I've suggested (& published in 21 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

## Thursday, 23 March 2017

### New Evidence at High Redshift

One of the unique and testable predictions of MiHsC / quantised inertia is that the dynamics of galaxies should depend on the size of the observable universe. This is because it predicts a cosmic minimum allowed acceleration of 2c^2/Cosmicscale. Why is this? Well, the Unruh waves seen by an object and that (in QI) cause its inertial mass, lengthen as the object's acceleration reduces and you can't have an acceleration that gives you Unruh waves that are too big to resonate in the cosmos. So if you imagine running the cosmos backwards, as the cosmic scale shrinks, more Unruh waves would be disallowed (as in the narrow end of the emdrive), inertial mass goes down, centrifugal forces decrease and so galaxies need faster rotation to be dynamically balanced. Therefore, QI predicts that in the past galaxies should have been forced to spin faster (everything else being equal).

Many people online alerted me to a paper that has just been published in Nature (Genzel et al., 2017) that supports this prediction. The paper looked at six massive galaxies so far away from us that we are looking at them many billions of years ago when the observable universe was much less than its present size, and, sure enough, they spin faster! To compare QI with the data, I have plotted the preliminary graph below.

It shows along the x axis the observed acceleration of these ancient galaxies, determined from Doppler measurements of their stars' orbital speed (a=v^2/r) and along the y axis the minimum acceleration predicted by quantised inertia (a=2c^2/cosmicscale). The QI vs observation comparison for the six galaxies is shown by the black squares and the numbers next to them show the redshift of each galaxy. The redshift (denoted Z) is a measurement of distance. Erwin Hubble found that the further away galaxies are from us, the faster they are receding from us, and so their light is stretched in a Doppler sense and is redshifted. So redshift is proportional to distance. The redshifts of the galaxies in this study ranged from Z=0.854, bottom left in the plot, at which the cosmos was 54% its present size to Z = 2.383, centre right, for which the cosmos was pretty cramped at 30% its present size (the formula for the size of the cosmos at redshift Z is SizeThen=SizeNow/(1+Z).

Quantised inertia predicts clearly that the acceleration increases with redshift, just as observed. The diagonal line shows where the points should lie if agreement was exact. Although the points are slightly above the line this is not a huge worry since the data is so uncertain. The uncertainty in the observed acceleration is probably something like 40% (looking at the scatter plots in Genzel et al. I've assumed a 20% error in the velocities they measured, and a=v^2/r). I have not plotted error bars yet because it'll take time to work out properly what they are. The two highest redshift galaxies are obviously quite aberrant, and this shows that the data is not yet good enough to be conclusive.

So in a preliminary way, and error-bars pending, the graph shows that QI predicts the newly-observed increase in galaxy rotation in the distant past. Given the uncertainties, more data is urgently needed to confirm this. As far as I know, quantised inertia is the only theory that predicted this observed behaviour.

References

Genzel et al., 2017. Nature, 543, 397–401 (16 March 2017) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v543/n7645/abs/nature21685.html

Andrew Jaremko said...

Dr. McCullouch - I'm very pleased that you saw the posting of this paper. It showed up on my radar as well, and I was wondering how it fitted with quantized inertia. I wasn't sure how to read the data, and how it would fit with your model. But I'm glad that it fits so well, and that you have done a preliminary analysis and provided the graph. The message will get out eventually.

Peter Andrews said...

Congratulations on anot her successful prediction.

Can you comment on any insight MiHsc provides to the Tully-Fisher relation? I am curious about this since Eric Lerner discussed this in his arguments against the Big Bang.

Mike McCulloch said...

Peter: Thank you. MiHsC says that the Tully-Fisher relation is:

v^4 = 2GMc^2/Cosmicsize

So no arbitrary parameters are needed, and T-F varies with Cosmicsize / era.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7007

Filip Piękniewski said...

Mike, do you think MiHsC could be used as a model for jets on accreting disks? As far as I know, the theory for those things is a bit flaky, problems of angular momentum transport etc. Since I've looked at your paper on flyby anomalies (where there was additional acceleration in the polar region, perpendicular to the plane of rotation), I've been thinking whether this could not be another interesting application?

Mike McCulloch said...

Dear Filip,
Very good point. Indeed, as you noticed, MiHsC predicts a loss of inertial mass near to spin axes, because the mutual acceleration there is smaller, hence the flyby anomalies. This effect is bigger especially for larger, slower rotating objects like galaxies and maybe accretion discs. I tried modelling galactic relativistic jets on paper, but didn't get far because it depends very strongly on what minimum rotational radius you assume. It probably needs a computer model.

Analytic D said...

Mike,

There is almost certainly a correlation between jet speeds/distances and red-shift, for a given radius.

But for a given radius, think about the round-tipped-cone shape of a horizon, then super-impose all the cones for the matter of some spinning galaxy. Then consider the density of the overlap along the axis of rotation. Fix some point along the axis.

