• fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m in geoscience. Physicists are nerds. Touch grass, ya dweebs. We wear hiking clothes on campus and we aren’t going on fieldwork until July. It’s called dedication.

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not difficult. Gravity is like magnetism for things that aren’t magnetic.

          • Knusper@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

            • Blóðbók@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

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

              • Knusper@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.)

                • Blóðbók@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  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.

  • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “The nature of this elementary particle is best expressed through these thirty equations.”

    “Ok, ok, but what do those actually mean in reality?”

    “Reality?”

  • DozensOfDonner@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Working in neuroscience of consciousness field I feel him deeply. Although 57k sounds amazing to a Europoor

      • Uncle_Bagel@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        American salaries are also always presented as gross income before taxes instead if net income after taxes like in Europe.

        • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          we also do gross before taxes in Germany. 57k before taxes is still a solid salary in many areas of Germany. Some MINT and Financelords might want to disagree with that, but it is in the top 15% of salaries. At that Level you pay about 5,1k taxes, 5,3k pension and 4,6k for health, 1,3k eldercare and 750 unemployment insurance. (all mandatory)

          That seems quite a lot at first, but for instance unemployment pays 60% of your net income up to a year qfter loosing a job, health insurance also covers all children until they are 25 or earn more than 500€/month.

          • Asafum@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It only sounds like a lot of taxes to us Americans that don’t actually do the math… I’m making almost 60kUSD so it’s a very real comparison for me. Like your 4.6k healthcare tax is my 14.4k pay cut (mandatory healthcare coverage for full time employees paid for by the owner @1,200/month for me) Your 5k general tax is higher than my 3.6k income tax, but everything else offsets that by such a large margin that arguing against it is laughable.

            Thing is we also pay a ton of of pocket when we go to the doctor too.

            I wish we had a number to use like your 4.6k but for America so in our arguments for universal healthcare we could show just how much more we really pay…

            Sorry for all the edits, I remember as I reread lol

  • Dr. Coomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Genuinely we can’t tell what it is. We once thought it was just a normal pull due to mass until Einstein proved us wrong during a solar eclipse where we could see stars that shouldn’t be visible from our current position in orbit. Then we get into how it works, WHICH THERE IS NO TELLING AS THERE ARE TO MANY GOD DAMNED VARIABLES INVOLVED.

    • theangryseal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re fucking with me, right?

      Stars were visible that shouldn’t have been visible?

      What am I missing?

      • neryam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Stars that were behind the sun (within the radius of the sun, geometrically speaking) were visible due to gravitational lensing

          • Classy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It isn’t directly analogous because one is gravitational and the other is not, but if you’ve ever watched a ship sail beyond the horizon, sometimes you can see a reflection of the sail after it is no longer in direct sight, because the way that light can reflect around the curvature of the earth. It’s a pretty crazy phenomenon.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage#Superior_mirage

            In the case of the OP, as light from distant stars approach the sun, some of their light that may normally have passed to the side of the sun and beyond the earth, thus rendering them invisible, are instead ‘bent’ back towards the earth by the sun’s gravitational well. But since the sun is so luminous we normally cannot see those stars. If the sun were somehow dark we would see a collection of tiny, distorted stars around the perimeter of it.

            To metaphorize: imagine a ball rolling straight from a point directly in front of you, but at an angle such that it won’t roll to you. Now imagine a dip in the ground, not deep enough to cause it to fall in and not escape, but enough to cause the ball to curve as it rolls, sending it to you instead. The sun acts in a similar manner on light.