With 57k€ you can afford to live comfortably, even get yourself a roomy flat, which is unusual for single individuals.
*Exceptions may apply, see Milan or other big cities
porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
on 04 Jul 15:40
nextcollapse
Postdocs are definitely not getting 55k in the UK except maybe if something like medicine is special? The range is like 36-45ish.
Steve@startrek.website
on 05 Jul 02:46
nextcollapse
55k dollars in the US gets you a crappy apartment and a 7 year car loan.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
on 05 Jul 03:43
nextcollapse
you dont even need a phd to get that 55k salary, might as well not go to grad school.
weed_scientist@mander.xyz
on 05 Jul 04:56
collapse
Can confirm
macaw_dean_settle@lemmy.world
on 05 Jul 08:03
collapse
That is not a decent salary, that is so low. I made almost that much just out of college in the U.S. Once I made it just over 10 years as EE, I was double that.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
on 05 Jul 10:39
collapse
in the uk
is the important part. you would be considered a high earner earning that
erotador@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 04 Jul 12:21
nextcollapse
mavity
TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 05 Jul 18:20
collapse
What is the cause for spacetime or quantummechanics? Idk but somehow they don’t make it on the list of fundamental forces.
Well, they are not forces.
WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Jul 16:17
nextcollapse
Fundamental means it cannot be explained by being caused by something else.
Fundamental force means we expect a carrier particle to explain it (for gravity that’s the Graviton, although it hasn’t been detected yet).
electromagnetism is caused by quantum phenomena.
Not even remotely true.
What is the cause for spacetime or quantummechanics? Idk but somehow they don’t make it on the list of fundamental forces.
Quantum mechanics is mostly that statistics is more complicated than we all thought . Seeking a cause for spacetime is interesting. It might be relevant to mention that there is a fundamental particle that imparts mass, which we call the Higgs Boson. I guess that could make mass and inertia something of a “fundamental force”.
Maybe i am wording it wrong. I did make the comment half joking but my current understanding of how magnetism really works, which my physics teacher was unable to answer has a chapter on wikipedia called
Quantum-mechanical origin of magnetism
I have no degrees in this stuff though, i just think about them recreationally.
The carrier particle thing to describe a fundamental force is new to me, and honestly feels very counterintuitive to how i started to understand things.
Quantum mechanical particles are very different things to classical ones.
A slightly better way of thinking about them is quantised fields. Particles and waves are simplifications of the underlying effect. There is no classical equivalent to work with to this, so we try and understand it as particle-wave duality etc.
In this case, a carrier particle is a (quantised) disturbance in the underlying field. If it has enough energy, it manifests as a physical particle. The higgs boson is an example of this. Below the required energy, you get virtual particles. These “borrow” energy, and so can never be seen directly, only inferred.
By example. Photons are the carrier particle of electromagnetism. Give the field energy and you get photons (light). Without that energy, the photons are virtual. Existing only between the 2 acting entities.
Different fields have different carrier particles. The photon is quite simple. It’s effectiveness decays as 1/r^2 . The strong force carriers are more complex. They can emit more carrier particles, allowing the field to grow with distance rather than decay.
To add more complexity. The various fields look to be aspects of the same field. At sufficient energies, they behave identically. We have figured out how to combine the electric, magnetic and weak fields. We have a handle on the strong field. The higgs field seems to also match into this. Gravity is a pain to study. We assume it should match in, but haven’t managed to work out how yet.
As for why the underlying field exists and follows the rules it does? We have no clue right now. The ‘why’ tends to follow the ‘what’, and we have yet to get a good handle on the ‘what’.
Arguably, if we insist on trying to come up with the simplest way to explain non-relativistic quantum mechanics, that is to say, if we are very conservative and stick to classical explanations unless we absolutely are forced not to (rather than throwing our hands up and saying it’s all magic that’s impossible to understand, as most people do), then we find that it comes naturally to explain non-relativistic quantum mechanics by treating particles as excitations in a classical field. This alone can explain the interference-based paradoxes in completely classical terms, like double-slit or Elitzur-Vaidman paradox, without altering any of the postulates of the theory in any way. The extension to quantum field theory then becomes more natural and intuitive. imo
diamagnetism, paramagnetism and ferromagnetism can be fully explained only using quantum theory
The magnetic properties of certain materials (e.g. why an unmagnetized piece of iron sticks to a magnet of either polarization), the way permanent magnets work, is best explained by quantum mechanics.
However, the electromagnetic force itself doesn’t “arise” from quantum mechanics, and you can explain things like electromagnets and a lot of common electric circuits (until you need a transistor) quite well without considering quantum mechanics.
