StarTalk Radio - Cosmic Queries – Black Hole Time Cloak with Charles Liu

Episode Date: April 12, 2024

Are black holes places or objects? Neil deGrasse Tyson and cohosts Chuck Nice and Gary O’Reilly answer grab-bag questions about distorting spacetime, Olbers’ Paradox, singularities, the shape of the universe, and more with astrophysicist Charles Liu. NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free here: https://startalkmedia.com/show/cosmic-queries-black-hole-time-cloak-with-charles-liu/Thanks to our Patrons Logan Kent, James in 3d, Renee Skrip, Maarten Spruijt, Alan Domonoske, Liam Predergast, sparkman, Cecil J Taylor, abhinav yadav, and Markus Gustafsson for supporting us this week. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ on Apple Podcasts to listen to new episodes ad-free and a whole week early.

Coming up on StarTalk, Cosmic Queries Grab Bag Edition, from right here at my office, the Hayden Planetarium, the American Museum of Natural History. Your questions this time touched on all kinds of wacky, weird things, like what happens in a black hole, out of a black hole, quantum entanglement, this universe, other universes, the shape of the universe, all of the above, and more, coming up. Welcome to StarTalk, your place in the universe where science and pop culture collide. StarTalk begins right now. This is StarTalk. Neil deGrasse Tyson here, your personal astrophysicist.

Today, it's going to be Cosmic Query's Grab Bag. Chuck. Hey. You the Grab Bag man. No, I'm just part of the bag. I'm not really much of the grab. I'm part of the bag. And we got Gary O'Reilly joining us here.

Yeah. And apparently, in previous grab bags, I was insufficient to serve the needs of the questions. Oh, you got that email. So y'all went out and got one of my colleagues. Well, of course. It's all about sharing care. Oh, sharing care. So Charles Liu, a returning champion.

And still champion. Charles Liu, friend and colleague. And we go back. A long way. Almost 30 years now. What a pleasure. Yeah. It's been so fun. Thanks for all you Almost 30 years now. What a pleasure. Yeah. It's been so fun.

Thanks for all you bring to StarTalk. Always happy to be here. Happy to see you. You're still our geek in chief. Thank you. And you are the evidence that the geek spectrum

is infinite in all directions. Because however geeky I am, one need not be impressed by that when they see the geekier person than me. Okay? So... I would not presume. But thank you so much. It's very kind.

So you guys got the questions from our Patreon supporters? We do. Alright, I'll kick us off. Alright, let's do that, Gary. These are exclusive questions from our Patreon contributors, so thank you very much. Go on, you want to jump in, Chuck? Here we go. This is Laz, and Laz says, hey, Neil and Chuck. He's talking about Chuck.

Oh, thanks, Chuck. And he says, this is Justin from Houston, Texas. I was wondering the other one. Wait, I thought it was Laz. Well, he goes by Laz. Laz says his handle. That's because his handle doesn't have to be your name, dude. Get with the century.

We're having another nerd fight. Press X to death. That was rather aggressive. It's all right. He says, I was wondering the other week if gravity affects the flow of time and black holes are concentrated gravity.

Would the age of the universe be different based on the size of your nearest black hole? Side question. If I were to make a theoretical cloak of black holes around my body, would time cease to exist for me or would it change the rate of time

inside the cloak at all? Wow. Yeah. He's feeling Harry Potter there. He really is. The invisibility cloak of Harry Potter. But it's a Harry Potter there. He really is. The invisibility cloak of Harry Potter. But it's a time cloak.

It's a time cloak. Right. So, yes. The, to answer the cloak question first. Yeah. You can't make a cloak of theoretical black holes because you create basically one big black hole as a result. Right. In the stuff on the inside, time could stand still,

but you've created essentially an event horizon around the interior of this cloak. So time could stand still for you if you were keeping time still at that point. So could you make like a Lagrange point of black holes where all the black holes are in a stable little environment and each event horizon is touching just enough where it doesn't tug and then you're just perfectly perched right in that middle of that. That is not… Listen to him talking about Lagrange points. It's great. It's wonderful. No, this is a very serious and valuable question.

