this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
343 points (96.0% liked)

Today I Learned

17733 readers
235 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 64 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

They call it the "fabric of reality" because that's a good metaphor to describe how gravity works. (Or at least I assume that's where it came from, I could very well be wrong.)

When you stretch a fabric thin, and place something heavy in it, it's going to sink and stretch the fabric down with it. Then, if you place a smaller object next to the larger one, it's going to roll around the larger one, gradually moving closer as it goes down the slope created by the larger object.

That might be hard to visualize, so here's a neat video I found.

Edit: guys I think you're reading too much into this I wasn't trying to provide a foolproof explanation of how gravity works I was just trying to relate an interesting metaphor to a piece of linguistics.

And I wasn't even right, a quick google search says the term predates our understanding of the universe. Its probably a coincidence.

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 23 points 2 months ago (3 children)

One could be picky and say you're explaining gravity with gravity. But for the sake of simplicity that's OK.
I've once read an article where someone complained about that and tried to explain it with the actual cause, curvature of space time, like using a model car with glue attached to the wheels. But that was not really intuitive and simple to understand.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I found a video once where the guy built a device to demonstrate curving based on mass, to avoid the gravity simulating gravity problem, but I failed to find it again when searching. It was something he'd bend to show larger mass, and you'd see the effect with the bands along it or something. Even that isn't accurate, but visualizing 4D can be challenging, especially if you then have to put it in 2D media.

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 3 points 2 months ago

Exactly that one. Thanks, I'm glad I said something. It wasn't anything new, just a new way to present it, and when he did the warped version and the straight line, I was like, okay, makes sense. Then he returned it to our "viewpoint" on the warped space seeing things straight, and even though it was the same lines, it was amazing to see those paths go precisely where we expect. All because of a warped graph. I think it was more incredulous because it wasn't some animation, but a physical demonstration.

[–] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think of it as a 2d cross section of the experiment (it’s happening in every direction possible tangent to the ball), which necessarily breaks into a third dimension. In our 3-spatial-dimension reality that’s the best we can do.

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, but the smaller object is dragged into the valley formed by a heavier object due to gravity (of the earth), not due to following the curvature of the blanket.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I find the metaphor frustrating because of that.

[–] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

https://youtu.be/DYq774z4dws

This video includes a much better representation of what gravity is IMO. The creator had the same issue with people describing gravity with gravity.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cynar@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's worth noting that spacetime isn't static. Space "flows" into mass. It's akin to a treadmill, you need to constantly move "upwards" to stay in place.

This is also the reason that uniform gravity, and acceleration are identical. With acceleration, the "ground" is constantly moving upwards into new space, pushing you along. With gravity, space is constantly moving down through the floor, trying to push you into the floor. It's functionally the same thing.

[–] ProfessorProteus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's a really interesting perspective. I don't think I've ever seen it described that way before, but it's very easy for me to grasp. Do you have any resources I can look into for more information? Does that concept have a name I can look up?

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It was the initial description used in my 1st year physics degree course. Not sure if it has an explicit name. We also jumped fairly quickly from there to the maths.

Basically space time can stretch infinitely, and flows towards mass. Anything on that spacetime is drawn along. It's functionally identical to a standard force. Straight lines twist into spacetime spirals (aka orbits etc).

Physics has lots of interesting mental models for different things. Unfortunately, most are flawed, so dont lean on tgem too hard. What actually happens is way beyond what our monkey brains can interpret. The best we can do if follow the maths, and try and fit something to the end result.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think that explains the "how" more than the "why".

[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What I meant was that's "why" we use the term "fabric of reality"— because of "how" gravity works.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Indeed, it's a neat way to visualize gravity, but that's it. It lacks any sort of explanation of why masses appear to be pulled towards one another. (I will point to the other person in this thread saying it "explains gravity with gravity".) This is why I think the metaphor you mentioned detracts from the original video.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Not gonna lie I really thought it was gonna be Neil DeGrasse Tyson

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Can spacetime be ripped or torn? Or is the fabric metaphor simply a way of understanding and visualizing it?

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If cosmic inflation is correct, probably not. Inflation is our best theory of the beginning of the universe.

According to inflation, spacetime expanded exponentially from an infinitesimal point to many billions of light-years across. As far as we can tell, the universe is expanding again but at a much slower rate, due to dark energy.

Spacetime survived the inflationary period, so it looks like it doesn't have a "tear" mechanism.

Another way to think of it, is to assume once torn, what is it tearing "into". If you rip a bit of fabric, you look through to the other side, nothing special. If you tear our 4-dimentional spacetime, what are you looking at when you look "through" the ripped portion? This implies that out 4D spacetime is somehow existing in a higher dimensional reality.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

It would make black holes more interesting if they were tears, anything over x mass just ziiiiippppp

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 40 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] INeedMana@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

True. But that correction still doesn't unbend my mind

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What's really freaky is one of the theories we can't see other life, is to our perspective (due to expansion of the universe) their rate of expansion is faster than the speed of light, and we won't know till they're pretty much at our doorstep.