Usually you take the “classical” formula for a force and to inform your quantum mechanical model of particles, and that’s how you can arrive at things like deriving how permanent magnets work with the help of w quantum mechanics.
Generally, a lot of material science and chemistry is inherently quantum mechanical because the way atomic orbitals and molecular bonds work is heavily quantum mechanical.
the electromagnetic force itself doesn’t “arise” from quantum mechanics, and you can explain things like electromagnets and a lot of common electric circuits (until you need a transistor) quite well without considering quantum mechanics.
You seem to say if we can explain x without y then y cannot be fundamental to x.
But can electromagnetism at all emerge if the quantum mechanics dont exist to emerge things like magnetism and some of the behavior of electrons?
But can electromagnetism at all emerge if the quantum mechanics dont exist to emerge things like magnetism and some of the behavior of electrons?
Well yeah, sure. Earlier you said something like “electromagentism is caused by quantum phenomena,” but you can say that about almost every object and behavior in the universe! We don’t have a theory of everything but the standard model and quantum field theory explain a lot.
But can electromagnetism at all emerge if the quantum mechanics dont exist to emerge things like magnetism and some of the behavior of electrons?
Short answer: yes.
Technically the world can’t exist without all of its physics. But that’s kinda backwards from how you study it. Quantum mechanics isn’t “more correct” than classical mechanics, it’s more that it’s “more detailed”.
If you want to model an electromagnet, an electronic circuit, light (in most macroscopic situations), how permanent magnets interact, electrostatic situations like how static electricity makes your hair stand up, lightning, the magnetic fields of celestial bodies like the Earth and Sun (they are big electromagnets), etc. you will use “classical” electromagnetism (meaning Newton’s mechanics, possibly with Einstein’s modifications, and Maxwell’s equations).
If you want to model material science situations, like determining what material to make a diode or transistor out of, or if a given material can become a permanent magnet, you will likely need quantum mechanics to help model the interactions of electrons on the atomic scale. The section on Wikipedia you were looking at is about this kind of material science. You do this by combining the same “classical electromagnetic” equations with Schrödinger’s equations for quantum mechanics.
jenesaisquoi@feddit.org
on 04 Jul 16:57
nextcollapse
But then they say gravity is an effect caused by spacetime curvature and electromagnetism is caused by quantum phenomena. What is the cause for spacetime or quantummechanics? Idk but somehow they don’t make it on the list of fundamental forces.
I don’t think we know enough about quantum mechanics to even make a guess, yet. I do know that the reason we wanted to find the Higgs Boson so much was because we thought it could help explain how things acquire mass, which could lead to figuring out antigravity. But then we found it and it wasn’t doing what was originally thought. Or something.
GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
on 04 Jul 14:55
nextcollapse
While reading this I had a sudden flash of inspiration in which I saw clearly exactly how gravity works, but then when I started typing I forgot again. It’s quite frustrating
I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org
on 04 Jul 21:02
collapse
Congratulations, here’s your PhD
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
on 04 Jul 15:37
nextcollapse
Same as any theory, but it’s enough to make Christians freak out
I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org
on 04 Jul 21:06
collapse
Gravity is the net effect of all electromagnetic forces and quantum fluctuations causing the smallest bits of information at the smallest scales to drift together over “time” due to black hole natural selection aka cosmic natural selection.
That’s crank nonsense unless you’re able to describe it with quantum electrodynamical equations that also accurately define gravity, and the whole point is that we cannot reconcile gravity and quantum physics yet.
Gravity is just a side effect of the fundamental laziness of all things. Causality moves slower near mass, so it’s kind of relaxing to move towards it. That’s why everyone does it.
PS: There is actually a SciShow Spacetime video about gravity being an emergent property instead of a fundamental force. And no I didn’t get this from ChatGPT, I’m just that dumb when it comes to advanced physics haha.
I find it quite marvellous that the universe contains unexplainable stuff like this, actually.
LemmyFeed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 05 Jul 02:08
nextcollapse
Everything we know about all space and time is technically just entirely made up by us.
Snowclone@lemmy.world
on 05 Jul 17:02
nextcollapse
It came from the Labratory of The Mind, yes, the work was entirely metaphysical, but here’s the wierd part. They used that mental experimentation and applied it to real life action, and it worked. It’s like imagining you have a magic carpet for years then you stand on one and it starts flying. It began as imagination of the world around us, then when checked against reality. It works. Someone figured out that if something was passing around a sun. A planet, that it would dim the light at regular intervals. They checked, it did, that’s the only reason we know there’s planets outside our solar system. Someone checked the lumens of stars and found the data matched the theory. We use the color variations of stars in a similar way to detect more data. It’s quite remarkable. A recent discovery in gravity is that while gravity is a ‘‘constant’’, it actually fluctuates from place to place, I’m not sure if anyone figured out why yet, but if and when, how they find out, will be their imagining a reason, imagining how to check, checking in real life, and getting the data on if it’s right or not.