In fact. I learned it from watching you. Oh, that was from that. From the drug commercial back in the day. The kid. Parents. He was like, you're doing drugs. Where'd you learn this?

And he says to his dad, I learned it from watching you, okay? Parents who do drugs. have kids who do drugs. Yes. Go ahead. Did you guys grow up together? I don't remember any of these questions. Okay. All right.

Go ahead. There's no way I could have done this. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just stay out of that one. You cannot put black holes just so they barely touch by event horizon and keep them stable. The quantum mechanical effects, gravitational radiation will inevitably cause them to crash into one another. Okay. Because they're not that way.

However, Boden Paczynski, who is an astronomer from a long, long time ago, or maybe Andrzej Paholczyk, one of those two guys, long time ago, or maybe Andrei Paholchik, one of those two guys, maybe decades ago, suggested that the centers of galaxies might contain configurations of black holes that were indeed kind of buzzing around a common center of gravity, like bees swarming around. Now, the problem in the end is going to be the gravitational radiation that comes from that. They will eventually collapse. If they're that close, they just can't stay in a stable configuration purely gravitationally. They need something else

to keep them apart. Otherwise, they coalesce, they release gravitational waves. We see it at LIGO and we can find out. Yeah, but we don't have to be that exotic. Just put them on a planet

orbiting very close to the black hole. As we saw in the film Interstellar, if you're really close to a black hole, your time ticks way more slowly than everybody else. So, isn't that all you need to solve his

question? Well, yeah. If you get close to the black hole, time for you runs more slowly, but the rest of the universe... We see your time runs... That's right. No, time for you runs normal. Normal. Yeah. For me, what I felt like was a second or two. It doesn't change anything.

But you guys see me, right, having only been one second while you guys experience decades of life or something like that. So that particular question is hard to answer specifically that way. But the answer is, like you said, we solve the problem. In fact, the New York Times science journalist from the 60s and 70s, Walter Sullivan, wrote a book called Frozen Star back in the early days of black holes, where if you see someone about to fall in, they're basically frozen relative to you. You'll just see them just sort of pause. Yeah, and that's been used in a number of places.

There's a TV show called Andromeda starring Kevin Sorbo, where he in fact was in the ship and was caught almost falling in. And during that moment where he's kind of caught, he didn't age at all, but other people did.

And 300 years later, using more advanced technology, someone salvages a ship. And so now he's like fish out of water. He's 300 years older than everybody else. And somehow he still can save the universe. So the first part of this question, which was if gravity affects the flow of time,

are black holes concentrated gravity? So is a black hole, is the gravitational effects of a black hole the result of the black hole, its density, or is it actually gravity itself concentrated? Well, gravity, Neil, tell me if I'm explaining this okay, is essentially the curvature of space-time caused by mass. Mass and energy.

Yeah, and mass and energy. So if a black hole is sitting there, we don't necessarily think of it as a concentrated point of gravity, but rather as an object that happens to warp space and time so significantly that it has an event horizon around it. So to answer that question, I think, is to express it differently. Yeah, I don't know if it's semantic at that level. Because Newton was, there's an object and there's a gravitational field.

Einstein is, there's an object and space-time is warped in the presence of that object, and everything you do and how you move is influenced by this curvature of space-time, and you measure that curvature to be gravity. So, it turns out, that might sound semantic, but that Einsteinian description is way more accurate in predicting phenomenon in the universe. Right. And so, but to quibble over what happens to the time. Right.

Yes, time slows down for you. After that, I don't know what more interesting there is to talk about. And there's a, of course, one of the most important parts of the general theory of relativity is the equivalence principle, Of course, one of the most important parts of the general theory of relativity is the equivalence principle, which means that at some point you can't tell the difference between the curvature of space-time causing you to move differently and some sort of acceleration that's causing you to move differently. So as far as the time changing and differing, I think Neil has the right idea on this one. Charles, aren't all parts of the general theory of relativity important? Yes.

