Now I am curious, somebody explain. if it just stopped burning, would we know after 8 mins, if we lived on the opposite side?
Moon would “disappear” when it no longer reflected Sun’s light.
It would also start getting very cold fast
Does heat travel at the speed of light? I just realized I have no idea how the heat from the sun travels to earth.
Someone correct me if I’m missing some nuance here, but heat doesn’t get transferred directly through space because heat is vibrating molecules and space is a vacuum. The sun radiates (speed O’ light). A lot of that radiation just reflects off the earth (or we wouldn’t be able to see it), but a lot of it gets absorbed. THAT’s when it’s converted into heat energy. It’s also why the greenhouse effect is a global phenomena: light energy comes in across the vacuum relatively easily, turns to heat on Earth instead of being reflected, heat energy cannot escape as easily as light energy.
When there is a total solar eclipse, the temperature does drop dramatically. But it might not be detectable on the other side right away for sure.
Any visible planet or asteroid would. So some stars would also appear to blink out, but those would take longer to blink out. So the moon would go after 8 minutes, Jupiter would take 43 minutes to stop receiving light, and another 35-52 minutes to disappear for earth depending on orbital locations.
Presumably we would get something on radio/tv/internet from the side facing the sun once they realized it, that of course being only if they hadn’t already been eradicated by a horrific shockwave caused by whatever event caused the sun to vanish before they had a chance to report what they saw, because supernovae tend to travel at very close to the speed of light, so there wouldn’t be much time for them to react.
And if this is a supernova, you might just have time to grok what happened before the planet was obliterated under your feet from the shockwave.
So I guess… chances are we would just barely understand what happened before we were gone.
It takes 8 minutes for the light to travel from the sun to Earth. Because light in a vacuum travels faster than anything, including information, we would not and could not know it had disappeared for 8 minutes. This means Earth would continue to follow its orbit around a non-existent sun for 8 minutes because the Sun’s gravity would still be acting on the Earth.
If it was nighttime, you wouldn’t notice the sudden lack of sunlight (other than if it was a full moon) but you’d almost certainly notice the change in gravity.
Edit: actually, you wouldn’t feel any difference in gravity or experience any change of acceleration. What you would experience is a very tiny vibration, of 1 million push notifications being sent to your phone from the other side of the planet.
Equal to speed of light in vacuum
From an AI, so take with some salt:
Yes, gravity is believed to travel at the speed of light.
According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, the effects of gravity propagate through spacetime at the speed of light. This means that if a massive object were to suddenly change its position, the gravitational effects would not be felt instantaneously by objects around it, but would instead spread outward at the speed of light.
This is in contrast to the classical Newtonian view of gravity, which treated it as an instantaneous force. Einstein’s theory showed that gravity, like other forms of electromagnetic radiation, obeys the speed limit set by the speed of light.
Experimental evidence, such as observations of binary pulsars, has confirmed that gravity does indeed propagate at the speed of light, as predicted by general relativity. This is a crucial aspect of our modern understanding of the nature of gravity and its relationship to the fabric of spacetime.
I don’t think you’d actually “notice” the gravity.
Earth would still retain it’s mass, and we’re much closer to it, so it’s lesser mass acts much more on us than the sun’s greater.
Though, the earth would stop orbiting the sun and travel on a mostly tangential path travel nearly radially away from where the sun was, instead of the elliptical path it currently travels.
This is a very interesting physics question that I may look into further. Specifically what would the theoretical acceleration be, due to the lack of the sun? Is it above a humans level of perception?
Gravitysimulator.org has an interface you can simulate what happens, though it’s timeframe is on the order of days. Not seconds.
It’s weird to say that light travels faster than information, because light is information. In other words, top speed for information IS speed of light.
I think that’s just the wording. My interpretation of that is any satellite or space probe sending back readings to Earth wouldn’t be faster than the sun visually disappearing from the sky. Even with the information being transmitted at the speed of light, there’s always going to be some sort of processing delay, along with the limited bandwidth of the transmission.
Wouldn’t you see the effect on the moon?
That would be a beautiful, terrifying sight. You could gaze up at the most amazing view of the stars as the whole world froze to death.
I wonder if you had the opportunity to do so leisurely.
A suddenly vanishing sun would also mean a spectularly high energy gravity wave hitting the earth. You might be dead before even realizing that anything is off…
There is a really great short story by Larry Niven based on a similar premise:
“Inconstant Moon”
There is also an “Outer Limits” episode based on this. I watched that before knowing the short story and it is one of only 2 or three OL episodes that I still have an active memory of…
There’s a pretty cool short story where a guy is looking at the full moon and he realizes that it’s gotten way too bright, and that could only happen because the sun has just spontaneously exploded, and he basically just makes peace with the fact that the world is going to be destroyed very shortly.
If the sun disappears when? According to GR’s conception of simultaneous events, it disappears immediately.
Which two event are you talking about being simultaneous? The Sun going out and Earthers observing it? Those things will not be simultaneous in any reference frame, because they are “light-like” separated. (ie they lie on a 45 degree line in a Minkowski plot.)
I think what he means is when the light from the sun disappearing arrives at earth, that’s effectively when the event of the sun disappearing happened from the earth’s perspective.
Yep. Imagine you’re off in space such that you, the sun, and the earth make an equilateral triangle. The sun disappears, then after 8 minutes you see it disappear. Then after ANOTHER 8 minutes you see the earth go dark, because that light had to cover two of the 8-light-minute long legs of the triangle.
But we do have Twitter now.
If I understand that right, gravity also moves in space at the speed of light, therefore Earth will keep on orbiting for 8min around nothing?
It’s sort of how if you hold a slinky on one end hanging down, then drop the slinky, bottom will not start falling until the top reaches it. In a sense, bottom will be hanging onto nothing. But of course that nothing is tension from the top of the slinky.
Kind of. The concept of simultaneity breaks down at distances where the speed of light matters. If we base it on what we currently observe and call “now” on the Sun the eight minute old state we currently observe then what does “now” on earth look like from the point of view of the Sun at that same moment? You can’t reconcile a single “now” for observers in both locations.
An alternative take which is also consistent with observable physics is that the speed of light is infinite but it’s causality itself that propagates at c.
Thinking in those terms also makes a number of relativistic effects more intuitive. You need infinite energy to reach the speed of light simply because it’s infinitely fast. Time dilates when moving because you’re encountering approaching causality earlier than you otherwise would have. Time “stops” for anything traveling at the speed of light because at infinite speed it just experiences literally everything in its line of travel at once and the concept of “after” becomes meaningless, encountering all future oncoming causality in a single instant.
This was a bit of a tangent but it’s something that has fascinated me for a long time.
I’m trying to understand how that reference frame works when you just just bounce a photon off a mirror and time how long it takes to come back? Like, light must have a non-infinite speed to the stationary observer, or it wouldn’t take time to traverse the distance.
thats the thing, thats from your reference frame. From the photons perspective time stands still and everything happens at once
The observable effect is the same either way. If light is infinitely fast and causality propagates at c then it’s still going to take (distance to the mirror / c) for the fact that you turned on the light to reach the mirror, and that same amount of time for the fact that the light reflected to propagate back to you.
Yes, but bad news travels much faster, and the sun disappearing would be very bad news to at least some people.
