1286
What is gravity? (mander.xyz)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
232 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 years ago (6 children)

This isn't the first time, I'm hearing about light being affected by gravity, but like, are we saying that electric fields and magnetic fields are not affected by gravity... except they are, when they oscillate back and forth in the form of an electromagnetic wave?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (5 children)

    My understanding of EM fields compels me to say that they are affected by gravity because the mediating particles are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (4 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.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (3 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 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...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •