Apple-Sized Stars, a Potato-Shaped Earth and the Force That Creates Our Reality
Life’s up and downs may seem as inevitable as gravity, but somehow 2020 feels worse than usual. Just as a thought experiment, what if this year actually did get so weird that it even ushered in a change in how gravity affects our material universe?
In the video Did the Universe Have to Be the Way That It Is? we examine what our universe—and more specifically, our lives—might look like with some tweaks to the physics responsible for the world as we know it.
If gravity were just a little stronger in our own three-dimensional world, the curvature of spacetime would be greater, and matter could more easily collapse in on itself. This arrangement would make stars, galaxies and planets extremely diminutive, compared with the ones in our reality. Not only would we have less space on Earth, but our sun would deplete its nuclear fuel much more rapidly—meaning that evolution, and life itself, would be greatly curtailed.
If gravity were weaker, Earth would be gigantic, and it might be oddly shaped like some asteroids—or a potato. And rather than walking on the surface of our planet, we might find ourselves, say, jumping to grab a rebound in a basketball game, only to accidentally end up in the upper atmosphere or orbiting the globe as a tiny human space station.
What if we weren’t three-dimensional at all? (Imagine people as paper cutouts.) If we lived in two dimensions, gravity would act very differently. Although we would still have the spacetime curvature noted in Einstein’s general theory of relativity, such curvature would no longer produce gravitational forces. For this sort of flattened universe, we could instead have “scalar gravity,” in which Newton’s description of gravity would have been the final word, and black holes would be relegated to science fiction.
Thankfully, even though 2020 seems topsy-turvy, we still have gravity to keep us grounded.
Join Our Community of Science Lovers!
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber