[HN Gopher] Quantum particles can feel the influence of gravitat... ___________________________________________________________________ Quantum particles can feel the influence of gravitational fields Author : galaxyLogic Score : 71 points Date : 2023-12-01 05:48 UTC (17 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.sciencenews.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.sciencenews.org) | cowboysauce wrote: | The article's description of the Aharonov-Bohm effect seems kinda | misleading to me. It's not that particles are being affected by a | field that's not there, it's that the particles are affected by | the electromagnetic potential, which can be non-zero even though | the field is zero (the two are related through some simple | equations). | kurthr wrote: | So to be simple you're saying the field is the slope (or | actually gradient) of the potential. So if it's constant (but | high) there is no slope, but significant potential, like being | on a mesa. And that difference in potential rather than slope | affects the paired quantum particles? | AnimalMuppet wrote: | It's not the electric field; it's the magnetic field. There | is still a potential, but the potential is a vector. | | My ability to picture what is going on has never extended to | the magnetic vector potential, so I have no intuition about | how that plays in here... | cowboysauce wrote: | There is an electrical variant of the effect, it just | hasn't been well tested experimentally. | cowboysauce wrote: | Right, but pairs of particles aren't relevant. The effect | occurs for any particle that interacts electromagnetically. | And the magnetic field is the curl of its potential. | rnhmjoj wrote: | Some argue that it's neither a non-local interaction (the test | particle being affected despite no field in its region) nor | that the interaction is caused by the four-potential, which | would then be physical and more fundamental than the field | tensor. On the contrary, it may just be an artefact of the | semi-classical treatment that is normally done: classical | theory for the fields, quantum one for the test particle. See | this, for example: https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.6169 | zitterbewegung wrote: | So if I am reading this correctly this is basically an | observation that the Aharonov-Bohm effect can be done by gravity | on entangled particles ? | | I'm guessing this won't provide much insight on theories for | quantum gravity? | Koshkin wrote: | Well, you never know... The current explanation of this (and of | the original) effect uses the classical interpretation of the | field involved. | dguest wrote: | The title here leaves off "they never touch", which is important | to show evidence for for the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Having quantum | particles feel the influence of gravitational fields isn't | exactly news. | SerpentJoe wrote: | I could point out several that are doing that very thing right | now. | kazinator wrote: | Including particles that have no rest mass. E.g. photons: light | follows the curvatures in space/time that are linked to | gravity. | mikhailfranco wrote: | _Observation of a gravitational Aharonov-Bohm effect_ | https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl7152 | badrabbit wrote: | Pardon the stupid question but since most experiments and | observations are done on earth, how do scientists know that | fundamental forces like electromagnetism and the strong force are | not being influenced by gravity? What if chemical/atomic bonds | and molecular structures don't form the same way or require | more/less energy depending on gravitational influence? | | As a layman, I would think that gravity pulls down sub-atomic | particles, wouldn't that slow them down compared to say outside | the heliosphere and oort cloud? Would electrons spin faster if | they are located at an inter-galactic void? | | More insane is the measurement of 'c', is all using | electromagnetism, but if that in itself is being slowed down by | gravity, well I can't even begin to comprehend the implications. | antognini wrote: | If the electromagnetic force changed in some way depending on | the gravitational influence then atoms would produce different | spectral lines. However, we can observe the spectral lines | produced by atoms and molecules in the interstellar medium | where the net gravitational force is much weaker. There is no | difference between these lines and what we observe in the lab. | (Except for certain expected effects from the reduced pressure | like reduced Doppler broadening and the appearance of | "forbidden" lines.) | pdonis wrote: | First, we have extensive observational data from elsewhere in | the universe that tells us that the fundamental interactions | work the same everywhere. For example, we see light coming from | regions that have very different gravity, but it still behaves | the same. | | Second, on the scale of atoms, or even on the scale of ordinary | macroscopic objects, gravity is so extremely weak that its | effects on things like chemical bonds or the structure of | nuclei, atoms, and molecules is negligible. If you have a very | massive object like a star (or a white dwarf or neutron star), | then of course you have different states of matter possible | (degenerate matter in stellar cores, white dwarfs, and neutron | stars), but even those states of matter still have all the | fundamental interactions working the same way. The different | states of matter are due to the extreme density and pressure, | not due to any change in the fundamental interactions. | | Third, what we usually call "the speed of light in vacuum" is | actually a property of spacetime, not specifically of light. So | the idea of this speed being "slowed down by gravity" is based | on a confusion. That property of spacetime (a better name for | it would be local Lorentz invariance) is the same everywhere no | matter how weak or strong gravity is. | rkagerer wrote: | Isn't gravity a property of spacetime? (curvature) | petschge wrote: | You can describe it that way. But different parts of | spacetime can have different curvature, so you get | different impact of gravity. No matter how you describe it, | gravity is different on Earth, Moon or in deep space and | your theory has to model that no matter if it uses forces, | curvature of spacetime or something else. | dschuetz wrote: | What the hell are "quantum particles"? | Koshkin wrote: | I guess, this is a shorthand for "particles studied in quantum | physics." | I_Am_Nous wrote: | In this case, they mean particles they have hit with a laser to | split into superposition, so "quantum particles" = "particles | in superposition". | nh23423fefe wrote: | objects described by wavefunctions | magicalhippo wrote: | Just a layman but whenever I read that, I interpret it as | "particles exhibiting quantum phenomena", like superposition or | entanglement. | | This would be unlike classical particles which does not exhibit | these effects. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | I thought all gravity from everything touched everything. | Suffocate5100 wrote: | Now, how do they know? Have they interviewed any quantum | particles? | Koshkin wrote: | No need (and who wants to be lied to, anyway?), the behavior | observed was quite telling. | russellbeattie wrote: | I mean, they have to, no? To the best of my understanding, | gravity isn't a force, it's the bending of space around us caused | by mass. Everything is forever moving in a perfect straight line | from its perspective, but that line is curved depending on the | mass of nearby objects, which affects the speed of movement | (time). We're all moving around the Earth, which moves around the | sun, which moves around the galaxy, which moves around the | universe. This includes all particles which makes up everything. | The idea that the gravitational field has no effect on them makes | no sense. The question is simply "how much" of an effect. | NotYourLawyer wrote: | It's not about fields. Everybody knows fields affect particles. | This is about the gravitational potential. | Koshkin wrote: | But without a field there is no potential, is there? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-12-01 23:00 UTC)