But some parts are more important. OK. Hello. hello i'm vicky brooke allen and i support star talk on patreon this is star talk with nailed grass tyson All right. Who's next up? All right. Bill Bailey. Hi, Bill. Says, Guardians of the Galactic Groove. Okay.

You too. You too, Gary. I'm an innocent bystander. Say I fall into a black hole, I cross the event horizon if, and we're back to Kevin Sorbo, if there really was a singularity in my future, not a point in space, would it take me till the end of time to reach it?

Are you of the opinion that black holes are really places as opposed to objects? Bill Bailey hails from Ohio, so here we go. Are black holes places or objects? Black holes are definitely objects. They can move through space and time. They can collide, so clearly. So they are objects. Black holes are definitely objects. They can move through space and time. They can

collide, so clearly they are objects. But the singularity that Bill is describing would be a place. Possibly a place inside the black hole. Because singularities might not even have to exist. As long as

something is inside an event horizon, we actually don't know how the material is structured inside. So when you're falling, Bill, you actually are falling in toward the event horizon. You don't know if there's a singularity there. And in fact, it would take you a huge amount of time, possibly an infinite amount of time to fall into the black hole as you, because what happens is that the black hole's event horizon grows to meet you. And as you look in toward the event horizon, the things closer to the event horizon to you,

you see their time going more slowly. But if you look backwards, then the time is going more fast or quickly and the other direction. So at the moment you are reaching the black hole's event horizon, you see the entire history of the entire universe of that location simultaneously.

Entire future history of the universe behind you unfolding, right? Because you've slowed down. And the entire past. Because time has basically stopped for you. Yeah. That's so... i'm crazy insane the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you well it it it succeeded it certainly succeeded that is insane in in these big huge concepts that we're talking about here,

about quantum versus general relativity versus space and time, it sometimes can be helpful to think of time as always existing, past, present, and future, and you're just filling in that dimension as you happen to pass through it. We are prisoners of the present, forever transitioning between our inaccessible past and our unknowable future. Oh, that's in the Bible.

According to Captain Kirk. Prisoner sounds so depressing. It makes me feel like I'm Patrick McGowan or number six or something. Well, we're- Wait, don't put emotion in what I just said. It makes me feel like I'm Patrick McGowan or number six or something. Don't put emotion in what I just said. It just is. Maybe we're not prisoners. Maybe we're privileged participants in the present.

That sounds like a creepy prisoner to me. Don't worry. One day you'll be able to leave the basement. But not now. Not now. Not today. What do we say to the gods of prison? By the way, me uttering that line was lifted by Beyoncé for her international tour, Between Songs. Are we serious?

I'm serious. All right. So who is the author of that particular quote? That's him, man. It would be me. That's him. Thank you. I didn't know that before.

That's why I asked. Oh, you didn't know? Okay. No sarcasm. Yeah, I was not sorry. It would be me. That's him. Thank you. I didn't know that before. That's why I asked. Oh, you didn't know? Okay. No sarcasm. Yeah, I was not sorry. So wait a minute. Okay, now I'm derailing the show. Look, I gotta derail the show.

I'm sorry. Because somebody mentioned Beyonce. Yes, exactly. Please. Are you kidding me? Stay focused. Come on. We can't stay.

Come on. You mentioned Beyonce. I mean, it's a law. Whenever somebody mentions Beyonce, all things must stop. And we gotta talk about Beyonce now. Beyonce did do one of the greatest videos of all time. Which was? Of all time.

Of all time. Oh, that's right. I'm going to let you finish. I'm going to let you finish. Okay. Okay. Please. What?

What? What did Beyonce? How did Beyonce get this quote? I'm on the internet somewhere saying it. And her people or she saw it, said, that's cool. No, but what I'm saying is, did they use your voice? Okay, that's different. Did she violate your copyright?

So here's what I'm thinking. Yeah. Okay, I'm thinking, you know, got me looking so crazy right now. Thank you. We are all prisoners. Like, that's how I thought it went down. But it's you. It's actually you saying it.

