This article discusses why the colloquial expressions such as “That’s why I gravitate towards you”, “I’m falling for you”, and “She is attracted to me” can be quite scientifically accurate. The following article muddles up the meanings of casual words like “falling” and “attraction” with the currently accepted theories, studies, and findings of physics on the related matters. I’ve done something like this before , similar in fashion to how the word “God” is poetically and figuratively used in relation to the “religious” views of Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and other physicists . This time, it’s love. 🙂
First we have Space-Time
Space-time or spacetime is a mathematical model that you get when you combine the 3 dimensions of space with a 4th one, the dimension of time. In a nutshell, space-time is similar to a landscape where a point locates an event i.e. a 3 dimensional location + the time when it happened, instead of just a usual, spacial point in space like in maps, even if it’s a 3D map. Since space-time involves 4 dimensions, even most scientists find it very hard to imagine what 4 dimensions would look like, since us humans are accustomed to only 3 dimensions of our space. We always look at time as something that is fixed and unchanging. Newton certainly did when he wrote the laws of motion. One of the most impressive feats of Einstein was that he showed this was not so, and that time is as maleable as space.
To see this graphically, observe the image above. Since scientists are only humans, they have difficulties imagining warped 4 dimensions, and so 2 dimensional analogs are used, which are enough to illustrate the point. The image above shows a distortion in space-time. These imaginations of space-time were first thought of as what are famously now known in science as thought experiments, with one of the most popular users being Albert Einstein himself.
Then there’s Gravity
General relativity describes gravity as a curvature in space-time and that, again in a nutshell, gravity is a dent in space. To further picture this, consider again the image above. Ordinary matter, which makes up everything we see in the universe, causes space-time to warp and bend around it. The more matter there is in a given object or point, the more warping, denting, and bending of space time, and therefore the stronger the gravity. The image shows the Earth, which is relatively quite massive, making a dent in the space-time continuum, thus creating a gravitational effect which pulls us, the moon, and other objects in space towards it, even including the Sun. The Sun of course has the strongest gravity or pull in the Solar system, since it’s the most massive object in it. Again, remember that the image is just a 2D analog of a 4D space-time continuum. The Earth does not immediately plummet towards the Sun since the Earth has its own gravity, which counteracts the Sun’s pull. But nevertheless the Earth is slowly circling down the drain/dent of the Sun in the space-time continuum (Sun’s gravity) and in a few billion years, the Earth and everything less massive than the Sun will quite likely plummet towards it. In other words, gravity is just an illusion since we can’t quite really conceive a 4th dimension in our minds, and that gravity is really just a warping of the space-time continuum.
You can then further imagine or create a thought experiment that other less or more massive bodies than the Earth in the Solar system create their own dents or warps in space-time. These include the other planets, asteroids, and even us humans, albeit in a very minute fraction only.
In fact, one of the suggested ways of mitigating a future asteroid impact on Earth is based on the premise that mass causes denting or warping in space-time. The gravity or gravitational tractor, as it is known, deflects an asteroid many years prior to its impact on Earth, by simply hovering or “parking” beside the asteroid. This form of asteroid mitigation does not really require cutting edge scientific discoveries or engineering feats, it does not need to physically contact the asteroid, and does not necessitate the need for the mechanical and structural composition of the asteroid in advance. Simply put, it works by allowing the relatively massive object, the gravity tractor, to “pull” the asteroid towards a direction which will lead it away from a future Earth impact. The “pull” comes from the fact that, slowly but surely, the tractor’s warping of space imposes a pull, albeit tiny, to the nearby asteroid.
Finally, Falling in Love
So, by now perhaps you’ve already surmised my coy and sly use of the words “falling” and “attraction” with respect to falling in love, as well as how physics currently views gravity and space-time. In other words, geeks and nerds like me often joke about how a girl could “fall” for you if you simply sit near her, since you do have mass, however minute. That mass of yours will eventually make her notice you, or perhaps not, but it will certainly impose a “pull” on her towards you, or vice versa. Of course technically speaking, it will take millions to billions of years before the more massive one between you two finally pulls the other. In this case, it’s better if you just ask her out, and that sometimes physicists, geeks, and nerds like me don’t really give that much good an advice. Still, as I mentioned earlier in this article, phrases such as “I’m falling for you” and “We’re attracted to each other” are quite scientifically accurate. Ah, love in geek or nerd speak. So romantic. 🙂
Which brings to mind the fascination of some men in today’s times to skinny women. Based from what I’ve pointed out here, it’s physically (by this I mean in physics) understandable why some men would prefer heavier or more massive women, but what about skinny women? I suppose the social sciences have more to learn and discuss in these matters. 🙂
Resources, references, and further reading
- The source of it all, The Project Gutenberg EBook of Relativity, Albert Einstein Reference Archive, ‘Relativity: The Special And General Theory’ by Albert Einstein (1916).
- Wikipedia article on space-time and General relativity.
- Wikipedia article on the gravity tractor, which is one of the many suggested ways to mitigate an asteroid impact on Earth.
- Best selling science book with easy to understand explanations of the cosmos, which includes descriptions of space-time, ‘A Brief History of Time‘ (1988) by Stephen Hawking, Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-38016-8.
Hehe
I have fond memories of vector analysis, especially with free body diagrams.
Don't worry, I'll always try to keep it a point to minimize or even skip equations in my science/physics posts. The technicalities and equations will be in the comments. 🙂 Oh and of course I'll add some social relevance and freethinking on the sides to spice things up. 😉
vector analysis… aaaargh!!! my brain is in paaaaain!
Update:
Pecier has made some good points. I don't think however, that my article needs revision, since it is not technically incorrect, rather it's incomplete to cater to a more macroscopic view to remain as less technical as possible.
Some technical points worthy of mention though:
Given that person A and B have the the mass and separation given by Pecier in his comment above, it will only take person A and B to gravitate towards each other millions to billions of years in a non-vacuum space if:
– they somehow slowly overcome the coefficient of friction.
– an object with a relatively significant mass doesn't win, causing both of them to move towards that object instead.
Otherwise, if they're in a vacuum, it will only take them hours to minutes if:
– an object with a relatively significant mass again doesn't interfere
Aawww, isn't that romantic? The two of you plummeting together towards an asteroid. Clasped hands towards your honeymoon! 😀
Keep them coming guys. I'll then try to update my article, maintaining its non-technicality, but still catering to correct approximations via our equations' solutions.
plus you have to make sure that you're light-years away from the nearest celestial body, else their mass will overshadow yours and your date will gravitate toward an asteroid instead of into your arms, hehe
Haha nice one @wes! 😀
Wait there's more! Since you're in a vacuum, nobody can hear you make out! 😀
But oh crap, no good background music for you guys then too. 😀
now all we torpes have to do is to get the girl of our dreams floating in the vacuum of space and wait for gravitational forces to pull us together.
I smell a hollywood date-movie in the making 🙂
@Pecier
Hehe Thanks for the nice technical comment. I should have mentioned that two people A and B will only "gravitate" towards each other as I have mentioned, if they're in a vacuum (!) making this even funnier and more ridiculous in my opinion. 😀 Not even in a frictionless surface, but in a bloody vacuum! 🙂
Regarding the 3rd law, yes the forces of "attraction" are equal, but the less massive one will have a higher acceleration due to the 2nd law, where F = m*a.
Oh and perhaps by static friction you specifically mean the coefficient of static friction no? I think one has to bypass that one.
Regarding the computation using Newton's law of gravity, did you use the gravitational constant in this formula <a href="http://(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant)” target=”_blank”>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant)? Where
F = G*(m1*m2)/r^2
G being equal to approximately 6.673×10−11 N* m^2 /kg^2? If so, and with m1 and m2 being both equal to 50kg and r = 0.5m, I got a value of 66.7×10^-8 N, after which I divide 50kg to remove the mass (kg) and I get 1.33×10^-8 m/s^2 no? What do you think?
And regarding the time it will take B to accelerate and reach A, won't it only take B
sq. root of (0.5 m / 1.33×10^-8 m/s^2)
seconds to reach A? This is approximately 6,132 seconds.
