• fujiwood@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    Everyone always asks what is gravity.

    No one ever asks how is gravity.

    Poor gravity, always helping us keep our shit together but no one ever truly understands the weight on gravities shoulder.

    • e033x@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      2 years ago

      Excuse me, but I don’t see why I should have sympathy with the boot on our necks keeping us all down. Just imagine the freedom we would have if we weren’t weight down by this oppression!

  • Turducken@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Perfect use of this format. “I don’t know” is the foundation of wisdom. See: reddit where too many think they know.

  • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    2 years ago

    “The nature of this elementary particle is best expressed through these thirty equations.”

    “Ok, ok, but what do those actually mean in reality?”

    “Reality?”

    • ShranTheWaterPoloFan@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Most of those equations are full of things that can make sense, and then there is a fine structure constant.

      It’s all over particles, but we don’t know what it is. It has no units. It’s just a number that is needed for physics to work.

      • DudePluto@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        [The Fine-structure Constant] quantifies the strength of the electromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles.

        Why the constant should have this value is not understood, but there are a number of ways to measure its value.

        Sounds like we know what it is, we just don’t know the reason for its value. (Edit: Unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean)

        Wikipedia link

        • ShranTheWaterPoloFan@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          The strangeness of the Fine Structure Constant isn’t it’s value, it’s that we don’t know what it is.

          Other constants have units that explain what they are doing. Like converting miles to meters we multiply by meters/miles. But this is just a number that is needed. That’s so strange I can’t think of another example.

  • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Yeah I think I’ll be subscribing to this community. Thank you for the meme.

  • Dr. Coomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 years ago

    Genuinely we can’t tell what it is. We once thought it was just a normal pull due to mass until Einstein proved us wrong during a solar eclipse where we could see stars that shouldn’t be visible from our current position in orbit. Then we get into how it works, WHICH THERE IS NO TELLING AS THERE ARE TO MANY GOD DAMNED VARIABLES INVOLVED.

    • theangryseal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      You’re fucking with me, right?

      Stars were visible that shouldn’t have been visible?

      What am I missing?

      • neryam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        2 years ago

        Stars that were behind the sun (within the radius of the sun, geometrically speaking) were visible due to gravitational lensing

          • Classy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 years ago

            It isn’t directly analogous because one is gravitational and the other is not, but if you’ve ever watched a ship sail beyond the horizon, sometimes you can see a reflection of the sail after it is no longer in direct sight, because the way that light can reflect around the curvature of the earth. It’s a pretty crazy phenomenon.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage#Superior_mirage

            In the case of the OP, as light from distant stars approach the sun, some of their light that may normally have passed to the side of the sun and beyond the earth, thus rendering them invisible, are instead ‘bent’ back towards the earth by the sun’s gravitational well. But since the sun is so luminous we normally cannot see those stars. If the sun were somehow dark we would see a collection of tiny, distorted stars around the perimeter of it.

            To metaphorize: imagine a ball rolling straight from a point directly in front of you, but at an angle such that it won’t roll to you. Now imagine a dip in the ground, not deep enough to cause it to fall in and not escape, but enough to cause the ball to curve as it rolls, sending it to you instead. The sun acts in a similar manner on light.

          • AssholeDestroyer@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            The James Web Space Telescope’s Instagram page posted the phenomenon recently. Gravity from nearby galaxies magnifies space near them, allowing the telescope to see incredibly far away galaxies.

          • FarceMultiplier@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            If you really want to be messed up, absolutely nothing is where we think it is because gravitational lensing affects the light of every object in the universe, while we observe. The further away it is, the more light is warped by the masses along the path, and we can’t know what those many masses are or where they are either.

            Our observability of the universe is a guessing game as large as the universe, and there is no conceivable model to assess it all and the interrelations between…everything.

            • theangryseal@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Now this is something that I knew absolutely nothing about, but I feel like it should have occurred to me with what I did know.

              Thank you.

  • DozensOfDonner@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 years ago

    Working in neuroscience of consciousness field I feel him deeply. Although 57k sounds amazing to a Europoor

    • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 years ago

      You can basically half American salary numbers because we have to pay for a lot of stuff that Europeans usually don’t need to pay for. $57k in America is struggling if you live in a city. Anything below $40k is one car repair away from being financially ruined.

      • DudePluto@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        What are we considering in vs out of city? Does in city mean just downtown, within city limits, within metro area? And what are we considering a city - 300k population?