It's my voice. According to you. That's cool. We are just prisoners here. Yeah. Of our own life. It was my voice. Okay.

It wasn't for the domain. It was for the international tour. Okay. But I thought she was quoting you, but really they were using you as a part of the actual concert. That's still cool. That's still cool. That's really cool. We get back on the road. And people ask me, well, how much did they pay you?

So I told them how much and they say, dude, you should have gotten Beyonce tickets. It would have worked much more. It was like, no, but I'm not. Now we got to get you in a Taylor Swift concert. Who's next? Do you want to go? I'll go.

No, you go. Why are they all about black holes? These are all about black holes in the beginning. Well, I should have said that at the top. Oh, no, not everything's about black holes. Okay, okay, go. All right, so this one's from Matthew. Again, these are all Patreon patrons

that are contributing these questions, so thank you very much. Hi, Neil, Charles, and Chuck. Matthew from Dallas. That'll be in Texas. Is there a way to transfer information? You said Dallas, Norway. Yes. Yeah, no, but it actually says Dallas,

TX, so I'm just, just in case there's like a Paris, Texas, as opposed to Paris, France. This is America, dude. We know where Dallas is. Do we? We're so happy for you. It's just south of Amarillo, right? Oh, here we go. You're back on it.

Is there a way to transfer information? He's giggling. Is there a way to transfer information with quantum entanglement? If so, can we instantaneous communication anywhere in the universe? No subspace required. At the moment, quantum entanglement could provide instantaneous information transfer, but we haven't been able to confirm it. There's no way yet for us to be able to conduct an experiment

that can show that quantum entangled particles could transfer information faster than light. There's nothing mathematical that says that it can't, but there's nothing physical that says that it can. Okay, so he says no subspace required. Okay, what is subspace? Is there a subspace? Are you really asking that? I'm saying.

And you've been my, you're asking that? I think Chuck's asking it on behalf of our audience. I am asking on behalf. Let's not be harsh on Chuck. I'm just saying that. Subspace is an important question. Okay, so subspace. Chuck.

Subspace was invented by Star Trek writers. Yes. Because it needed to find a way to move things faster than light from one point to another in our universe. And so... Not just things, but communication. Right. Subspace communications are even more amazing

than actual traveling through subspace. But what you do is your warp nacelles create a warp bubble around you, which puts you out of our universe and into subspace, which then allows you to squirt forward like a little bubble through space-time at faster than light. So warp 10 is an infinite speed, and you get, it's a logarithmic scale, warp 9 and warp 9.9 and warp 9.99 and so on and so on. Just gets you faster and faster and faster. That's where the engines really can't take it.

That's right. She's breaking up, Captain. She's breaking up. She can't take it, Captain. I can't do anymore. The USS Voyager. Shrek. Well, so did he.

Scotty and Shrek were the same. Yeah. Scotty and Shrek were the same. The Star Trek Enterprise-D could go around warp 9.4 at a sustained period of time. But Star Trek Voyager had 17 decks and had a nominal cruising speed of warp 9.975. So it was a speedy little ship. Okay, so subspace allows,

because with regard to communication, if they're just having banter with home base, what? Starbase? Starfleet? Yeah, Starfleet Command. San Francisco? Starfleet Command. If they're just having conversation back and forth, that's not really possible

if it's moving at the speed of light. That's right. So all those conversations in Star Trek or through really any space show had to be going through some medium other than regular space. Right. We're nowhere near that right now, are we?

Not anywhere close. Absolutely nowhere. Okay. Next question. All right. This is Wendy Sue. And Wendy says, Hi, Dr. Tyson Absolutely nowhere. Okay. Next question. All right. This is Wendy Su. And Wendy says, Hi, Dr. Tyson, Dr. Liu, Mr. Nice,

the glue that holds everything together. I'm from Shanghai, China. I didn't know Shanghai, China was the glue that holds everything together. Wow. It's you. If gravity is the curvature of space-time, say if two celestial objects were to stay completely still relative to each other, they would feel zero effect from each other's gravity because they are not moving through the fabrics. Thanks for bringing back the joys of learning.

