I think high level degree holders know a lot more than the average man thinks we know, in fact I doubt the majority of people even know US High school level stuff like that we've discovered a gravitational constant and about the inverse square law as it applies to gravity.

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 25 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (23 children)

The sad reason for that is that it's a conversation killer. I would love to go back and forth for hours on things like the uncanny similarity between universal gravitation and Coulomb's law. But, when I speak to someone with a similar background to mine it's all...work-work-work-how-is-it-applied??, and when I speak to someone without that background it's all yawns. It's a shame because in either case I think science is the most interesting topic. It's just as edifying to dive casually into the philosophy as it is to dive rigourously into the maths. I learn more per unit time from either type of conversation than from studying papers. And, it's a passion, but one whose expression is stymied either by explaining it in terms of football fields per dolphin or by making it marketable. Interaction with other minds is the most valuable type of learning.
I feel like I may come off as a bit of an elitist writing this, but the problem really is the opposite: I wish more people would get involved!
Edit: the responses to this have made my day you guys. This is why I left Reddit.

[–] Pseudonaut 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I’m a person without that background and I’ll talk about it. What’s the uncanny similarity you mentioned?

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Well that's lovely, thank you 😊 So Newton's law of universal gravitation is:

F= G×M×m/r^2
which is simple enough to be able to say it in a sentence: "the force of gravity F on two masses M and m is proportional to their masses and square of the distance between them, r " so the heavier and closer planets/suns/black holes are, the greater the gravitationnel pull.
Coulomb's law is:

F= k×Q×q/r^2
which is pretty much exactly the same as you have probably noticed: "the force of electrical attraction F on two charged particles Q and q is proportional to their charges and the square of the distance between them, r "
So the exact same rule applies to planets and atoms. Their behaviour can be explained in the same way. It's called an "inverse square law", it's got a name because they happen everywhere. And it's just, like... Why? Why does the universe work that way? You're not really encouraged to ask that sort of question as a science student, because it "goes nowhere" and doesn't lead to actionable results. But I think it quite spooky. There are loads of weird results like that in science and maths (see quantum theory for abundant examples!) but it's unusual to be able to sit and think about it. There is, for the inverse square law, a pretty elegant mathematical explanation for why they're so common, but it doesn't quite scratch the itch for me, it just raises more questions

Edit sorry for text wall. This is probably why I shouldn't do this!

[–] ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You mentioned a mathematical explanation for why it's so common. Got any further reading on that? It's mind blowing that the math for calculating planetary movement and atomic behavior is exactly the same formula, with different variables. Do you have any theories on why inverse square law is so common?

[–] Zink@programming.dev 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think inverse square laws are so common because they apply to situations where the distance of one object from another (a one dimensional line) is used to calculate the force potentially felt at any point across the surface of a sphere (a TWO dimensional surface) at that distance.

But then you also have the strength of magnetic fields that follows an inverse CUBE relationship. The simple way I model this in my head is that magnetic dipole fields kind of fill a three dimensional volume with curved field lines, as opposed to gravity or electric charge where the “lines” go straight out, and at any specific distance the total strength of the omnidirectional field is spread throughout that two dimensional surface of a sphere of the same radius.

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

4D thinking. That's where my brain says "no more"

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

The Wikipedia page is a good start. In a nutshell:

Since the surface area of a sphere (which is 4πr2) is proportional to the square of the radius, as the emitted radiation gets farther from the source, it is spread out over an area that is increasing in proportion to the square of the distance from the source. Hence, the intensity of radiation passing through any unit area (directly facing the point source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the point source.

There's a good visualisation of that explanation which is the banner picture on the Wikipedia page.

I don't have any better theories than the existing ones, for sure! But there is an underlying pattern that goes deeper even than that law - the principle that physical objects follow the path of least resistance links these laws and many many others.

[–] dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

This is actually really cool. I have no idea about any of it, but I remember watching a documentary a long time ago that said certain mathematical patterns repeat all over nature. What you said seems similar to that.

load more comments (21 replies)