News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on If gravity isn't a force, then why does it "need" a boson?. Parent comment

Re:If gravity isn't a force, then why does it "need" a boson? by trhway on Wednesday March 20, 2024 @02:13PM (#39770141)
> So too can a metal bat. put a g-meter on the ball and it will register acceleration as force is applied to the ball. Gravity is different. Put a g-meter on a falling metal ball and it will detect zero acceleration.

That really depends on construction of your g-meter. If instead of mass (ie. gravitational charge) you use electric charge in your accelerometer then that electric charge on the falling ball - ie. moving with acceleration - will generate EM wave thus providing clear detection of acceleration.

Wrt. the "boson" - gravity effects propagate with finite speed, i.e. wave, and the neutron in gravitational potential experiment shows that the gravitational potential/energy is quantized, and thus we have wave and quantized nature -> boson (wave packet/quant mediating interaction of a charge with the field).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:If gravity isn't a force, then why does it "need" a boson? by ultrafilter on Wednesday March 20, 2024 @03:18PM (#39770846)
Your charge-based g-meter would also measure zero acceleration in free fall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_radiation_of_charge...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:If gravity isn't a force, then why does it "need" a boson? by lostmsu on Saturday March 23, 2024 @02:39PM (#39802140)
> the radiation goes into a region of spacetime inaccessible to the co-accelerating, supported observer. In effect, a uniformly accelerated observer has an event horizon, and there are regions of spacetime inaccessible to this observer

Curious interpretation, but beware this bit wasn't substantiated that well.

[ Parent | on HN ]