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org
on 05 Jul 20:38
nextcollapse
A recent discovery in gravity is that while gravity is a ‘‘constant’’, it actually fluctuates from place to place,
I guess you are referring to the c9ncept of dark matter?
To anyone who does not know what dark matter is:
Dark Matter is the “solution” for differences in the real gravitational force a star has and how much gravity it should have based on calculations. Dark matter basically is matter that does not interact with light in any form (and therefore can not be detected) but still emits gravity.
Not “gravity a star has,” but the motion of stars around/near galaxies. It is the general motion of groups of massive objects that hints that there is a lot more mass ‘around’ most (not all) galaxies than what matter we observe could possibly account for.
The ‘not all’ part is critical, because it points to something actually being there as opposed to the theory of gravity or relativity breaking down at larger scales.
Made up, and then confirmed with experimentation against actual reality.
Let’s not pretend science is literature with extra steps. It’s a process whos aim is to confirm things in a way that removes all possible alternative explanation or influence. A good experiment completely and fully removes the human element.
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org
on 05 Jul 20:34
collapse
Unexplainable yet. We may be able to understand how Gravity works.
But of course you are right, there are absolutely things that can not be explained. It is (very probably) impossible to explain why our nature constants are the way they are or why forces act the way they do. The easiest answer to why they are the way they are is to say “They are this way, because if they would be a little bit different we could not ask this question”. This sentence implies, that we live in some form of a multiversum and that there are multiple universes existent (in which form doesn’t matter) but it is impossible to detect them.
No, there actually are explanations for the effects as they exist in mathematical models. The problem is we do not yet have one single model that matches both quantum effects like superposition and cosmic scale effects like gravity and dark matter/energy.
There is almost certainly some truth in those mathematical explanations, simply because it’s unlikely that something that is 99.99% provably correct has no truth associated with it.
The problem is, it needs to be 100%, with proven and confirmed experiments, not 99.99% correct, before scientists will call it a “solved” problem.
Also the anthropic principle does not prove or disprove multiverses.
If thats Yuan yearly, yes, its crazy how cheap the housing is outside like city center of Beijing and Shanghai. If its Yen monthly, I mean you could rent a room in Nagoya for half that, or in Tokyo for most of it.
macaw_dean_settle@lemmy.world
on 05 Jul 08:02
collapse
Apartments are rented, condos are bought.
BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz
on 05 Jul 11:03
nextcollapse
TIL
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 05 Jul 18:17
collapse
I could buy an apartment and rent it out (:< (:< evil landlord time abt to paint over a power outlet
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org
on 04 Jul 22:39
nextcollapse
Gravity is what makes my feet hurt when I stand around too long without moving about.
Daily reminder that physicists contribute nothing to society /j
buttnugget@lemmy.world
on 05 Jul 03:42
nextcollapse
Lemmy: Hey, remember how reddit used to be so good?
Satan: Yeah! Dang, I miss those days.
Lemmy: I’ve got tons of what you don’t miss about reddit and little of what you do!
Satan: Hooray!
Snowclone@lemmy.world
on 05 Jul 05:33
nextcollapse
The far end might sound smart to you if you’ve never taken physics classes, but…
Maxxie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 05 Jul 09:43
nextcollapse
What do you mean no advances in the last 70 years?! In the last decade scientists detected gravity waves and imaged an actual real black hole. Also they’ve been steadily chipping at quantum gravity, give it a couple decades they’ll get there.
As a layman who’s into physics it took me like a decade to understand what is “wrong” with them. No educational string theory video is prefaced with “Hey this is an old unprovable theory that is essentially dead in the water, but it has some cool math tricks and is fun to think about” as they should be.
chocosoldier@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 06 Jul 16:57
collapse
PBS Spacetime’s approach was a pair of videos titled “Why String Theory is True” and “Why String Theory is False” and between them that pretty much put it to bed for me. cool math, cool worldbuilding, call me when they make a testable prediction. until then it goes on the scrap pile with aether and phlogiston.
anotherspinelessdem@lemmy.ml
on 11 Jul 03:13
collapse
unless we cancel all the funding
Just had to fucking jinx it didn’t you
_AutumnMoon_@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 05 Jul 13:33
nextcollapse
Gravity was invented by Isaac Newton because he was invested in an airline.
