to go and get them than you would be able to sell them for. Well, it costs more given today's market. Yes. And technology. Like right now the cost of gold is not enough to overcome the cost of a... But maybe it'll get cheaper to go to space in the future. Maybe it will.

And if we had like a space elevator and an established infrastructure on the moon, then maybe this would be a cool thing to do. But wait, you're against throwing gold bars to Earth? you're pro building a giant elevator that might fall down. I'm not pro. I'm just saying it would make Bruce's company more realistic. I'm not an investor in Bruce's company. Oh, no.

I have no legal obligations here. But do you know what I mean? Or maybe like gold is not worth enough now, but maybe in the future. You know, when we start to run out here and Earth, maybe it'll become super available. It certainly could be. Yeah. Maybe Bruce has a very long-term business plan. Yeah, yeah.

Or, you know, there's already people going to the moon, right? We're sending things. Why not pick up a few gold bars while you're there? It's heavy and that's complicated to pick that stuff up. Right, right, but it's shiny, designer, shiny and pretty. Anyway, it's there. And if you can figure out the economics of it, more power to you. I would not invest in Bruce's company today, but you're right.

It might one day make a profit. Now, can we see these asteroids from Earth? Like, you know, when we look at the moon, It just looks like white dust, basically. You don't see like flecks of gold, do you? Or do you? No, you don't, but you do see craters. And you know it's at the center of every crater

has to be some sort of impact. And if you go to the center of the crater, you can often find a meteorite sitting there. The same thing is true here on Earth. Like a meteor crater in Arizona, they went to the center of it, and they found like chunks of the meteor, like pieces of that metallic object.

So it's certainly possible to find them if you know where the craters are. And on the moon, Craters are easy to spot. You can see them with a telescope. And definitely if you're on the surface, you can find them. But you have to go and dig around. Yeah, you might have to go dig around.

Or use like a metal detector. They're probably covered in a little bit of regolith from the impact. Yeah. Right, right, right. I wonder if you can see them like if you look at the, you know, spectral wave reflection on the moon. Yeah. And in fact, they have done some of these experiments.

There was a satellite called El Cross, the lunar crater observation and sensing satellite that confirmed, presence of gold on the moon's surface using exactly that kind of technique. You know, like bouncing light off of it and seeing how it reflects and the spectrum of it. Whoa. Okay. What if Bruce goes to the moon?

He digs up these asteroids and he finds that they're made out of a new metal. And he names him Cheezium. Then he's completed the circle. He's jumped ashoreg. All right. Well, I think that answers Bruce's question.

which is that, yes, the moon would be an excellent source of valuable elements like gold, platinum, but right now it's too expensive, good to go get them. Yeah, I think that's true. But maybe in the future, space travel will become cheaper. So stay tuned for that. All right, let's get through our last question, and this one is about how particles interact.

So we'll tackle that one. But first, let's take another quick break. December 29th, 1975, LaGuardia Airport. The holiday rush, parents hauling luggage, kids gripping their new Christmas toys. Then, at 6.33 p.m., everything changed. There's been a bombing at the TWA terminal. Apparently, the explosion actually impelled metal glass. The injured were being loaded into.

ambulances, just a chaotic, chaotic scene. In its wake, a new kind of enemy emerged, and it was here to stay. Terrorism. Law and Order Criminal Justice System is back. In Season 2, we're turning our focus to a threat that hides in plain sight. That's harder to predict and even harder to stop. Listen to the new season of Law and Order Criminal Justice System on the IHeart Radio app, Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

Imagine that you're on an airplane and all of a sudden you hear this. Attention passengers. The pilot is having an emergency and we need someone, anyone, to land this plane. Think you could do it? It turns out that nearly 50% of men think that they could land the plane with the help of air traffic control. And they're saying like, okay, pull this, until this. Pull that, turn this.

It's just... I can do it in my eyes closed. I'm Mani. I'm Noah. This is Devin. And on our new show, No Such Thing, we get to the bottom of questions like these. Join us as we talk to the leading expert on overconfidence. Those who lack expertise lack the expertise they need to recognize that they lack expertise.