Okay, I don't think... I missed the question. I don't think... I missed the question. If gravity is the curvature of space-time, say if two celestial objects were to stay completely relative to each other, they would feel zero effect from each other's gravity. They would. They would.

I guess the question is, is that the case? Is this the case? It turns out that no, they would still feel the effects. You see, because gravity... say you have object A, it has a gravitational field that distorts space-time around it. Object B is over here. It distorts space-time around it. Even if they're still with one another, they still feel the distortions. The distortions do not change with time if they're exactly far apart,

but they still feel each other. So they may not accelerate toward each other, but they feel that force. They should accelerate toward each other if no other forces or accelerations are present. That would have to be the case if the two of them are staying absolutely still with respect to one another. The only way that they would not feel each other's gravity is if they didn't have any gravity at all. I will quote John Archibald Wheeler.

Will you? He's dead. He's dead, Gary. Is it final? Go on. Mass tells space how to curve. Space tells mass how to move. Ooh.

Okay, so in this case, we have two objects that have curved space-time in their vicinity. That's all the instructions they need to fall towards one another, or towards each other.

Because they're following the path that they can't help following. I love how specific how you differentiated one another from each other. I caught that. So I had to correct the grammar.

Each other is just between two people. Right. So if they're staying... You're a mama. I was going to make your mama proud. She taught English. Well, no. And I was the one who said it incorrectly. So she's proud. Yeah. She taught English, right? Well, no, and I was the one who said it incorrectly, so she's proud of you. Right. So if they're perfectly still with respect to one another,

they are experiencing something else that's keeping them perfectly still with respect to one another. Otherwise, they would be accelerating toward one another. I have an addendum to this, if I may. Please. One of the most realistic scenarios to deflect an asteroid

that might be headed our way is to take a spaceship, park it near the asteroid in perfect path with it. So I tell park it, it's a moving asteroid. It's a moving asteroid, so it's just moving

alongside of it. So you park it, so it moves alongside of it. And they want to move towards each other. Yeah. But you have little retro rockets on your spacecraft that prevent that. So every time it tries to move towards, the retro rockets fire. Fire.

And it's just like, I'm just going to move over here. Over here. And it's like, where you going, baby? I'm just going to move over here. Over here. And it's like, where are you going, baby? So the meteor, the asteroid, the comet, ends up getting pulled towards the spaceship through the gravitational field.

So in a way, it's like a gravitational tractor beam. Right. Don't stand so close to me. Very nice. So you don't need much of a deflection. You don't need them to create a circle. If you get it early enough, tiny deflections are all you need. Right.

Oh, yeah. All right. Right. That also has the benefit that some asteroids, comets, we think they're not very tightly held together. Some might be just piles of rubble moving in unison. Whereas if you just go in and bust it up, who knows what that's going to look like.

But gravitationally, that'll affect all the particles together. And so you're good. Oh, okay. Yeah. Two in one. All right, this question, next question is Javier Ortega.

Hi. Javier? Javier. Javier. Javier Ortega. I'm an engineer from Panama. Here goes my... Panama.

Bam, bam, bam, bam. Panama. Wow. Okay. Very nice. The spirit moved me. I know, and it's great. Okay, the question is,

the light of the stars travels away from it in an infinitely dense sphere of photons. Will every unobstructed object in the distance receive its photons? How can this be if in the far distance the rays will spread apart from the star? I know we can be talking about quantum waves instead of photons, but even in that case, I can't figure how this light can maintain its density through the distance and size greetings from the past love your show you're welcome i think i understand the question imagine a star right and the rays come in every direction right do those rays start spreading farther and farther apart so that they'll

not intersect some stars whereas they will intersect others, right? Yeah, does every single sight line onto a star from every single distance receive light? And how could the star be giving off that much light? Right. That's a great question. That's a great question, but how could it not? I mean, seriously. I mean, because no matter where you are and whatever vantage point, you would see light. Here's what I want to try.