PartyAt15thAndSummit@lemmy.zip
on 05 Jul 15:31
collapse
That’s the real answer. Always check on whose payroll somebody is.
AmbientDread@midwest.social
on 05 Jul 18:43
nextcollapse
This is wholly inaccurate. We do know what causes gravity; time dilation near matter (at least for smaller objects like the Earth). What we don’t know is why gravity, because we have yet to produce a model that matches both quantum effects and cosmic behaviors like gravity and dark matter/energy.
“Quantum gravity” is the general term for what solution would describe something that ties these two universes of behavior together. The process of decoherence isn’t terribly well understood as far as carrying effects clear from particle scale to cosmic scale.
Even then, some of the mathematical explanations from current models are plausible, but unproven.
For any physical theory, you can always just ask “why x”, like a child who constantly asks “why” over and over again to every answer, but you will always hit a bottom. There seems to be a popular mentality that “why x” is always a meaningful question, and from that, we can conclude that we don’t know anything at all, because all our beliefs rely on a “why x” we don’t know the answer to, an so they are all baseless. We can’t make any truth claims about the behavior of particles, galaxies, or anything, because you can just infinitely ask “why” until we hit a bottom and then you would say “I don’t know.”
But, personally, I find this point of view rather bizarre, because, again, it can make it seem like we don’t know anything at all and have no foundations for truth claims in the slightest, and are completely ignorant about everything. I think it makes more coherent sense to just allow for to be a bottom to the questioning. Eventually a string of “why” questions will reach a bottom, where that bottom shouldn’t be answered with “I don’t know” but it should be answered with “it is what it is,” because, for all we know, it is indeed an accurate description of reality at a fundamental level and there is nothing beneath it.
That shouldn’t be taken as a strong claim that there definitely isn’t anything beneath it, as if we should just accept our current most fundamental theories are the end of the line and stop searching. It should be taken as the weaker claim that as far as we currently know it is the bottom, and so we can indeed make truth claims upon that basis. The child might ask, “why do things experience gravity?” You might say, “time dilation near matter.” The child then may ask, “why does time dilate near matter?” In my opinion, the appropriate response to that is just, “as far as we know, it is what it is.” That could change in the future, but, given our best scientific models at the present moment, that is the end of the line of the explanation.
That seems to be a fairly controversial point, though. Most people in my experience disagree, but I don’t see how you can have a basis for truth claims at all if you claim that “why gravity” does indeed have an answer but you can’t specify it, because then it would also be baseless to claim that gravity is caused by time dilation near matter, because you’ve not established that time actually does dilate near matter, as you would be claiming that this relies on postulates which you’ve not defined. It seems, again, simpler to just take the most fundamental theories as the postulates themselves, as the fundamental axioms.
There is a popular point of view that we shouldn’t do this because scientific theories often change, so something you believe today can be proven wrong tomorrow. But then we end up never being allowed to believe anything at all. We always have to pretend we’re clueless about nature because if we believe in any of our most fundamental theories, then our beliefs could be overturned. But personally, I don’t see why this to be a problem. A person who believed Newtonian mechanics was fundamental to how nature worked back in the 1700s were shown later to be wrong, but that person’s beliefs were still closer to reality than the people who rejected it and upheld outdated Aristotelian physics, or people who refused to belief in anything at all. It is fine to later be shown to be wrong, nothing to be upset about, nothing negative about that. We are better off, imo, as treating our best physical theories as indeed fundamentally how reality works, the “bottom” so to speak, until we find new theories that show otherwise, and we change our minds with the times.
That doesn’t disallow speculation or research into potentially more fundamental theories. Theories of quantum gravity are such a speculation. They remain in the realm of speculation because no one has demonstrated in the real world that it’s actually possible to construct a device such that quantum effects and gravitational effects are both simultaneously relevant and necessary to make predictions. The theories thus describe separate domains, and there isn’t a genuine need for a new theory until we can figure out how to bridge the two domains in reality.
We don’t actually know what would happen if we bridge the two domains. We may find that our theories of turning gravity quantum are all wrong and that in fact it is quantum theory that needs to be abandoned. We may also find that the domains aren’t even bridgeable. We already know of certain physical limitations that make the domains unbridgeable, such as, building an interferometer sensitive enough to detect both gravitational and quantum effects simultaneously would collapse into a black hole. There may be more things like this we will discover later on that just render the two theo
VitabytesDev@feddit.nl
on 05 Jul 21:11
nextcollapse
threaded - newest
Gravity is caused by the fact that everything in the universe sucks.