Objects at that point will experience less mutual acceleration, but in all those relative directions at once. This damps the object's horizon in all directions, reducing inertia. This must be the case if all reference frames are equally valid.

Analytic D said...

As a follow-up, I think this is basically what is happening with all the other spinning disc anomalies, as well as the fly-by anomaly.

I hadn't gotten a clear mental image of the mechanics until now.

tyy said...

Fascinating to observe how self-made realities are born.

Josave said...

Much more fascinatig is to see how they die... Dark matter fraud:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2017/02/06/dogma-derailed-search-dark-matter/

joesixpack said...

Wow. The empirical falsification of dark matter is too much to ignore.

Six more papers in that link..."tyy" - perhaps you should read them?

David Anjelo said...

Physicists may have observed Hawking radiation for the first time

https://phys.org/news/2010-09-physicists-hawking.html

qraal said...

The unappreciated fact in the Dark-Matter vs MOND debate is that essentially MOND is an approximation to Horizon Mechanics ;-)

qraal said...

Lee Smolin has essentially posted Horizon Mechanics on the arXiv, but failed to mention your work...

https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.00780

...might need to get in his ear about it.

Mike McCulloch said...

qraal: Well, with a quick look at it, it is not yet quantised inertia / horizon mechanics (he still uses a0 and he needs two metrics, and at the end he dismisses the approach anyway) but it is getting close enough that Smolin should have mentioned my work. I can't believe he's not aware of it, especially since I've been sending him pdfs of my papers for the past six years! (I never get a reply). I'll email him..

qraal said...

In my mind, surely he should've thought of your work!

He's open to new ideas, being a contrarian on so many matters, but probably gets a pile of well-meant emails - like any physics celebrity. Would be hard to get through his filters.

Mike McCulloch said...

qraal: Thanks. Anyway, I've emailed him politely pointing out it was unprofessional of him to omit mention of QI (I'm fairly sure most theorists r aware of QI now, and he's more aware than most). So after he reads that we're bound to be friends in no time ;)

Mike McCulloch said...

qraal: I've just received a reply from Lee Smolin apologising for not reading my emails. Nice guy. He says he'll cite my work in future :)

Stuart Matthews said...

Interesting development;

http://newatlas.com/dark-energy-existence-questioned/48708/

Analytic D said...

Stuart: I like how the answer they come back with is to just use even more computing power. Mike's characterization of overspending on DM is seeming truer and truer.

qraal said...

Excellent news Mike! Smolin probably gets buried in email. Hopefully it's the start of a beautiful scientific relationship.

qraal said...

Slightly tangential to the discussion, but an ongoing demonstration of a possible EM-Drive is again hinted at in the media...

http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/112839/20170327/u-s-air-force-top-secret-x-37b-spaceplane-breaks.htm

...confirmation that it works, with hard performance data, would be a potential boon to Horizon Mechanics. Of course a null result would be *less* fun. But experiment trumps expectation.

Zephir said...

/* you can't have an acceleration that gives you Unruh waves that are too big to resonate in the cosmos. So if you imagine running the cosmos backwards, as the cosmic scale shrinks, more Unruh waves would be disallowed (as in the narrow end of the emdrive), inertial mass goes down, centrifugal forces decrease and so galaxies need faster rotation to be dynamically balanced. Therefore, QI predicts that in the past galaxies should have been forced to spin faster (everything else being equal) */

Except that I think, that Universe is steady state - so that the local characteristics of remote galaxies shouldn't change with distance. Not to say, we have multiple observations, that dark matter dominated the early Universe instead - this info even already got into textbooks and encyclopedias. So that we have a nice controversy here, don't we? BTW Could you please document, that the Nature article observation was actually predicted by MiHsC/QI theory instead of postdicted?

Mike McCulloch said...

Zephir: I predicted this last year well before the latest Nature paper, and I wrote a paper and I have submitted it to many journals so far with no luck, see this blog:

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/a-test-using-redshift_30.html

but at the time I had checked around and found some less conclusive evidence that this was the case (see the blog) so it wasn't a complete shot in the dark.

Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that QI fits the data.

Zephir said...

OK, so you deserve the adding to this list. Anyway, I can still see conflict of the galactic rotation evolution with steady state Universe. The seeming change of dark matter concentration / density doesn't represent a problem for it - but it shouldn't change the dynamic behavior of galaxies.

qraal said...

Hi Mike,

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aa5da9

...but without mentioning your work in the abstract.

It must be something in the concept ether that people are thinking independently.

Zephir said...

/* It must be something in the concept ether that people are thinking independently. */

And it actually is: in dense aether model this behavior has its analogy in behavior of black holes (remnants of visible matter) and the dark matter (progenitor of visible matter). The black represent the past of Universe and they tend to evaporate soon or later. They remain cohesive, being formed with particles of positive space-time curvature. Instead of it, the particles of opposite space-time curvature are systematically expelled from them.