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      The biggest lesson from neuroscience: Most psychology is BS and the entire field is little better than pseudoscience.

    • daellat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU try to follow along with this. Also, forces have force particles, there appears to be no such thing for gravity though I think scientists are still working on this problem to this day. Mass seems to be derived from the higgs field but I am not knowledgeable enough to answer how that relates to gravity per se.

        • paholg@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Are you sure about that? My understanding is that gravitational waves are predicted by general relativity, not inconsistent with it.

          In any case, “all models are wrong, but some are useful”. Gravity as curvature is a pretty damn useful model.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            No, I’m not sure about it. And general relativity did predict gravity waves, and did generally describe gravity as being the curvature of spacetime.

            Having said that, if “gravity waves” move at the speed of light, but speed is distance over time, how can you measure a “speed” when the thing whose speed you’re measuring warps the units you use to measure it? It seems like you could talk about the movement of gravitational waves from the point of view of an observer outside the system with a ruler and a stopwatch that were unaffected by gravity. But, general relativity seems to suggest that there are no absolute / external reference frames you could use.

            I fully admit that I don’t completely get general relativity, and that it has been a very useful model. It just seems like it can be a useful model even if there are certain dusty corners where you shouldn’t spend too much time looking because things stop making sense there.

    • Shard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      Now you can too! With our patented PhD system you will,

      1. Kill your social life!
      2. Kill your self-esteem, values, positivity and much much more.
      3. Spend the rest of your life fighting for tenure in an ever saturated field of your choice!
      4. Develop a growing sense of envy and dissatisfaction as you watch your friends in the corporate world quickly surpass you in income!

      With just 132 simple payments of $3,800 a month, all this can be yours!

      But wait, there’s more! Call now and get your very own opportunity to be a TA! Enjoy belittling undergrads and sharing your growing disillusionment with the academic system. All while you’re under pressure to complete your doctorate! Don’t miss out!

      • NotSpez@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Oh and then!? Postdocs! Check acollierastro on youtube, she has a great video on postdoc exodus.

  • Hazdaz@lemmy.worldBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    one unresolved corner of physics

    Hardly! People board airplanes every single day and we still don’t fundamentally understand the mechanisms of how lift works.

    • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      When I thought there was higher pressure under the wing that pushed the plane up, I was happy. When I started thinking, instead, about little vacuum vortices above the wings pulling them up instead, I was suddenly much less comfortable with the whole proposition. Given the options and the limited effect on my daily life, I’m gotta go with Newton over Bernoulli on this one.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        vacuum vortices above the wings pulling them up

        We know vacuums don’t “pull” things. Instead it’s air pressure elsewhere that isn’t balanced by the vacuum that moves things in the direction of the vacuum.

      • Lutz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I think it’s more so that we know HOW it works but we don’t know WHY it works

        • madcaesar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          I don’t get it, how can you know how it works but not how? Or is it some philosophical why are the laws the way they are?

        • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          I think it’s more so that we know HOW it works

          Speak for yourself. I’m a student pilot and most of my instructors (who are either retired airline pilots or are trying to build up flight hours to qualify for an airline job) don’t understand the science behind it. To be fair, understanding the science doesn’t really help you fly a plane…

    • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I heard that it was just the angle of the wings redirecting the air downwards as reaction mass, like how a rocket engine shoots air downwards.

      • royal_starfish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        It is both, but the pressure one contributes more to lift. You can see this when a wing stalls, the airflow separates from the upper surface and the pressure difference is gone. The angle of a stalled wing still means air is directed downwards, but the overall lift is much smaller.

        At least that is what I’ve been told anyways

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    So here’s my lunesta fuelled dea on gravity.

    Gravitons, like the rest of the standard model, are real. In order to measure them, we need incredibly high energy collisions.

    In attempting to do this, our universe was created on accident. This is because our universe is in a black hole. But the cool shit is that black holes are really portals into our own universe. Instead of the energy spontaneously appearing as measurable particles, it’s dark energy causing the expansion of the universe. The Dark energy ends up being gravitons, because gravitons are a boson and only interact with matter with the gravitational force. the black holes, then, take in “normal” fermions and bosons and spit out the gravitons. The graviton release causes an expansion of space time by “pulling” space time with it.

    none of that is backed up by anything

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is why I laugh at anyone who thinks we “Already know anything” or ever will