So what you are saying is micro black holes everywhere, thats genius!
And here I thought it was just your mom
57k a year is a decent salary if you live in the UK.
A seasoned postdoc could expect to make 55K max. A professor a bit more.
Well then I guess they don’t mean UK do they?
If you think my comment was vacuous, you should see the ones that replied to it
57k usd is a little less than 42k gbp
Which is roughly the pay for a staff scientist or lecturer
57k€/year is a professional’s salary in Italy.
Average is 32k€
With 57k€ you can afford to live comfortably, even get yourself a roomy flat, which is unusual for single individuals.
*Exceptions may apply, see Milan or other big cities
Postdocs are definitely not getting 55k in the UK except maybe if something like medicine is special? The range is like 36-45ish.
55k dollars in the US gets you a crappy apartment and a 7 year car loan.
you dont even need a phd to get that 55k salary, might as well not go to grad school.
Can confirm
That is not a decent salary, that is so low. I made almost that much just out of college in the U.S. Once I made it just over 10 years as EE, I was double that.
is the important part. you would be considered a high earner earning that
mavity
schmavity
is time even real? smh
Gravity is a fundamental force just like electromagnetism (supposedly)
Fundamental means it cannot be explained by being caused by something else.
But then they say gravity is an effect caused by spacetime curvature and electromagnetism is caused by quantum phenomena.
What is the cause for spacetime or quantummechanics? Idk but somehow they don’t make it on the list of fundamental forces.
Classical science, for all the good it did and does, is an unironic joke and if aliens knew about it they’d be laughing at us.
Well, they are not forces.
Fundamental force means we expect a carrier particle to explain it (for gravity that’s the Graviton, although it hasn’t been detected yet).
Not even remotely true.
Quantum mechanics is mostly that statistics is more complicated than we all thought . Seeking a cause for spacetime is interesting. It might be relevant to mention that there is a fundamental particle that imparts mass, which we call the Higgs Boson. I guess that could make mass and inertia something of a “fundamental force”.
Maybe i am wording it wrong. I did make the comment half joking but my current understanding of how magnetism really works, which my physics teacher was unable to answer has a chapter on wikipedia called Quantum-mechanical origin of magnetism
I have no degrees in this stuff though, i just think about them recreationally.
The carrier particle thing to describe a fundamental force is new to me, and honestly feels very counterintuitive to how i started to understand things.
Quantum mechanical particles are very different things to classical ones.
A slightly better way of thinking about them is quantised fields. Particles and waves are simplifications of the underlying effect. There is no classical equivalent to work with to this, so we try and understand it as particle-wave duality etc.
In this case, a carrier particle is a (quantised) disturbance in the underlying field. If it has enough energy, it manifests as a physical particle. The higgs boson is an example of this. Below the required energy, you get virtual particles. These “borrow” energy, and so can never be seen directly, only inferred.
By example. Photons are the carrier particle of electromagnetism. Give the field energy and you get photons (light). Without that energy, the photons are virtual. Existing only between the 2 acting entities.
Different fields have different carrier particles. The photon is quite simple. It’s effectiveness decays as 1/r^2 . The strong force carriers are more complex. They can emit more carrier particles, allowing the field to grow with distance rather than decay.
To add more complexity. The various fields look to be aspects of the same field. At sufficient energies, they behave identically. We have figured out how to combine the electric, magnetic and weak fields. We have a handle on the strong field. The higgs field seems to also match into this. Gravity is a pain to study. We assume it should match in, but haven’t managed to work out how yet.
As for why the underlying field exists and follows the rules it does? We have no clue right now. The ‘why’ tends to follow the ‘what’, and we have yet to get a good handle on the ‘what’.
Arguably, if we insist on trying to come up with the simplest way to explain non-relativistic quantum mechanics, that is to say, if we are very conservative and stick to classical explanations unless we absolutely are forced not to (rather than throwing our hands up and saying it’s all magic that’s impossible to understand, as most people do), then we find that it comes naturally to explain non-relativistic quantum mechanics by treating particles as excitations in a classical field. This alone can explain the interference-based paradoxes in completely classical terms, like double-slit or Elitzur-Vaidman paradox, without altering any of the postulates of the theory in any way. The extension to quantum field theory then becomes more natural and intuitive. imo
The magnetic properties of certain materials (e.g. why an unmagnetized piece of iron sticks to a magnet of either polarization), the way permanent magnets work, is best explained by quantum mechanics.
However, the electromagnetic force itself doesn’t “arise” from quantum mechanics, and you can explain things like electromagnets and a lot of common electric circuits (until you need a transistor) quite well without considering quantum mechanics.
