<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram masses · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1602.07539/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1602.07539/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram masses — mentioned by raattgift</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15716718</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1602.07539:15716718</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:17:59 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; From the outside, though, is it even in principle possible to tell whether a BH is a stellar-collapse Bh or if it&amp;#x27;s an eternal Schwarschild vacuum BH? There&amp;#x27;s a hint in &amp;quot;vacuum&amp;quot;. There&amp;#x27;s real stress-energy and it&amp;#x27;s not where you would put it if building an exact BH solution by hand (I&amp;#x27;ll return to that in the last paragraph). How do you tell if a body under a sheet has died peacefully in bed or was violently axe-murdered without lifting the sheet? Look for blood spatter. If you see the daughter products of a failed core collapse supernova around a black hole, I think it would be strange to…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1602.07539/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.ins-det</category></item><item><title>A micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram masses — mentioned by raattgift</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13773354</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1602.07539:13773354</guid><pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2017 11:36:19 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I’m not sure I believe that a mathematical formalism that is unable to make useful real world predictions deserves the “theory” moniker. Hence your list of quantum theories of gravity aren’t. On the contrary, the ones I listed are all completely in accord with General Relativity up to strong gravity and absent superposed sources, which is found from studying the renormalization group flow of perturbative quantum gravity and is four loops of gravitons in a 3+1 dimensional spacetime. Strong gravity can only be found very close to the singularity of black holes (and well inside event horizons…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1602.07539/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.ins-det</category></item></channel></rss>
