MiHsC (the first model that explains inertia) works using horizons, which are boundaries in space between areas that can get information to us at light speed, and areas which can't, like black hole event horizons. If you accelerate away from a region of space fast enough it means that information there suddenly cannot get to you and an information horizon forms cutting it off. In MiHsC this horizon damps the zero point field on the side opposite to your acceleration vector, so you roll down a gradient in the zpf towards the horizon, and this models inertial mass. I wrote a twitter-poem to summarise this:

*If you move to the right,*

the left's out of your sight.

so a 'horizon' appears,

damps zero point fields,

pulling u back.

Inertia is that!

the left's out of your sight.

so a 'horizon' appears,

damps zero point fields,

pulling u back.

Inertia is that!

The idea of information horizons may seem abstract, but this model explains a lot (eg: galaxy rotation without dark matter) and there is one big clue that is obviously MiHsC-like. The biggest object we can ever hope to see is the Hubble horizon. Distant stars are moving away from us at faster than the speed of light, so their information is lost to us. This causes the Hubble horizon surrounding the sphere of the visible universe.

The other interesting observation, made by Reiss and Perlmutter in 1999, is that the entire universe is accelerating away from itself. This phrase is easy to say, but the universe is a pretty big thing. You may have tried to push a car which is maybe 1000 kg in weight, and if you're like me, you'll have had difficulty. The cosmos is 10^49 times heavier than that, and yet something is accelerating it! Modern physics just glibly invents this so called 'dark energy' but suggests no origin for it. The amount of energy involved here would be very useful if we could understand and therefore control it.

MiHsC provides the right amount of energy straight away. It can be explained using Unruh waves as I have before, and also in a simplified mechanistic way by the diagram above. The Hubble horizon is shown by the black circle. The red is the zero point field (energy usually unavailable to us, because it is spatially uniform). MiHsC means that the ZPF is damped between the yellow stars and the Hubble edge (see the orange areas) so that more energetic virtual particles hit the stars from the cosmic centre, then from the other direction accelerating the stars outwards towards the Hubble horizon. Note that the acceleration of the stars is due to their apparent vicinity to the Hubble horizon from our point of view. from their point of view it would be us near the horizon, and us accelerating. MiHsC predicts the cosmic acceleration very well.

Can gravity also be modeled this way? Could it be due to objects making sheltered regions in the zero point field (see the narrow orange corridors)? I have not yet managed to show the mathematically.

## 12 comments:

I thought you might find this interesting - Can not add Pdf so you will have to search for the articles.

What is an electron?

A new model: the phase-locked cavity

by R. C.Jennison, B.Sc., Ph.D., F.I.E.E., F.R.A.S., F. Inst.P., F,R.S.A.

Electronics Laboratories, University of Kent at Canterbury

In: WIRELESS WORLD. JUNE 1979 Page 42-47

On the fundamental properties of matter

By R.C. JENNISON

Electronics Laboratories, The University of Kent in Canterbury, England.

Good and informative description of MiHsC for those of us without a physics degree.

I'm also intrigued by the idea of gravity as the mutual "shadow" of massive bodies eclipsing some uniform background field.

The rigorous details of such a sheltering model for gravity are elusive, but the concept is intuitive.

A thought I'd had about it is that Unruh waves don't really transmit any information, being a quantum effect, and so it might make sense to treat it as a sort of revealed standing wave, based upon the observers acceleration. Except since particles are non-unique, their unruh radiation is interfered with by other similar particles in a probabilistic/quantum way per pair. Closer pairs block more waves. Count_M1 * Count_M2 * Scaling_factor / R^2. Looks just like gravity.

FYI Jennison's basic model can be found here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0305-4470/11/8/013/meta;jsessionid=5784B1F599B2AE7FB0A62B6E4D9DD89D.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Larry Reed has a paper on Academia.edu which seems to have a similar physical basis.

https://www.academia.edu/11093756/Confinement_of_Light_Standing_Wave_Transformations_in_a_Phase-Locked_Resonator

And that Wireless World essay is here:

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Quantum%20Theory%20/%20Particle%20Physics/Download/3309

Now this is fascinating - it appeared just yesterday:

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep28263

Dear Dr. McCulloch,

You wrote: "If you accelerate away from a region of space fast enough it means that information there suddenly cannot get to you and an information horizon forms cutting it off."

I was just thinking about this, and wonder if this might be incorrect or maybe I misunderstand. Imagine that information from the information horizon is being transmitted to you by light. If you try to accelerate away from that light, it seems like the distance between you and your information horizon would stretch behind you during the acceleration. This is because of the constancy of the speed of light. Am I missing something?

To further clarify, if someone was hand delivering information to, you could out distance them, but you could never outdistance information being transmitted at c that is within your information horizon.

Jack: It is difficult to explain clearly, but here's an easier way to think about it using the equivalence principle (which is valid in MiHsC/QI for normal to large accelerations). Instead of accelerating rightwards you can just as well say you're in the gravity field of a mass to your right. You send a light beam to your left to get information and the gravity field bends it back to you so you can't probe beyond a certain distance (this is now your information horizon). The bigger the mass (or the more your acceleration to the right is) then the more space bends and the lesser distance the light probe can go before it comes back, so the nearer the information/Rindler horizon is.

I think I follow. It seems like the light wouldn't be bent all the way around back to you unless you had the most extreme accelerations (gravity levels). Maybe you just mean that it would bend away from where you attempt to send it preventing you from getting the information that you would have gotten without accelerating (creating a horizon for that information).

Question - Hubble horizon will get smaller over time (the Universe expansion ratio is increasing). How will this affect MiHsC? Looks like over time difference between inertia and mass will be more and more profound? Does it mean galaxies will collapse into black holes much faster than we expect?

The Hubble horizon will get larger with time (towards the future). Your comments are correct if you are talking about backward time. In the distance past the ratio mi/mg will be lower, and 2c^2/Theta will be larger so MiHsC/QI predicts inflation.

Post a Comment