3 ms·
But doesn't it have to have some charge to interact with matter in some way so as to achieve the observed effects that show that gravity from normal matter is i
by sgt101 6y ago
But doesn't it have to have some charge to interact with matter in some way so as to achieve the observed effects that show that gravity from normal matter is inadequate to explain how things move on a macro scale?
- corty 6y agoIt only has to have mass for gravitational interaction, and other charged (color, weak, em) are (mostly) excluded by observations. If there were much beyond gravity going on, we would have seen it. So our hope of detection is the remaining "not much"...
- LoSboccacc 6y ago> have to have some charge it can also be a new interaction driven by a completely different fundamental force. it's extremely unlikely, but "have to" is quite a strong statement for something we only know exists because observations deviate from our expectations.
- enkid 6y agoHow do you even judge the likelihood of something like that?
- LoSboccacc 6y agosame as everything else, the more changes it requires from the current model the less likely it's the solution
- enkid 6y agoThat's not how I judge likelihood at all. If you were to say that there is more mathematical wiggle room for other explanations, I would be more likely to agree, but simply having to change models has no impact on likelihood. That thinking would make Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, Natural Selection, or Genetics unlikely. Your argument could even be used to explain why it's more likely that the earth is flat because that's the intuitive model.
- LoSboccacc 6y agounlikely doesn't mean it's less good of a theory. it means the bar for verification/falsification is so much higher.