1281

submitted 1 year ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

254 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] sudoreboot@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

I also like to say that particles don't really exist in any sense one would associate to the word. And to be pedantic, we can't even say that particles are peaks in a field because that is merely how we model it, and that model is incomplete.

Since we don't know what gravity is or does, nor what (or if) a field is or what particles are, it's hard to answer a question like whether a particular field is affected by gravity other than in terms of a specific model and hope that corresponds to real observations.

In this case, our best bet is to reason in terms of known properties of what we think of as particles mediating the field in question. Photons are subject to gravitational influence, and so we expect EM fields to be as well.

[-] Knusper@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Interesting points. I was thinking, we're generally treating EM fields like they're unaffected by gravity, because we've measured the field strength around a magnet and saw that it wasn't drooping to the ground.
But I guess, the influence of gravity is so weak on EM fields, that it only becomes apparent near a black hole and therefore, it's hardly possible to actually measure a deformation on Earth. And therefore, we just don't know.

Plus, of course, other reality-bending stuff, like the EM-waves we use while measuring (e.g. visible light) being affected by the gravitational pull.

Do you know, if there's anything for which we've secured that it's unaffected by gravity?
Apparently, there's a few particles/field-peaks/whatever, which are deemed massless, but given that no mass does not mean unaffected by gravity, that's kind of moot...