@f241vc15
Let A be in love with B. Let B be likewise in love with A. Now suppose that A and B sit on the brand of a tree (not yet doing the k-i-s-s-i-n-g thing) some distance d apart from each other. The force of (gravitational) attraction between them is very small indeed, but it is non-zero. However, it will not take "millions to billions" of years for the heavier to attract the other. Here's why.
First, they attract each other with the an equal albeit opposite force (3rd Law of Newton), so no one will be more attracted to anyone, they will attract each other equally. (So love is blind?)
Second, A and B's butts will have a friction with the tree branch. This kind of friction is static friction, since none of them are moving yet. When an object has a static friction f with a surface, one would have to push the object with a force greater than f in a direction parallel to the surface in order to get the object moving. In short, since the static friction between butt A and the tree branch (likewise with butt B) far exceeds the force of attraction between A and B, thanks to gravity's legendary weakness, if no one will make a move, nothing will happen. Not in a billion years. Not in a gazillion. (Bad news for torpes.)
However, make A and B sit on a frictionless surface and they would start accelerating towards each other. (Yey! Happy ending!) Suppose A's butt is glued to the surface. (Ohh..) Let B slide freely. (Unfair.) Let there be no third party. (No threesome?) By Newton's law of gravity, if both A and B are 50 kg each, and if they are initially situated a distance of 0.5 meters apart, then B will start to accelerate at 1.33E-8 ms^-2. Assuming B will continue to accelerate at this pace as she approaches A (not a bad assumption, really) then by the 2nd law which says that F = ma, the time it will take for B to finally reach A is approximately 8,658 years. (A good lesson for torpes, isn't it?)
I hope you've learned from my comment. (I enjoyed writing it!)
@Rydex
Can you please be more specific, like by providing links? I'm very much interested in looking into your suggestion but I'm pretty busy and I don't have a lot of time to look around for that particular BBC documentary.
Oh and I don't think I mentioned anything about M-theory, just General relativity in general [sic]. And you mentioned describing the 4th dimension. You have to realize describing something doesn't necessarily translate to us visualizing it. Get it? 🙂
Oh and about the documentary not having any hints of love in it, it's likely I can find some out of it. 😉
Hindi ko alam kung tungkol dun, pwedeng ipost mo na lang ulit? Thanks 🙂
bakit nyo po binura ang comment ko?
There's a need to update on your M-theory sir. ^^
There's a clear representation of how a 4th dimension could be described in BBC's documentary on Parallel Universes.
I think it's still in Youtube. ^^ too bad there's nothing about falling in love :p
@wes
The Earth's magnetic field, including the one that extends to thousands of kilometers into space known as the magnetosphere, is indeed believed to be partly due to the gravitational pull. More specifically, the gravitational energy that is churning the intensely hot material inside the Earth's core, producing convection and electrically conducting fluid, which in turn produces the magnetic field.
In basic physics or electrical engineering class we learned that a changing (in this case replenishing) magnetic field also needs a changing (and replenishing) electric field, which the Earth's core quite certainly provides.
More info from these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_f… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
I'll be looking forward to that (and the other pledged posts) just the same. Really excited about our new writers 🙂
Hehe nice one Red.
No promises though that my future posts will be as entertaining or educational as this one. 😉
@Geri
Thanks for that info.
However, I do reserve more skepticism with regards to some of the methods and results of the social sciences, a fact that hopefully sometime in the future I'll be able to explain more clearly.
There is a recurring joke amongst scientists, especially physicists, that goes something like "if you go to the most basic of anything, everything eventually boils down to physics". 🙂 But when I think about it, I think it technically is true.
And with regards to "falling in love" and physics in this article, it's just a coy play of words, just as Einstein or Hawking use God to refer to the orderly laws of the universe.
In addition, I read from the Skeptical Inquirer magazine (thanks to D.J. Grothe of CFI) that the popular notion of 'love at first sight' has nothing to do with neither physics nor chemistry, but most likely on the psychological power of suggestion of faces. Bearing with the series of studies and documentation done by Lilian Alvarez and Klaus Jaffe (2004), and others that preceded them, they observe that many couples who are in love are actually look alike- more so than chance would allow.
Brangelina complex?
what about magnetism? is that related to gravitational pull ?
Perhaps the reason even skinny women can attract men is they have a black hole.
But seriously, another entertaining and educational post 🙂