And then, as we try the whole thing out for real. Wait, what? Oh, that's the run right. I'm looking at this thing. See? Listen to No Such Thing on the. iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Your entire identity has been fabricated.

Your beloved brother goes missing without a trace. You discover the depths of your mother's illness, the way it has echoed and reverberated throughout your life, impacting your very legacy. Hi, I'm Danny Shapiro. And these are just a few of the profound and powerful stories I'll be mining on our 12th season of this. Family Secrets. With over 37 million downloads, we continue to be moved and inspired by

our guests and their courageously told stories. I can't wait to share 10 powerful new episodes with you, stories of tangled up identities, concealed truths, and the way in which family secrets almost always need to be told. I hope you'll join me and my extraordinary guests for this new season of Family Secrets. Listen to Family Secrets, Season 12, on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. A foot washed up a shoe with some bones in it. They had no idea who it was. Most everything was burned up pretty good from the fire that not a whole lot was salvageable.

These are the coldest of cold cases, but everything is about to change. Every case that is a cold case that has DNA. Right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime. A small lab in Texas is cracking the code on DNA. Using new scientific tools, they're finding clues in evidence so tiny you might just miss it. He never thought he was going to get caught, and I just looked at my computer screen. I was just like, ah, gotcha. On America's Crime Lab, we'll learn about victims and survivors,

and you'll meet the team behind the scenes at Othrum, the Houston Lab that takes on the most hopeless cases, to finally solve the unsolvable. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, we're answering your questions here today. And our last question of today comes from Rebecca. I have a question, and it's about how particles interact.

Because you often talk about whether particles have interactions with other particles and then some particles either don't or very weakly interact so muons can go straight through the planet and neutrinos pretty much the same but when you say that what does it actually mean when you say interaction

are you saying that they go into a field and then have vibrating quality within a field, or, for example, an electron that's affected by a gravitational field, does it go into the gravitational field and do something, or is it repelled by a gravitational field, or similarly a photon? How do they actually interact at the quantum level with the different fields? So how does a photon behave in an electrical? field or how does electron behave

in a gravitational field? I'd really appreciate an explanation. Oh boy, I can tell you're salivating for this answer, Daniel. It's all about particles, particle physics, particle interactions, what does it mean to interact? Oh boy, let's strap in. Yeah, well, I was wondering where you think we should go with this question

because there's a lot of stuff in here and I'm wondering if you got a sense for like, what do you? do you think she's really asking? All right. Well, I think Rebecca is picturing the scenario where, you know, we've often talked about neutrinas flying through the earth and going through us, going through our thones, but not interacting with us.

But we know that sometimes they do interact. It sounds like she's asking, like, what exactly is happening when they interact? Like, do the quantum fields somehow interfere or something triggers an interaction? Yeah, okay. So that's a cool question. question. And, you know, the short answer is that these things are quantum mechanical, which means that everything is a probability. So neutrino, for example, is passing through the earth.

And that means that there's a little ripple in the neutrino field. That's when a neutrino is. It's a little ripple in the neutrino field. And it's passing through the earth. And the earth is made out of corks and electrons, which are little ripples and quark and electron fields, whatever. So you have these fields that are all actually on top of each other. And there's a ripple passing through one and there's ripples in the other ones and those ripples have possibilities probabilities of interacting so every time a neutrino passes a quark for example there's a possibility that it interacts and the universe rolls a die and the die is like 10 to the 50 sides on it and only one of those sides says yes the neutrino interacts and the other one say nope it ignores it so every time a neutrino is

passing by a cork the universe rules this die and this is nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope and then very occasionally, it rolls the dye and it says, yes, then that neutrino interacts with that core. Is it related to, like, how close those two particles fly next to each other? You know, I mean, like, let's forget the whole planet. And let's just put, like, a one electron in the center of the Earth. And then let's shoot one neutrino at it. Like, we know it's definitely not going to interact if it's really far away from it. Or can it?