Oh, I'm sorry, Charles. Check me out on this. Okay. I'm thinking just in real time because I don't have the answer ready made for this. No, no. Here's what I want. That's the whole idea of this. Here's what I wonder.

As your distance gets greater and greater from the star, the energy density of the light diminishes. Correct. Yep. Okay. Correct. Okay? So the intensity drops and drops and drops and drops. And so there will be a point where it's below your ability to detect it. Maybe that's this point in practice for what it is you're talking about.

In practice, there is a detection threshold. And therefore... For any detector. For any detector. Yes. And therefore, for any detector, any real world in mathematical reality, you actually can in fact, eventually receive light from every single object in the universe. This is the basis of Olber's paradox. Why is the sky dark at night? If there are enough stars out there, every line of sight should get some light from it somehow. And you eventually wind up filling the entire night sky with stars or starlight one way or another, no matter what. So why is the star? Why is the sky ever dark? And part of the answer, one way to think of the answer

is that light travels at a finite speed. And therefore, not every spot actually has a light source where the light has had time to reach your eye yet. Another point has to do with... So an object can be so far away, in the time it has turned on, there's not enough time in the universe to reach it.

That's one of three ways. Yeah, there are different ways out of this thing. But that's one way that you can think about it, right? And the other way is this detection limit. Your eyes can't see them even though it's there, right? Right now, one of the famous things that we do in science is to try to find cosmic background radiation, right? Microwave radiation is famous from the Big Bang,

but also there's cosmic infrared radiation background, there's cosmic visible light background. Like exactly how much is it? Spaces that we looked years ago that were completely blank, had nothing in there, we stare at it with the Hubble Space Telescope or JWST, and thousands of galaxies appear. It's all a matter of detection.

So hopefully that answers the question there. And if we're talking about like the light from the Big Bang, where the entire universe is being filled with all of this light that existed at the moment that the universe began, what's going on there is that the entire spectrum of that background light is being stretched as space is expanding.

So that's why that light, which used to be gamma rays, is now microwaves. And so you can fill the space. A much lower energy branch of the spectrum. So you can fill the space with the same amount of energy, just each spot in space has much less of it. Wow. So there you go. Deep, significant question. Yeah. Some great questions. People there you go. Deep, significant questions.

Yeah. Some great questions. People have been on point today, man. Guys, we've got only like five minutes left. Okay. Oh, man. Charles, you and I have to tighten our game here, okay? Charles, you pulled out your stopwatch. What's that?

So I figure if we got to get through these quickly, then we'll just do a time limit on each question. Okay. And then you guys have to determine whether or not you can answer it in that. Wow. So what did we say? 30 seconds?

I think that's a good round number. All right. 30. That's soundbite. That's a long time. Even if the news finds you on the street. Make it 10. 10 seconds? 30. That's soundbite. That's a long time. Even if news finds you on the street. Make it 10.

10 seconds? No, that's too much. That's too short. You're the Usain Bolt of science. You don't have to use the whole 30 seconds. I'm just saying that

the most of it can be. If you can do it in 10, do it in 10. If you can do it in 10, do it in 10. But 30 seconds, time is up. Let's go.

Okay. I don't want to take five minutes explaining why we're only going to take 10 seconds. Here we go. This is Jamie Wilson. Greetings, Dr. Tyson and honored guest Charles Liu.

If you could time travel to any point in human scientific history, which time period would you choose and why? Jasmine from Santa Rosa, California. Go. Whoa. Trinity. First nuclear explosion. I would time travel back to the collision of Theia and Earth, which made the moon.

I want to see that in the night sky. Dang. I would try and travel forward to a place where black people are doing okay. All right. So Theia would be now four and a half billion years ago. Right. And Trinity would now be 70 years ago, 80 years ago. 1945.

Yeah, okay. Okay. All right, next question. Frederick Deschamps. Fred's from UP, Michigan, and would like to know if you, Charles, have read the Discworld books. Ah, yes, by Terry Pratchett.