There might be a bunch of them all over, jumping around the universe and claiming everything they see like old school European countries.

If that happens the best result is they make us a "colony" but honestly a civilization that scale doesn't need resources or anything. The most likely explanation for that behavior would be just to eliminate any future competition if we advance unchecked.

Rather than colonize, they might just want to wipe out our planet, which would be practically effortless for a civilization that advanced. If something crashed into Earth at those speeds, the planet itself would be gone, no way for us to survive or even stop it.

The only defense is to spread out from Earth, which makes the hypothetical advanced space race afraid of our expansion kind of right

Any civilization in a universe like that needs to constantly expand just to ensure it's survival. Because the only reason we'd be preserved was if they cared about the novelty of life.

If they've spent millions of years expanding their space, alien life probably isn't that novel to them anymore. So really, our only bet is we're entertaining, like a zoo.

[–] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago

Why do you assume they're hostile?

Maybe they want to help but respect our free will as a species.

[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago
[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Oh yes let's talk about my favourite subject ever!

The coolest thing I know of comes from wondering why bent spacetime makes you move at all. The answer is that you always move through time and the bending of spacetime actually turns a bit of time into space and vice versa.

Unnecessary tangentFor a horrible but intuitive explanation of how this works, time is kinda just a direction and bending sorta rotates things so that time looks like it's one of the space directions. Just like turning to the left makes what was your left look like it's straight ahead.

This leads to my favourite saying about black holes, once you enter them you can no more escape falling to the singularity than you can escape tomorrow.

[–] zgasma@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I've never heard that take on it before (the idea of turning time into space), but it sounds fascinating. Do you have any links I could follow up on?

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago

Only a few really dry textbooks I'm afraid, it's a subject that's extremely difficult to explain in lay terms as the mathematics is so complicated.

That said if you're feeling masochistic, Schultz's first course in GR is the most approachable that I know.

I really like this PBS Spacetime video, which is at least a little related. Great channel for diving into these subjects further, but in a more casual way than a textbook.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Yes! About that aspect of turning either into space movement or time movement - everything is constantly moving, either in space or in time. I like to think of anything moving (which is everything) as having to plot itself on a X,Y chart where X is space and Y is time. If you trade all your movement/momentum so that you experience no time (like a photon of light for example), then you're moving as fast as you possibly can in space. The less of that movement through space, the more you experience the rate of time.

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 months ago

Oh god the case for a photon is super hard to talk about in any meaningful way, photons "see" every point in their journey as happening at the same instant of time and at the same place, null geodesics are nuts.

But yeah, the underlying mathematics that causes this can (kinda) just be pinned on the normalisation of the four velocity, which I think is what you're describing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] niktemadur@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

Instead of remaining parallel as we move through space in the arrow of time, we get closer to other mass because our paths bend, our clocks running at slightly different beats.

Time-bending is mind-bending stuff, man.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

An object will always follow the shortest path between two points in spacetime.

When it's sitting alone in the universe, the shortest path is to move through time from A to B.

When other things are present to also curve spacetime the shortest path can entail accelerating in space and slowing in time (from the viewpoint of us, the omniscient massless observer floating nearby pointedly not having any casual interactions).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CrayonRosary@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

It's possible that time causes gravity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKxQTvqcpSg

[–] ViperActual@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Matter bends spacetime. Spacetime tells matter how to move.

Using this logic, you can imagine that above a certain threshold, this can become a feedback loop. These locations are black holes, where enough matter located in a small enough volume of spacetime can create enough distortion to further force more matter into the same volume of spacetime.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] VoterFrog@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

One mind-altering fact that I love is that there's no "acceleration due to gravity," once you're in free fall, until you hit the ground. Hop in a space ship with no windows and fly off straight in some direction. Turn off the engines and watch an accelerometer. It'll never read anything until you run into something.

You could fly past a planet, a massive star, even a black hole. Your path through space could be full of curves and loops but you'll never feel it. It's popular to think of those things as like crazy high G turns but they're not. You're just flying in a straight line through space time.

On the flip side, say someone knocks you out and puts you on that ship. You wake up and instead of being weightless, you can walk around the ship like normal on earth. Are you on earth or is the ship in space accelerating at a constant rate? Again, there's no way to tell. They are, physically, the same.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

This is a pretty accessible visualization of gravity.

https://youtu.be/b9XhexlQMZw

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] profdc9@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Gravity is not instantaneous. It moves at the speed of light. And the "speed of light" can only be measured locally, because the time and space at a point are curved. The path of light corresponds to "null geodesics" in spacetime, and a body traveling along the geodesic experiences no time elapsed.

load more comments
view more: next ›