Are you saying that it can't? It can. And the probability depends on a lot of things and one of them is distance. You know, the old like one over distance squared rule that comes out of these possibilities to interact. And so the further away you are, the smaller the probability to interact. It also depends on other things like how much momentum is exchanged in the interaction. Like higher momentum exchange, like a bigger bounce back is less probable than like a slight

interaction where they like barely brush each other. So there's a whole spectrum of things there and all of them affect the probability. Wait, what do you mean to bounce back? What did you mean by that? Well, imagine two scenarios. Like one is neutrino flies by an electron, and its direction is only slightly changed. It's basically going the same direction it was before. It's just like dinged a little to the left versus the neutrino, like, hits a wall and comes back in the exact opposite direction.

Like it bounces back. It changes its momentum completely. I feel like we're jumping ahead a little bit. So you're saying one possible interaction between these two things is that they exchange momentum. Like they bump into each other. as if they were little billiard balls. Yeah, exchanging momentum is the interaction. That's what an interaction is,

is the energy is going from one field to the other. If the neutrino interacts with the electron, its momentum has to change. That's what the interaction really is, is a exchange of momentum between the two things. Just like when two billiard balls bounce off each other, what are they doing? They're exchanging momentum, right?

But don't some of them kind of like transform into other things, right? Can't, like, two particles combine to make other particles? Isn't that also one way they can interact? Yes, absolutely. The neutrino and the electron could interact to create like a W boson, right? So both of them could disappear, absolutely. So there's all sorts of different possible outcomes.

And the universe picks from among those and some of those are more likely than others. Oh, okay. So then by interaction, you mean several things. They could bump and change each other's momentum or they can combine and create other particles. And you're saying this interaction depends on the distance. And what else?

depends on the distance also depends on how much momentum is being exchanged greater momentum exchange is less probable like you're more likely to have a glancing interaction than like a bounce back interaction wait wait what what do you mean the faster of my neutrino's going the higher the probability it will what i wasn't referring to the speed of the neutrino i'm talking about the amount of momentum exchanged so the greater the difference between the initial and final neutrino momentum the less the probability. So the more you want to change the neutrino's angle, for example, the less likely that's going to happen.

You're more likely to have a glancing interaction than like a bounce back interaction. Meaning like it's harder for the neutrino to hit the electron head on than it is for it to miss a little bit. The classical picture in your head of particles is like tiny little balls. That's why you sometimes bounce back. And that's why you sometimes don't because a bounce back is like when you hit it head on and it comes right back. These are quantum particles.

There's no like hitting anything head on. There's just probabilities of various outcomes. And the bouncing back is less likely. Because it's harder to hit it head on. Or it's harder for the center of the probability curve of one to be aligned with the center of the probability of the other one, right? Yeah, sure. I mean, that's what quantum mechanics tells us.

It tells us the various probabilities of things happening. And the cool thing is that as you zoom out and make these things bigger and bigger, it starts to align more with our classical intuition, our naive, like, sense. of these things as objects that are touching and pushing on each other in the same way. Really, these are quantum interactions and various things have various probabilities. Like, it's possible for the neutrino to hit the electron head on and just go right through it and not interact. In fact, that's the most likely thing. You mean even though it's the most likely thing? Like, if I shoot the neutrino head on to the

electron, you probably would say that most likely it's going to hit it head on and bounce back, but it could not happen. The most likely thing for it to do is you just go right through the electron, even if it's right exactly the same location. The neutrino can be right on top of it, yeah. Yeah, what I mean is like out of the things that could happen, if something happens, even if you align it perfectly and shoot it head on,

and the most likely thing, if something were to happen, was for it to bounce back, not bounce back. Yeah, it may not bounce back at all. Because the probability depends on other things, not just how close you are. Yeah, not just how close you are. And it also does depend on the initial velocity of the neutrino

and all sorts of things that go into, the quantum mechanical calculation. The point is you get various probabilities of things happening. It depends on lots of different factors. Well, maybe this is kind of what Rebecca is asking is like what exactly is going on. What are some of these other factors that might cause these two things to ignore each other? I think the major ones are the distance between them, right, and the initial momentum of both of the particles.