Yes, indeed. What kind of fun physics can you think of taking place on a magical land such as? And did he also ask for Easter eggs that we might have missed? No, he said there's tons ask for Easter eggs that we might have missed? No, he said there's tons of physics Easter eggs in it. Terry tells all kinds of cute physics jokes because

this world is literally a disk, but it sits on elephants, and then there's a turtle that the elephants are standing on, and it just kind of swims through the universe. So it's not turtles all the way down. It's just turtles one layer deep. Yes. So it's almost... So it's not turtles all the way down. Right. It's just turtles one layer deep. Yes.

Okay. So it's almost like a giant disc-shaped spaceship that's going through the universe. That's what it is. And it... Yeah.

Are you guys feeling any flat earth trauma going on here? It is. This is rough. Disguised as... But Terry was one of those folks

that always told good jokes about science. That... Yep. I stole five of his seconds. It's all good. It's all good. But Terry was one of those folks that always told good jokes about science. I stole five of his seconds. It's all good. It's all good. Now, his humorous physics Easter eggs were good enough for me.

I have yet to speculate, aside from this very good point, that you're basically seeing new constellations all the time. Okay. All right. Chuck's monitoring your time. This question is from Logical Hillilly um from wonderful west virginia i have a question about white holes here we go although weinstein's equations show that mathematically they can exist nothing has been found that fits the description is it possible that there was only one white hole and it was as what we know as the Big Bang. Thank you for all the awesome information.

A last note. The white hole idea and what we have seen about the Big Bang are not compatible. Wow, that only took nine seconds. I told you. World record. I told you.

I told you. Will you yield 10 seconds to me? I yield 20 seconds. Yeah, because you. Yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from the Bronx. Okay. So when white holes were first put forth, we deeply wanted quasars to be white holes at the edge of the universe.

There's a very high concentration of energy coming out of them. And when you compared what you'd predict for a white hole with every known object in the universe, nothing matched. So the white hole remains mathematical speculation, unfortunately, because it'd be a really cool pairing with the universe's black holes. Right.

Okay. Ready, set up? That wasn't 20 seconds, so... Yeah. We made it under 30 seconds. Okay. Chase Matthews writing from Ventura, California. Do we have the capability of creating a Dyson swarm

with technology available today or maybe a similar structure in low Earth orbit? Dyson swarm, explain, please. It's a bunch of vacuums that you put the Dyson swarm. I set them up, you knock them down. I don't know what a Dyson swarm is I don't know what a Dyson swarm is. I just know what a Dyson sphere is. Yeah.

Imagine just a whole bunch of satellites that kind of surround a thing. All right. So it's not a full solid structure. Right. Yeah. I mean, a Dyson sphere swarm around Earth would be pointless. The only point of a Dyson sphere is to trap energy coming from the thing in the center of the sphere. So you would put it around the

sun. You would put it around the galaxy. You would put it around a galaxy cluster or a cluster of stars. So... Time's up. Yeah. And my nine second version... That was actually perfect. And my nine second version is that you can create a

constellation like that around the Earth. In fact, some people might be trying to do that, like, say, Starlink or something. But it wouldn't get energy. Yeah. There you go. You guys did it. I mean… Thank you.

All right. Hey. Next question is from Sam Green. I've read that aerogels are heat-resistant to extreme temperatures, in some cases, 1300 degrees Celsius. Wow. Yeah. But are very fragile. Are there any applications or apparatus

that could be developed to harness this property to explore the inner earth or use in nuclear reactors? Oh, look at that. Oh. Well, one application I just learned in the Paris fashion week there is a handbag

made out of aerogel as a new fashion edition do you have one? no I don't but I do have my own aerogel on the shelf well of course

but what it means is new materials have always influenced the creativity of artists and right up and down, whenever something new happens,

creative artists say, hey, that's a new material with these properties. I'm going to do the X, Y, Z with it. So, but in terms of probing Earth, Charles, I don't know how... Aerogels have been used in spacecraft. You basically encase them in something. And then that forms a very interesting

and useful thermal barrier between something you want to stay hot and something you want to stay cold. So you could do that down into the earth. Problem is with the earth going into the earth, the pressure... Yeah, in earth. Right.