Usually you take the “classical” formula for a force and to inform your quantum mechanical model of particles, and that’s how you can arrive at things like deriving how permanent magnets work with the help of w quantum mechanics.
Generally, a lot of material science and chemistry is inherently quantum mechanical because the way atomic orbitals and molecular bonds work is heavily quantum mechanical.
Thanks for a well written reply.
Though i still dont quite get this
You seem to say if we can explain x without y then y cannot be fundamental to x.
But can electromagnetism at all emerge if the quantum mechanics dont exist to emerge things like magnetism and some of the behavior of electrons?
Well yeah, sure. Earlier you said something like “electromagentism is caused by quantum phenomena,” but you can say that about almost every object and behavior in the universe! We don’t have a theory of everything but the standard model and quantum field theory explain a lot.
“Caused” was not a good term but like i said i made that comment half jokingly
I find that almost everything can be boiled down to just be a display of quantum mechanics which is why id place it as more fundamental.
I cant really say that about gravity/spacetime though. Maybe someday we do find that it also is but for now it seems to be distinct.
Short answer: yes.
Technically the world can’t exist without all of its physics. But that’s kinda backwards from how you study it. Quantum mechanics isn’t “more correct” than classical mechanics, it’s more that it’s “more detailed”.
If you want to model an electromagnet, an electronic circuit, light (in most macroscopic situations), how permanent magnets interact, electrostatic situations like how static electricity makes your hair stand up, lightning, the magnetic fields of celestial bodies like the Earth and Sun (they are big electromagnets), etc. you will use “classical” electromagnetism (meaning Newton’s mechanics, possibly with Einstein’s modifications, and Maxwell’s equations).
If you want to model material science situations, like determining what material to make a diode or transistor out of, or if a given material can become a permanent magnet, you will likely need quantum mechanics to help model the interactions of electrons on the atomic scale. The section on Wikipedia you were looking at is about this kind of material science. You do this by combining the same “classical electromagnetic” equations with Schrödinger’s equations for quantum mechanics.
Lol what no
I don’t think we know enough about quantum mechanics to even make a guess, yet. I do know that the reason we wanted to find the Higgs Boson so much was because we thought it could help explain how things acquire mass, which could lead to figuring out antigravity. But then we found it and it wasn’t doing what was originally thought. Or something.
Mass go brrrr
Gravity is not what makes your body limp. It would just heavily influence a limp body. PhD my ass.
While reading this I had a sudden flash of inspiration in which I saw clearly exactly how gravity works, but then when I started typing I forgot again. It’s quite frustrating
Congratulations, here’s your PhD
Same as any theory, but it’s enough to make Christians freak out
eVoLuTiOn is just a ThEoRy!
I’ve been reading a book about anti-gravity. I just can’t put this thing down.
Gravity is the net effect of all electromagnetic forces and quantum fluctuations causing the smallest bits of information at the smallest scales to drift together over “time” due to black hole natural selection aka cosmic natural selection.
It is the universe using math to reproduce.
That’s crank nonsense unless you’re able to describe it with quantum electrodynamical equations that also accurately define gravity, and the whole point is that we cannot reconcile gravity and quantum physics yet.
nuh uhhhh!!!
Gravity is just a side effect of the fundamental laziness of all things. Causality moves slower near mass, so it’s kind of relaxing to move towards it. That’s why everyone does it.
PS: There is actually a SciShow Spacetime video about gravity being an emergent property instead of a fundamental force. And no I didn’t get this from ChatGPT, I’m just that dumb when it comes to advanced physics haha.
Entropic gravity
Oh hell yeah I love an emergent property. That’s my new favorite theory
gravity is at the very least a vibe
Isn’t this half the plot of Interstellar?
It is what make it risky to jump from the Burj Kalifa, at least on the last meter.
And yet, jumping from the Burj Khalifa at 1m off the ground is not very dangerous, so it’s not the Burj Khalifa that’s doing it
And even if you jump from higher up, it’s the ground that does it, still not the Burj Khalifa.
It’s not riky while you are falling from 800m, only at the end
Wouldn’t the electromagnetic force be what makes jumping from the Burj Khalifa risky? It’s not the fall that kills you, it’s the sudden stop.
I find it quite marvellous that the universe contains unexplainable stuff like this, actually.
Everything we know about all space and time is technically just entirely made up by us.
