I've suggested (& published in 15 journal papers) a new theory called quantised inertia (or MiHsC) that assumes that inertia is caused by relativistic horizons damping quantum fields. It predicts galaxy rotation, cosmic acceleration & the emdrive without any dark stuff or adjustment.
My Plymouth University webpage is here, I've written a book called Physics from the Edge and I'm on twitter as @memcculloch

Monday, 23 February 2015

Debate on the facts.

Over the weekend I put up on wikipedia some lines on my peer-reviewed publications on MiHsC and how it can solve the galaxy rotation problem...etc. As has happened a few times before, it was all deleted by someone anonymous.

Instead of ranting about it, it's best to deal with things on the facts, so here is a summary of all the real problems MiHsC solves without needing any extra dimensions, huge amounts of invisible (dark) stuff, or any adjustable parameters either. MiHsC does it with a simple model for inertia, with a solid physical model behind it. A model that defines the inertial mass (mi) of an object to be

where m is the normal inertial mass, c is the speed of light, |a| is the magnitude of the acceleration of the object relative to other objects, and T is the Hubble scale. All these quantities are well defined and well known, so there is no scope in MiHsC for 'tuning' (adjustment) such as is done freely with dark matter, and even in MoND with the adjustable parameter a0, and yet without adjustment this MiHsC formula predicts the following anomalous observations, within their uncertainties:

The mass of the cosmos (solving the flatness problem), the low-l CMB anomaly (unexpected smoothness on cosmic scales, paper), the dynamics of galaxy clusters without dark matter (MoND cannot do this), galaxy rotation without dark matter (paper), the observed minimum mass of dwarf galaxies, the strange (un)bound orbit of Proxima Centauri, the Pioneer anomaly (far more simply than the 'accepted' Byzantine thermal solution) (paper), the flyby anomalies (paper), the Podkletnov (paper) and Tajmar anomalies (paper), the EmDrive, (paper) and it explains for the first time the phenomenon of inertial mass itself (only 0.1% of which is explained by the Higgs mechanism) (paper). An accessible introduction to MiHsC is here.

Mainstream theoretical (astro)physics, lost in Plato's realm, has lost the ability to debate issues on the facts, and has resorted to rearranging invisible entities and deleting new ideas online, but this is a symptom of its bankruptcy.

12 comments:

Unknown said...

I've formatted your inertial mass equation in LaTeX with http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php

mi = \textup{m}\left ( 1-\left ( \frac{2c^{2}}{\left | a \right |T} \right ) \right )

Which gives http://i.imgur.com/33dUvrB.png as an output.

Mike McCulloch said...

Thanks. I've updated with a graphic.

Tim Goff said...

Convert, imitator, or?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117714004153

[quote]It turns out that a Rindler-type radial extra-acceleration of the same magnitude as in the Pioneer anomaly would impact the Juno’s range-rate at a View the MathML sourceΔρ̇Rin≈1.5 μμm s−1 level.[/quote]

Mike McCulloch said...

Iorio is just showing the mundane effects he mentions can't have caused the flybys, & neither can a constant anomalous acceleration as for Pioneer. The way MiHsC predicts the flybys is different and depends on the change in orientation of the craft with respect to the Earth's spin (causing a change in mutual accelerations which changes its inertial mass with time). Still no papers out on the Juno flyby.

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/marty-mcfly-juno-flyby.html

Tim Goff said...

Mike, you seem to have spawned a hate group:

http://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/em-drive-system-further-confirmed.14456/page-9

They tear into your theory about halfway down the page.

Be warned: It ain't pretty.

Mike McCulloch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike McCulloch said...

Well, I'll stick to pointing out a few factual errors in their statements, some of which show a lack of understanding of MiHsC. For example, there is no contradiction between MiHsC's explanation for galaxy rotation & cosmic acceleration, and no ad hoc additions needed either. Also, after reading their statement that Tajmar had disproved his 2009 experiment (news to me) I emailed Tajmar to check, and he has replied that he still stands by his 2009 experimental results. The same confusion has arisen before, because he later reported no signal 'outside the cryostat', which is different. I wrote an earlier blog entry dealing with this:

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/comment-on-tajmars-latest-experiment.html

Tajmar also said in his email that there may have been vibration so he's going to redo the experiment with better sensors.

Draco Argentum said...

Wikipedia has some strange rules. You aren't allowed to cite primary sources or original research.

You might be getting hit by that rule. I know of at least one instance where US military archival documents were frowned on as sources.

Tim Goff said...

Mike, you find this yet?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150306091617.htm

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-

A quantum version of General Relativity demonstrates that dark energy and dark matter are different manifestations of gravity. The theory calculates the precise value of the cosmological constant, derives the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation, gives a quantum description of Black Holes and calculates the baryonic mass content of the observable universe.

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-

Can't make heads or tales of it myself. 'Not Fritz' waded through the math at the Astronomy site, and was seriously impressed, which takes some doing, though now he's fretting about Dark Energy.

Could your theory be shoehorned into this somehow?

Mike McCulloch said...

I can't get free access to the paper..? What I'd like to know is how much he's adjusted it by hand and how many assumptions he's made. MiHsC does all of that (except the, less well observed, black holes, which I've deliberately not looked at) without any adjustment and with a simple model. Pages of complex maths don't impress me. "The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain" - Scotty.

Tim Goff said...

ok, my bad. Seems there were TWO papers released at almost the same time featuring Dark Energy and Dark Matter. I didn't realize that until a short while ago. 'Not Fritz' was less than thrilled with the first paper I tried to link to here.

THIS is the one that seriously impressed 'Not Fritz' :
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150305110346.htm

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-

Physicists have gained new insights into dark energy and the theory of gravitation by analyzing data from the "Planck" satellite mission of the European Space Agency (ESA). Their results demonstrate that the standard model of cosmology remains an excellent description of the universe. Yet when the Planck data is combined with other astronomical observations, several deviations emerge. Further studies must determine whether these anomalies are due to measurement uncertainties or undiscovered physical correlations, which would also challenge Einstein's theory of gravitation. Thus, the analysis of the Planck data gives major impetus for research during future space missions.

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-

'Not Fritz's' commentary:

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-


OK. That was a bit of slog. They modeled theories of gravity (beyond GR and including GR) parametrically and also modeled the equation of state for dark matter and dark energy parametrically and tested the enlarged family of models for gravity and dark energy against various data sets.

It seems the LambdaCDM is not seriously contradicted. For some data sets LambdaCDM can get as bad as 2 sigma but for others the agreement is excellent. There is a possibility that the disagreement is due to dependencies in the data sets that have not yet been taken into account.

The main headache is that theories of dark energy seem to be in trouble. At early times the fraction of dark energy of the total mass-energy of the universe was much smaller than now. So there will likely be a new scramble to find models of dark energy that will fit the data.















|


Mike McCulloch said...

Thanks Tim. Seems a useful paper. I'll have a look..