It can look dumb, but I always had this question as a kid, what physical principles would prevent this?
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
520 points (94.5% liked)
Asklemmy
45155 readers
1222 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So I found a dowel rod online that's 1 meter long by 25 mm in diameter made of beech, which is pretty typical for this kind of rod. Each rod weighs 420 g. 300,000 km is 300,000,000 m. So for a dowel rod to be 300,000,000 m long, it would weigh 126,000,000,000 g, or 126,000,000 kg. You would never be able to push this rod. If you had a magical hydraulic ram that could, it would just compress the soil under it. This is on the scale of the foce released from an atomic bomb.
But let's throw that out and pretend the whole thing weighs 420 grams instead. Maybe it's made of a novel, space-age material instead of beech. And since you've said it can't bend or break, the portion at the surface of the earth would be spinning at roughly 1,000 kph (due to the rotation of the earth), and the portion at the end of the rod would be spinning at about 28 km/s. Most of the mass of the rod would be spinning faster than escape velocity, so you wouldn't be able to hold onto it. It would be gone almost instantly.
Let's pretend you could hold onto it. Then the person on the moon couldn't hold it, because the earth rotates on its axis about 28 times faster than the moon travels around its orbit. So you can see how this problem devolves into ever more layers of magic and hand-waiving.
The final problem is the fundamental difference between classroom physics and material engineering. If you could fix the moon to the end of the rod, and you used a space-age material that weighs 420 g for the whole thing, and it could be so rigid as to not bend, then it would have to break instead. If, instead, it's designed to not break, then it must be able to bend. This is just how real materials work. But even if it does neither, or at most only bends a little, it is still true that as you push on the rod it would compress. So the tip wouldn't move at first. The pressure would move through the rod like a wave. You can't send information faster than light.
Yeah IIRC that even applies to things like gravity as well. As in, we aren't actually orbiting around where is sun is, we're orbiting around where it was ~8 minutes ago because the sun is about 8 light-minutes from Earth.
No, gravity is faster than light. If there was this lag, we wouldn't have stable orbits exactly because of the lag you describe. Wave functions of photons also collapse faster than light when they hit absorbent material.
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/speed-of-gravity/
I don't think gravitational waves traveling at the speed of light is the same as the gravitational attraction being apparently felt faster than light travels. Similarly, electric attraction between + and - charges is different from electromagnetic waves being transmitted in the field. It's not light that is "communicating" that attraction.
I don’t know how you would measure gravitational waves without measuring gravitational attraction.
Nobody said it was. The “speed of light” isn’t about “light”. Gravity propagates at the same speed, aka “c.”
This Reddit discussion on r/AskPhysics might help clear up your misconceptions. Notably:
I get the sense that you’re thinking about the second scenario when objecting to the concept that gravity travels at the speed of light.
I was definitely talking about the first scenario, as is mostly everyone else. I know not everyone admits gravity (gravitational attraction) might travel faster than light as in the "sun moving" thought experiment. I'm not confused, I'm discussing like everybody else. You linked an article about gravitational waves which must transmit through some sort of gravitational field and they might transmit at approximately c as predicted in general relativity. What I believe is that gravitational attraction, so the general effect of the field will be felt as if it acts almost instantly, and that does not contradict anything about the waves in that field. Because the waves in that field are not responsible for the attraction. This is similar to how photons do not mediate the magnetic attraction in magnets even though they are electromagnetic waves. The current theories (which you are pulling from) manage to mathematically explain that in our moving sun thought experiment, the gravitational force coming from the sun appears to "update" instantly as if it's acting from it's actual position without the lag, because of (to my understanding) the curvature of space-time. So I personally can't fight that on mathematical grounds because that's above my understanding. But in the end it doesn't change much of anything to our discussion, because the force of gravity still updates "as if" it was mostly instantaneous and that's the standard model. Meanwhile, gravitational waves do travel at c but are kind of unrelated to the continous force. They are merely fluctuations in that force. Please keep poking and challenging me at that, I'm still wrapping my head around it and will need better and better sources while I'm hyper focusing on it until I move on lol