It came from the Labratory of The Mind, yes, the work was entirely metaphysical, but here’s the wierd part. They used that mental experimentation and applied it to real life action, and it worked. It’s like imagining you have a magic carpet for years then you stand on one and it starts flying. It began as imagination of the world around us, then when checked against reality. It works. Someone figured out that if something was passing around a sun. A planet, that it would dim the light at regular intervals. They checked, it did, that’s the only reason we know there’s planets outside our solar system. Someone checked the lumens of stars and found the data matched the theory. We use the color variations of stars in a similar way to detect more data. It’s quite remarkable. A recent discovery in gravity is that while gravity is a ‘‘constant’’, it actually fluctuates from place to place, I’m not sure if anyone figured out why yet, but if and when, how they find out, will be their imagining a reason, imagining how to check, checking in real life, and getting the data on if it’s right or not.
I guess you are referring to the c9ncept of dark matter?
To anyone who does not know what dark matter is:
Dark Matter is the “solution” for differences in the real gravitational force a star has and how much gravity it should have based on calculations. Dark matter basically is matter that does not interact with light in any form (and therefore can not be detected) but still emits gravity.
Not “gravity a star has,” but the motion of stars around/near galaxies. It is the general motion of groups of massive objects that hints that there is a lot more mass ‘around’ most (not all) galaxies than what matter we observe could possibly account for.
The ‘not all’ part is critical, because it points to something actually being there as opposed to the theory of gravity or relativity breaking down at larger scales.
And now we have direct photographs of planets around other stars.
Made up, and then confirmed with experimentation against actual reality.
Let’s not pretend science is literature with extra steps. It’s a process whos aim is to confirm things in a way that removes all possible alternative explanation or influence. A good experiment completely and fully removes the human element.
There is an actual logical proof that there are propositions in mathematics that are neither provable nor refutable.
plato.stanford.edu/…/goedel-incompleteness/
Unexplainable yet. We may be able to understand how Gravity works.
But of course you are right, there are absolutely things that can not be explained. It is (very probably) impossible to explain why our nature constants are the way they are or why forces act the way they do. The easiest answer to why they are the way they are is to say “They are this way, because if they would be a little bit different we could not ask this question”. This sentence implies, that we live in some form of a multiversum and that there are multiple universes existent (in which form doesn’t matter) but it is impossible to detect them.
No, there actually are explanations for the effects as they exist in mathematical models. The problem is we do not yet have one single model that matches both quantum effects like superposition and cosmic scale effects like gravity and dark matter/energy.
There is almost certainly some truth in those mathematical explanations, simply because it’s unlikely that something that is 99.99% provably correct has no truth associated with it.
The problem is, it needs to be 100%, with proven and confirmed experiments, not 99.99% correct, before scientists will call it a “solved” problem.
Also the anthropic principle does not prove or disprove multiverses.
I’d wait got the demonstration.
I mean for 57k a year it doesn’t sound too bad tbh.
I could buy an apartment with that much ~
With 57000¥?
If thats Yuan yearly, yes, its crazy how cheap the housing is outside like city center of Beijing and Shanghai. If its Yen monthly, I mean you could rent a room in Nagoya for half that, or in Tokyo for most of it.
Apartments are rented, condos are bought.
TIL
I could buy an apartment and rent it out (:< (:< evil landlord time abt to paint over a power outlet
Gravity is what makes my feet hurt when I stand around too long without moving about.
No, it’s pain receptors
Gravity is pain receptors. Got it.
We’re unlearning a lot today.
i know what gravity is, but i dont believe in it
Daily reminder that physicists contribute nothing to society /j
Lemmy: Hey, remember how reddit used to be so good?
Satan: Yeah! Dang, I miss those days.
Lemmy: I’ve got tons of what you don’t miss about reddit and little of what you do!
Satan: Hooray!
The far end might sound smart to you if you’ve never taken physics classes, but…
What do you mean no advances in the last 70 years?! In the last decade scientists detected gravity waves and imaged an actual real black hole. Also they’ve been steadily chipping at quantum gravity, give it a couple decades they’ll get there.
unless we cancel all the funding
Aren’t the first two things just experimental proves of Einsteins relativity theory from over 100 years ago?
I don’t know about quantum gravity though.
A theory proven is progress, don’t you think?
I wouldn’t say “just”, experimental proof seems huge.
But if you want theories just go to PBS space time and open anything that isnt string theory or mond.
i say do watch the ones about string theory and mond so you can see why/how they’re wrong
As a layman who’s into physics it took me like a decade to understand what is “wrong” with them. No educational string theory video is prefaced with “Hey this is an old unprovable theory that is essentially dead in the water, but it has some cool math tricks and is fun to think about” as they should be.
