Science Memes

11148 readers

5013 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1191

What is gravity? (mander.xyz)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

182 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm guessing by "mediating particles", you don't mean those affected by fields, but rather those 'propagating' the field, i.e. photons.

And well, my research tells me that photons don't really exist. 🙃

Well, particles don't really exist, in the traditional sense. They're not solid balls flying through space. They're rather just peaks in the EM and gravitational fields. And then, if you've got a disturbance in a field, a peak or wave will travel along the field, which propagates that disturbance. And if you've got all that internalized, then you could call that peak/wave a "particle" again.

Here's a rough source / different explanation of those claims: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/201

But yeah, I don't think this particle analogy is helping us here. We're ultimately still just talking about a field being affected by gravity.

(Still, thanks for the input. I'm sorting my thoughts as I go, and reading that I've also been subjected to an unhelpful analogy is helping it make sense.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think we know of anything not affected by gravity. If we did, General Relativity would be considered incorrect (not merely incomplete).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Awesome. Slowly, but surely, this General Relativity thing starts to make sense to me.