Really high speed particles are affected by special relativity, which sort of changes their experience as they fly through space they see space as contracted as squeezed in front of them everything is shortened so you take like a wall that's a meter thick and now it's much much shorter but it's more dense and so that changes your probability to interact with the atoms inside it for example and so makes it harder it gives you a higher probability of interacting with them actually oh higher probability because now you have more of them yeah because it's denser so you have more of them but like let's say we're still talking about one my one electron and I'm shooting a neutrino added Is it more likely for them to interact

if I shoot my neutrino super super fast or if it's cruising by slowly? Low energy particles in general are going to be more likely to interact. Qualitative you can imagine they spend more time in each other's vicinity so they're closer for longer period so they get to like roll the dime more times

is one way to think about it. I see. So basically like if you want the neutrino to hit the electron you just got to hit it on and throw it slowly. So it's the same as like throwing a base. a baseball, the slower you throw it, the easier it is to hit the center of the glove. Yeah, that's true.

So that's what you want to do. If you want the electron and the neutrino to interact, throw it slowly right at each other. Right, but even if you hit it dead on at a slow speed, there's still a probability that they'll ignore each other, right? Yeah, that's the most likely thing by far. Neutrinos almost always ignore everything, including electrons. And I guess why is that?

Is it because the two quantum fields don't like each other or they're not likely to interact with each other? I mean, it sounds like it's a slam dunk if you're hitting it straight on. Why wouldn't they interact? Well, some fields just don't interact with other fields. And some fields interact very strongly and some fields interact very weakly. And this is just like a number. You know, you calculate the probabilities and you have all these factors, momentum and angle and distance, whatever. Then there's also just a number you multiply these calculations by.

And it's different for different pairs of probabilities. fields. And in this case, it's the weak interaction, and we know that weak interaction just has a small number in front of it. Why is that number weak? We don't really know. You know, the strong force is a bigger number. Electromagnism has a number close to 1 over 100. The weak force has a much smaller number. Gravity is even weaker if you think about it in a quantum scale. We don't know why these numbers are stronger or weaker for various forces. I see. So you're saying the weak The weak force is weak, and the strong force is strong. Yes, and that's a description of what we've observed, right?

We also do know that these numbers change with energy. Actually, as the universe gets hotter and denser and everything is flying around higher speeds, these numbers in front of the fields do change. So they become more likely to interact? They do become more likely as the temperature of the universe increases. So we think in the early universe, these probabilities were different. And the universe is now cooled and crystallized. and the weak force ended up being quite weak.

Though we think in the early history of the universe, the weak force might have been as strong as electromagnetism. Whoa. It's just an inherent. Something about it just makes it more reactive. Yeah, it's called spontaneous symmetry breaking. We think that the universe sort of like cracked in this way when it was cooling and made the weak force weak and then electromagnetism less weak.

We think in the early universe, there were really just one symmetric beautiful bundle that was all the same and it cracked into these two items that are very different now. And then it cracked the shark, obviously. I mean, it cracked the cork. But I guess maybe I wonder now if Rebecca's question is, okay, let's say I shoot a neutrina at an electron, I hit a dead on, and I rolled a dye,

and the universe says, all right, let these two particles interact. What's happening then? Yeah, that's a great question. And in our current understanding, these things are fundamental. So we have no insight into like what's going on inside them. maybe something is happening. They're exchanging little internal particles or something is changing inside their state.

We don't know. Our current picture of them is that we can't see inside of them. So we don't really know. All we know is that we can describe that it's happening and it's like one unit of understanding. We don't know how to crack it open. To us, it's essentially instantaneous because we don't have any insight

into the internal working as an electron or a neutrino. Oh, I see. Like you don't have an idea of like, all right, you can play this out in slow motion is what you're saying. Yeah, for example, it used to be that we understood how neutrinos decay the same way. Neutrinos turned into a proton, an electron neutrino. How did that happen? We didn't know they were all point particles to us.

Now we can see inside the proton. We can see what happens. We can see that, oh, it's this quark turning into that. And that's why you get a neutron and we can understand the details inside of it. But we can tell that for the inside of an electron or neutrino. So maybe it's instantaneous and we're looking at fundamental interactions of the universe. Or maybe there's something happening in. inside of it, we just can't see yet that could happen in slow motion.

So maybe it's just like one time step of the universe or maybe it's multiple ones. We can't tell the difference. Because it's happening so fast or maybe because it is instantaneous. Both. Maybe it's so fast. Maybe it's instantaneous. We can't tell the difference yet. We can't resolve those two differences.

We don't have the technology to see those things. We can't look inside the electron, for example. Well, I wonder if like some interactions add the two things sort of combine into pure energy in a way and then out comes other particles. Maybe you may imagine these ripples kind of mixing together, becoming this blob, and then it ripples out into other things. Maybe. Is that how maybe you as a particle physicist think about it or see it? I see it as like energy transforming from one field to another. So for example, if you have an electron and a positron, they annihilate to make a photon, right? That's like just energy. There's no matter anymore. The way I think about

that is two ripples in the electron field, one, the electron, the other positron, which is just like a different kind of ripple in the electron field, come together, and then that energy slides over into another field, right? The energy is gone from the electron field. It's slipped over into the photon field, the electromagnetic field. So those fields have coupled. They've transferred energy from one to the other. And so now the electron field is quiet, and the electromagnetic field,

the photons field, is rippling because it has the particle in it. so I imagine all these fields sort of on top of each other and energy is sliding back and forth from one to another well that's when they transform into each other but what about like when they just bounce off each other yeah that's exchanging momentum so then you have like ripples that are approaching each other and then they can go off in other directions right they're still communicating by

exchanging momentum or exchanging energy like a little bit of my horizontal energy I give that to the other particle and then that particle that moves a little bit in the horizontal direction yeah exactly all right well then i think that is rebecca's answer which is uh daniel has no idea nobody has any idea we have a current picture which we can use to do calculations which are extraordinarily accurate but we don't understand the internals of it yet we don't know if we're at the end of the story or just step five out of 10,000 future experiments we hope

will reveal the answers oh like to us it looks like they just bounce of each other but maybe when you zoom in and, you know, look at it in super high speed motion, maybe there's little like sharks jumping from one particle to the other. Yeah, and if you give me $100 billion to build a shark collider, I can prove it. Yeah, there you go. Maybe I can get Bruce's new moon mining company to fund a big collider. Oh, my goodness, it all comes together. We're going to fund the little shark experiment with Moon Cheezium.

That's right, Moon Cheezium. Don't invest in crypto, invest in moon cheesium. It's a much more solid investment. Yes, put all your retirement money there. Yes, send us the money now. And in about a thousand years, when space travel is cheap, you might see a return. Sounds good. All right, well, thanks to everyone who sent in their questions.

It's always fun to see what people are curious about and to try to tackle these interesting. Mysteries of the universe. Thanks very much, everybody who sends in your questions, and thanks everybody else out there for your curiosity. It powers our science and our podcast. And our jumping. We hope you enjoyed that. Thanks for joining us.

See you next time. For more science and curiosity, come find us on social media, where we answer questions and post videos. We're on Twitter, Discord, Insta, and now TikTok. Thanks for listening. remember that Daniel and Jorge Explain the Universe is a production of IHeartRadio. For more podcasts from IHeartRadio, visit the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

Do we really need another podcast with a condescending finance brof trying to tell us how to spend our own money? No, thank you. Instead, check out Brown Ambition. Each week, I, your host, Mandy Money, gives you real talk, really, advice with a heavy dose of I feel uses, like on Fridays when I take your questions for the BAQA. Whether you're trying to invest for your future, navigate a toxic workplace, I got you. Listen to Brown Ambition on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. I'm Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman, host of the psychology podcast. Here's a clip from an upcoming conversation about how to be a better you. When you think about emotion regulation, You're not going to choose an adaptive strategy which is more effortful to use unless you think there's a good outcome.

Avoidance is easier. Ignoring is easier. Denials is easier. Complex problem solving takes effort. Listen to the psychology podcast on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. It's important that we just reassure people that they're not alone and there is help out there. The Good Stuff podcast Season 2 takes a deep look into One Tribe Foundation, a nonprofit, fighting suicide in the veteran community.

September is National Suicide Prevention Month, so join host Jacob and Ashley Schick as they bring you to the front lines of One Tribe's mission. One Tribe, save my life twice. Welcome to Season 2 of the Good Stuff. Listen to the Good Stuff podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. This is an IHeart podcast.