PBS Spacetime’s approach was a pair of videos titled “Why String Theory is True” and “Why String Theory is False” and between them that pretty much put it to bed for me. cool math, cool worldbuilding, call me when they make a testable prediction. until then it goes on the scrap pile with aether and phlogiston.
Just had to fucking jinx it didn’t you
Gravity was invented by Isaac Newton because he was invested in an airline.
That’s the real answer. Always check on whose payroll somebody is.
Gravity is the opposite of comedy.
This is wholly inaccurate. We do know what causes gravity; time dilation near matter (at least for smaller objects like the Earth). What we don’t know is why gravity, because we have yet to produce a model that matches both quantum effects and cosmic behaviors like gravity and dark matter/energy.
“Quantum gravity” is the general term for what solution would describe something that ties these two universes of behavior together. The process of decoherence isn’t terribly well understood as far as carrying effects clear from particle scale to cosmic scale.
Even then, some of the mathematical explanations from current models are plausible, but unproven.
For any physical theory, you can always just ask “why x”, like a child who constantly asks “why” over and over again to every answer, but you will always hit a bottom. There seems to be a popular mentality that “why x” is always a meaningful question, and from that, we can conclude that we don’t know anything at all, because all our beliefs rely on a “why x” we don’t know the answer to, an so they are all baseless. We can’t make any truth claims about the behavior of particles, galaxies, or anything, because you can just infinitely ask “why” until we hit a bottom and then you would say “I don’t know.”
But, personally, I find this point of view rather bizarre, because, again, it can make it seem like we don’t know anything at all and have no foundations for truth claims in the slightest, and are completely ignorant about everything. I think it makes more coherent sense to just allow for to be a bottom to the questioning. Eventually a string of “why” questions will reach a bottom, where that bottom shouldn’t be answered with “I don’t know” but it should be answered with “it is what it is,” because, for all we know, it is indeed an accurate description of reality at a fundamental level and there is nothing beneath it.
That shouldn’t be taken as a strong claim that there definitely isn’t anything beneath it, as if we should just accept our current most fundamental theories are the end of the line and stop searching. It should be taken as the weaker claim that as far as we currently know it is the bottom, and so we can indeed make truth claims upon that basis. The child might ask, “why do things experience gravity?” You might say, “time dilation near matter.” The child then may ask, “why does time dilate near matter?” In my opinion, the appropriate response to that is just, “as far as we know, it is what it is.” That could change in the future, but, given our best scientific models at the present moment, that is the end of the line of the explanation.
That seems to be a fairly controversial point, though. Most people in my experience disagree, but I don’t see how you can have a basis for truth claims at all if you claim that “why gravity” does indeed have an answer but you can’t specify it, because then it would also be baseless to claim that gravity is caused by time dilation near matter, because you’ve not established that time actually does dilate near matter, as you would be claiming that this relies on postulates which you’ve not defined. It seems, again, simpler to just take the most fundamental theories as the postulates themselves, as the fundamental axioms.
There is a popular point of view that we shouldn’t do this because scientific theories often change, so something you believe today can be proven wrong tomorrow. But then we end up never being allowed to believe anything at all. We always have to pretend we’re clueless about nature because if we believe in any of our most fundamental theories, then our beliefs could be overturned. But personally, I don’t see why this to be a problem. A person who believed Newtonian mechanics was fundamental to how nature worked back in the 1700s were shown later to be wrong, but that person’s beliefs were still closer to reality than the people who rejected it and upheld outdated Aristotelian physics, or people who refused to belief in anything at all. It is fine to later be shown to be wrong, nothing to be upset about, nothing negative about that. We are better off, imo, as treating our best physical theories as indeed fundamentally how reality works, the “bottom” so to speak, until we find new theories that show otherwise, and we change our minds with the times.
That doesn’t disallow speculation or research into potentially more fundamental theories. Theories of quantum gravity are such a speculation. They remain in the realm of speculation because no one has demonstrated in the real world that it’s actually possible to construct a device such that quantum effects and gravitational effects are both simultaneously relevant and necessary to make predictions. The theories thus describe separate domains, and there isn’t a genuine need for a new theory until we can figure out how to bridge the two domains in reality.
We don’t actually know what would happen if we bridge the two domains. We may find that our theories of turning gravity quantum are all wrong and that in fact it is quantum theory that needs to be abandoned. We may also find that the domains aren’t even bridgeable. We already know of certain physical limitations that make the domains unbridgeable, such as, building an interferometer sensitive enough to detect both gravitational and quantum effects simultaneously would collapse into a black hole. There may be more things like this we will discover later on that just render the two theo
Babe wake up new physics copypasta just dropped
Gravity is how attracted I am to your mother