this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
908 points (98.5% liked)

Science Memes

11161 readers
2133 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] synapse1278@lemmy.world 78 points 3 months ago (4 children)

If I understand that right, gravity also moves in space at the speed of light, therefore Earth will keep on orbiting for 8min around nothing?

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 64 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

Kind of. The concept of simultaneity breaks down at distances where the speed of light matters. If we base it on what we currently observe and call "now" on the Sun the eight minute old state we currently observe then what does "now" on earth look like from the point of view of the Sun at that same moment? You can't reconcile a single "now" for observers in both locations.

An alternative take which is also consistent with observable physics is that the speed of light is infinite but it's causality itself that propagates at c.

Thinking in those terms also makes a number of relativistic effects more intuitive. You need infinite energy to reach the speed of light simply because it's infinitely fast. Time dilates when moving because you're encountering approaching causality earlier than you otherwise would have. Time "stops" for anything traveling at the speed of light because at infinite speed it just experiences literally everything in its line of travel at once and the concept of "after" becomes meaningless, encountering all future oncoming causality in a single instant.

This was a bit of a tangent but it's something that has fascinated me for a long time.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 9 points 3 months ago (6 children)

I'm trying to understand how that reference frame works when you just just bounce a photon off a mirror and time how long it takes to come back? Like, light must have a non-infinite speed to the stationary observer, or it wouldn't take time to traverse the distance.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 13 points 3 months ago (3 children)

thats the thing, thats from your reference frame. From the photons perspective time stands still and everything happens at once

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] abfarid@startrek.website 46 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's sort of how if you hold a slinky on one end hanging down, then drop the slinky, bottom will not start falling until the top reaches it. In a sense, bottom will be hanging onto nothing. But of course that nothing is tension from the top of the slinky.

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

That was an intuitive way to think about it, thank you.

[–] DogWater@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago

That is correct as weird as it sounds

[–] BigBenis@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

The sun could be gone but its influence would remain. Kinda like getting out of a pool and looking back to see the waves on the surface that you caused.

[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 77 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Wouldn't you see the effect on the moon?

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 83 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] cmgvd3lw@discuss.tchncs.de 34 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Comment105@lemm.ee 19 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Imagine seeing the moon just switch off

[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (4 children)

That would be a beautiful, terrifying sight. You could gaze up at the most amazing view of the stars as the whole world froze to death.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kroxx@lemm.ee 11 points 3 months ago
[–] tate@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 3 months ago

If you can see the moon (if it is "up" at night).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 31 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It goes to 9 minutes from 8, since every single communication gadget will yell out that the sun has disappeared as reports come in from the other side of the earth.

[–] Notyou@sopuli.xyz 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Depending on the lunar cycle, the night time side would notice the moon become dim.

[–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 months ago (4 children)
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Ok yeah you’d definitely want any story to have the sun disappear take place at night, with a full moon, possibly a large harvest moon for ambiance. The moon disappears and within minutes you’re bombarded with calls…

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] niktemadur@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That is actually correct. The difference of being on the opposite side that faces the sun is just a few thousandths of a second, but it is there.

[–] cmgvd3lw@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Now I am curious, somebody explain. if it just stopped burning, would we know after 8 mins, if we lived on the opposite side?

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 55 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Moon would "disappear" when it no longer reflected Sun's light.

It would also start getting very cold fast

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

It would probably take more than a day for the cold to be so intense that you can't possibly explain with some normal local phenomenon.

[–] tate@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 3 months ago

The moon might be on the daylight side, so we wouldn't necessarily observe that.

[–] Routhinator@startrek.website 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Any visible planet or asteroid would. So some stars would also appear to blink out, but those would take longer to blink out. So the moon would go after 8 minutes, Jupiter would take 43 minutes to stop receiving light, and another 35-52 minutes to disappear for earth depending on orbital locations.

Presumably we would get something on radio/tv/internet from the side facing the sun once they realized it, that of course being only if they hadn't already been eradicated by a horrific shockwave caused by whatever event caused the sun to vanish before they had a chance to report what they saw, because supernovae tend to travel at very close to the speed of light, so there wouldn't be much time for them to react.

And if this is a supernova, you might just have time to grok what happened before the planet was obliterated under your feet from the shockwave.

So I guess... chances are we would just barely understand what happened before we were gone.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Does heat travel at the speed of light? I just realized I have no idea how the heat from the sun travels to earth.

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 31 points 3 months ago

The "heat" IS the radiation. So, yes.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Someone correct me if I'm missing some nuance here, but heat doesn't get transferred directly through space because heat is vibrating molecules and space is a vacuum. The sun radiates (speed O' light). A lot of that radiation just reflects off the earth (or we wouldn't be able to see it), but a lot of it gets absorbed. THAT's when it's converted into heat energy. It's also why the greenhouse effect is a global phenomena: light energy comes in across the vacuum relatively easily, turns to heat on Earth instead of being reflected, heat energy cannot escape as easily as light energy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] emuspawn@orbiting.observer 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

When there is a total solar eclipse, the temperature does drop dramatically. But it might not be detectable on the other side right away for sure.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bluemellophone@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

It takes 8 minutes for the light to travel from the sun to Earth. Because light in a vacuum travels faster than anything, including information, we would not and could not know it had disappeared for 8 minutes. This means Earth would continue to follow its orbit around a non-existent sun for 8 minutes because the Sun’s gravity would still be acting on the Earth.

If it was nighttime, you wouldn’t notice the sudden lack of sunlight (other than if it was a full moon) but you’d almost certainly notice the change in gravity.

Edit: actually, you wouldn’t feel any difference in gravity or experience any change of acceleration. What you would experience is a very tiny vibration, of 1 million push notifications being sent to your phone from the other side of the planet.

[–] cmgvd3lw@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Interesting, so you are saying light is faster than gravity?

[–] nublug@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 months ago

light speed = gravity speed

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I don't think you'd actually "notice" the gravity.

Earth would still retain it's mass, and we're much closer to it, so it's lesser mass acts much more on us than the sun's greater.

Though, the earth would stop orbiting the sun and ~~travel on a mostly tangential path~~ travel nearly radially away from where the sun was, instead of the elliptical path it currently travels.

This is a very interesting physics question that I may look into further. Specifically what would the theoretical acceleration be, due to the lack of the sun? Is it above a humans level of perception?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago

Yes, because of the medium of communication you are using right now.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'm more interested in how long before we freeze to death.

How long will the earth's atmosphere hold onto its heat?

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 months ago

I'm more interested in how long before we freeze to death.

Kurzegesagt did a great video on this thought experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLZJlf5rHVs&t=1

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The classic sci-fi short story A Pail of Air touches on this.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/51461

[–] shy_mia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The moon would disappear though, so you'd notice by looking at the sky if it wasn't obstructed by clouds.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But we do have Twitter now.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If the sun disappears when? According to GR's conception of simultaneous events, it disappears immediately.

[–] tate@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

Which two event are you talking about being simultaneous? The Sun going out and Earthers observing it? Those things will not be simultaneous in any reference frame, because they are "light-like" separated. (ie they lie on a 45 degree line in a Minkowski plot.)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 7 points 3 months ago

Technically true since the daytime side will know first.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Well they're not entirely wrong... I mean I turn off my notifications when I go to sleep.

load more comments
view more: next ›