Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They measured a bigger gravitational effect on the particle No, they didn't. They measured a phase shift in the particle's wave function. There is no "gravitational force" in free fall, and the particles were in free fall. > gravity decreases with distance squared The Newtonian gravitational force does, but the Newtonian gravitational force is irrelevant for an experiment conducted in free fall, as this one was. Th…
>Each of those two sets of atoms were split into superpositions, with one path traveling closer to the mass than the other, separated by about 25 centimeters One path of the particle in superposition was closer to the 1.25Kg mass than the other path, and they did measure a difference when doing that. I don't know if you are trying to be pedantic, or just want to contradict. I know what you are saying, but the the exp…
They measured a phase shift in the wave function, as I said. They did not measure any direct difference in "gravitational effect" on the particles, as for example a difference in bending of their trajectories due to the source mass would be.
> the expression "not touching the field" makes perfect sense to me
The problem with it, as several commenters have pointed out, is that you can't shield anything from gravity. The "not touching the field" comes from electromagnetism, where you can shield things from the field. So the "not touching the field" interpretation, while it works for EM, does not work for gravity.