> The paper contains a very short and sweet explanation.
As the saying goes, all complex questions have simple, easy to understand wrong answers. This is an example. See my response to georgeburdell upthread.
As for galaxy rotation curves, yes, the paper's claim is overblown.
Haha, yes, I remain skeptical at best of QI. I know just enough physics that I probably should have thought of the issue you mentioned up there, too. Still, the idea remains pretty enough that it's tempting to try to salvage it, like even if it's not technically Unruh radiation, maybe there's a reference frame or other perspective where the math works anyway... But that only makes sense if the real life numbers work out, and I'm not going to take this guy's word for it.
Comments
> The paper contains a very short and sweet explanation.
As the saying goes, all complex questions have simple, easy to understand wrong answers. This is an example. See my response to georgeburdell upthread.
As for galaxy rotation curves, yes, the paper's claim is overblown.
Haha, yes, I remain skeptical at best of QI. I know just enough physics that I probably should have thought of the issue you mentioned up there, too. Still, the idea remains pretty enough that it's tempting to try to salvage it, like even if it's not technically Unruh radiation, maybe there's a reference frame or other perspective where the math works anyway... But that only makes sense if the real life numbers work out, and I'm not going to take this guy's word for it.
> even if it's not technically Unruh radiation, maybe there's a reference frame or other perspective where the math works anyway
There can't be, by Lorentz invariance. If a free-falling observer sees zero radiation in one frame, they must see zero radiation in any frame.