Any given star is constantly emitting an unimaginably large, but finite, number of photons. A tiny few of them travel tens to hundreds of (Earth) years, only to end their journey in your eyeballs.
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
142 points (91.8% liked)
Showerthoughts
30066 readers
785 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics
- 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Even crazier when you consider how long that photon bounced around inside the star before escaping out into space
Technically the photon is being absorbed and re-emitted inside the star, so it's not exactly the same photon.
A βphotonβ is basically just the universe producing a new field in response to an existing one, repeatedly. So photons travel through space in much the same way: they are absorbed and emitted by successive regions of space, with each region being the photonβs wavelength in size.
That's not really the same thing, as well as being afaik straight up wrong
Can you describe exactly how it is wrong, or is it just a feeling? Are you not familiar with the structure of an electromagnetic wave?
I'm familiar with the structure, but don't the electrical and magnetic waves smoothly translate across space? They aren't "absorbed and emitted by successive regions of space", right?
If you graph the electric field strength along a photonβs flight path, there are points where it is zero. Same for the magnetic field strength.
The energy of the photon is transformed continuously between electric and magnetic field potential, and if you consider either of those signals the energy is coming into and going out of that medium repeatedly.
Because each of those non-zero periods of field potential happens in a particular spot in space (those fields donβt move; they grow and fade in sequence), Iβm saying that region of space has absorbed the photon.
Of course, you know, particle wave duality. So in some ways they travel smoothly as well.
Hmm, yeah makes sense
I'm not smart enough to understand that, but I'll believe you. :D
Screw photons, neutrinos are where the real numbers start racking up
And from the photon's perspective, it all happened in an instant π€―
Theyβre also exerting a minute amount of electrostatic attraction or repulsion.
Technically correct, but the gravity from stars is dwarfed by the gravity from yo momma.
Actually tru for every value of yo mama, from xs to xxxxxxxxxl
So, horoscopes are true? /s
While you are affected by gravity, it'd have less of an effect than other things.
For instance we can scientifically show your birth date does influence your personality, as long as you don't live on the equator.
The further North/South you go, the more pronounced the effect becomes.
That is to say that from large samplings, you can see that extroverted traits are more common with babies born in Spring (in the Northern hemisphere), while introversion is more associated with being born in autumn.
That ofc doesn't mean that a person who was born in November will automatically be less extroverted than one born in March, but if you pick two random people from those groups, it's X% more likely that it is so.
Astrology is complete fucking bullshit though.
Astrology is complete fucking bullshit though.
I know. That's why I added the "/s" tag.
I was just pointing that out because me saying birth months can affect personality isn't me validating any aspect of astrology.
Just wanted to make sure no-one thinks I'm trying some feeble defense of it.
While that's technically true, it's good to note that this doesn't excuse astrology, which is based on the false fact that the gravity of celestial bodies influences our decisions in everyday life. The gravity of you Karen influences my "daily life" more than these celestial bodies and especially your belief in astrology. π
Agreed π€
"What you do... is something that the whole universe is doing in the place you call 'here and now'." Alan Watts
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Wait, I thought gravity is not a "force" but the curvature of spacetime, so at some point the curvature gotta end or be disturbed by some other source nearby, right? A star so far away is not exerting any "force" on me as I already have two massive objects Earth and Sun twisting the spacetime around me so much. I could however be getting some gravitational waves from that star but not sure how strong they'd be or if they reach me at all (again given Sun and Earth).
(NOTE: I'm an engineer not a physicist so my understanding could all be wrong)
You're partially right. Gavity has infinite range, so a distant star does exert some force on you. And that force is present regardless of other gravitational fields like the Earth or Sun. However it's many orders of magnitude weaker than the force from the Earth and Sun so it's pretty much irrelevant.
Eh. It's not really a definite distinction. Even in GR you formulate effective potentials and the gradient on those potentials are still called forces. Then, what is a force on microscopic scale? It is the exchange of force mediators, like photons. If gravitons exists, then there is even a similar framework for defining a force on a microscopic level for electromagnetism as well as gravity. Furthermore, electromagnetism (qed) also has an interpretation as a curvature, as it is a gauge theory, just not a curvature of physical spacetime, and that does not disqualify if from being called a "force".
With gravity wave detectors we are able to measure gravitational waves from two merging black holes distorting space-time even here on earth. The distortion is less than the width of the nucleus of an atom.
That's called microgravity
So small, you canβt see it without a microscope
Well, Proxima Centauri better stop pulling on me or I'm going to smack it.
And they call it the weak force. Bah!
Gravity is different than the weak force.
A weak force, then? I know I've heard gravity described as the weakest force before... But I also got a D in physics so... π€·π»ββοΈ
It is the weakest force, but thereβs also a force named the weak force. It is many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. But itβs not as strong as the strong force.
We should rename gravity to weakest force
Technically, they're weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces, but yeah, we love confusing names in physics. Like quark flavours, which include top and bottom
What if we kissed under the Higgs-Boson π³ Haha j/k... unless π₯Ίππ