The pressure is too strong. It will crush the aerogel. Right. And then in a nuclear situation, the radiation will alter the structure of the aerogel, unfortunately, over time, and therefore render it not as effective. That's a good point. I hadn't thought of that. So its thermal properties would be different. There's energy from a thousand degrees Celsius,

of course, but targeted particle energy from nuclear reactions would have completely enough energy to break apart all those molecules. So you'd have a pile of dust at the end. Sadly. By my read. Yeah. And no handbag. And no handbag.

Last question. All right. Last question. Okay. Time flies when you're having fun. Charles and I have been doing okay. I got to tell you, you guys have really been… With the yielding of the time.

You've been knocking it out pretty cool. The last one, you both did about, I mean, well, Charles was 30.7 seconds, and you were 33 seconds. Okay. Which for you was like three and a half seconds. If this was a child's coloring book, you'd just went over the edges.

Yeah, okay. Yeah, I know. Who stares in the lines? Anyway, right. Gabe Malik, I'm a high school student from Washington, D.C. I'm writing, what is the most agreed upon geometrical nature of the universe, Euclidean or non-Euclidean,

or is it spherical? Oh, okay. It's Euclidean. Flat. Absolutely. It has been confirmed as a consensus almost completely by everyone. Yeah, no one is denying this. And we get that from the dark energy,

which flattens out what would otherwise be a spherical shape or a saddle shape. The dark energy flattens that out. That is still a mathematical hypothesis. What is? We have measured the universe to be Euclidean and perfectly flat. And then we think that it is the dark energy that causes it to stay flat. Like, inflates it just enough. But we don't really know that. What do you think is making

it flat? We don't know, but that is one hypothesis. Don't tell me what I did. I told you it was making it flat. You have to confirm that. There has not yet been an experiment. Is there something else out there that you think could be making it flat? Possibly. Like what? Something called quintessence, which is not exactly dark energy. Sounds like a fragrance. Possibly. Like what? Something called quintessence, which is not exactly dark energy.

Sounds like a fragrance. It does. Actually, I think what people have in mind. Quintessence. Quintessence. But the idea is that the geometry. Feel the flatness. Totally okay.

I like it. Quintessence. Yeah, it's by Cody. Flat. Yeah. Measured flat. And we good. Okay. So why? There you go, Gabe. We have more left to figure out. Flat. Yeah. Measured flat. And we're good. Okay.

So, why? There you go, Gabe. We have more left to figure out. There you go. There you go. Very young person, still in high school, so probably time on your side

to work it out. Yeah, let him work it. You figure it out. Right, right. All on you now, Gabe. Charles Liu, delighted to have you back. It is always a pleasure.

And we're all here in person, too. I know. What a joy. We can like teach each other. It's so weird. Oh, it's so great. Fist bumps and handshakes all around. Fist bump in the middle here.

Cosmic queries all around. One-sword powers. Science powers activate. Oh, that's like Power Rangers. They all get together. The Mouseketeers. All for one and one for all. Oh.

And the swords are rooted in that. The Mouseketeers? All for one and one for all. Oh. And the swords are rooted in that. The Mouseketeers? Or the Musketeers? The Mouseketeers came later. I thought I swiggled your ears. I swear he said Mouseketeers. I probably did. All right.

This has been another installment of StarTalk Cosmic Queries Grab Bag Edition. Leaning black hole, I must say. And cosmology. But that made it that much sweeter. Black holes don't suck. Black holes don't suck. How long have you waited to say that?

But if you fall in one, then that's your new home. In fact, this was composed by Harry Belafonte. Black holes don't suck. But if you fall in one, then that's your new home. No, they don't suck. They don't suck. But if you fall in one, then that's your new home. No, they don't suck. They don't suck. They don't suck. They don't suck. No, they don't.

Everyone together. But if you fall in one, then that's your new home. I'm so glad he's dead right now. So he did not have to hear that. It is time. Chuck, Gary, Charles,

always good to have you in the same room with you guys. Neil deGrasse Tyson here, as always, bidding you to keep looking up.