Dark matter particles (scalar waves, magnetic turbulences of vacuum) behave like the sparse bubbles of space-time and they're repelling mutually at distance, thus remaining in diaspora. Instead of it, they're attracted to gravity field of existing observable matter, thus forming dark matter halo around massive galaxies and stars, which though remains separated at distance. The experts in alternative physics behave similarly - they're expelled from mainstream and they're working in diaspora, which fighting each other. This effect indeed slows down cooperation and progress, which has particularly tragical consequences for research of cold fusion and overunity technologies.

Our Mike McCulloch isn't very different in this matter, as he has a tendency to delimit himself against MOND/MOD and holographic models, despite his numeric/geometric model looks quite close to them. I presume it has very much to do with natural human competitiveness or even jealousy. The scientific people aren't very different in this respect: they cooperate only if they can get more profit from it.

Zephir said...

BTW Whereas the omission of citation by Smolin could be still understood by different perspective of thinking, the above example looks like way more serious case of plagiarism for Mike - as it utilizes his very logic, but it cites the MOND instead of MiHsC theory. Now McCulloch will face the hard reality, that with respect to numeric predictions his MiHsC theory gets very close to MOND theory, which is forty years old and as such much better established in physics. After all, how exactly the Milgrom's scale of acceleration ${a}_{0}=({cH}/2\pi )\sqrt{1-q}$ differs from MiHsC's one? I think, just by numeric factor.

Zephir said...

Even worse for Mike is, van Putten is using holography in his reasoning of Rindler horizon, which currently represents the bandwagon of all abandoned string theorists (from Verlinde to Maldacena), who are just seeking the satisfaction after failure of their theories at LHC and underground WIMPs detectors. The problem is, once you apply the projective geometry of 5D holography and Milgrom's Hc factor, then you wouldn't need to use the MiHsC at all for generation the very similar phenomenological predictions. Instead of it, you will get the warm support of most assertive portion of theoretical physical community. Because the wide portfolio of McCulloch's predictions is just what all these guys need most desperately in a given moment. Now they can derive them in their own way one after another.

Unknown said...

@zephir, there is a significant difference between having an arbitrary constant (which is set to different values for different galaxies IIRC) and having a formula consisting entirely of externally defined values that applies to more and more 'unusual' situations.

Mike McCulloch said...

Unknown: That is right, and well said. I've made this point many times. If they have to use a fudge factor (a0) then they don't have MiHsC, which predicts a0 and also how it changes when the Cosmicscale changes (as in the emdrive, or galaxies at different redshift). As far as I can see, no one in the mainstream has yet understood MiHsC.

Zephir said...

@Unknown: Milgrom doesn't use arbitrary constants in his theory. What is arbitrary on a0 = cH_0 ~ 10^{-8} cm s^{-2} product?

Mike McCulloch said...

Zephir: As you know, the value of a0 is not set in MoND from a theory. It is fitted empirically from lots of galaxy rotation data. It is arbitrary in MoND in the sense that there is no 'reason' given for its value. Hand-waving after the 'tuning' that a0 is close to cH is not enough.

MiHsC gives a physical reason that predicts a0 exactly. So MiHsC is above the level of theories like Newtonian gravity that need an arbitrary constant, G, and is at the level of special relativity that needs nothing arbitrary and only observables like c.

Zephir said...

/* Hand-waving after the 'tuning' that a0 is close to cH is not enough */

It's derived from cold dark matter theory. Anyway, the mainstream physics doesn't care very much, how its derivation actually work, once they work and they're supported with other theories.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7483
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0107284
https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.06110

The inherent property of hyperdimensional phenomena like the dark matter is, they can be described from multiple equally relevant low-dimensional perspectives / projections at the same moment. In such case the physical community may not support the most straightforward explanation - but this one, which compromises the least number of existing explanations and theories. In this extent the physical theories condense between facts on principles of Bayesian logic, like the dark matter filaments between galaxies (analogy of facts). The MOND/MiHsC theories cannot account to this mechanism yet, as they lead into spherically symmetric solutions of dark matter around massive bodies - i.e. not filaments.

Zephir said...

/* Hand-waving after the 'tuning' that a0 is close to cH is not enough */

Once you believe in expanding universe model, then it's quite easy to imagine, that this expansion would lead into deceleration term a0 = cH, once you will travel at large distances like the Pioneer spaceprobe. During your travel the Universe and distance between bodies will expand a bit, which would slow-down your travel a bit.

Zephir said...

It's true, that Milgrom didn't realize this simple connection from the very beginning of his theory - but your understanding of the actual role of "Unruh" radiation in your own model is apparently a subject of evolution too.. ;-) The ideas simply develop and gradually improve - it's natural and logical. Anyway, both MOND, both MiHsC are conceptually similar and they apply to warm dark matter only: the cold dark matter filaments or particle-like hot dark matter with cohesive effects are still waiting for their coherent description. If you want to get it, you should read what I already wrote about it.

Now you have basically three options, where to go. First, you can keep your original maverick line of reasoning and try to find as many empirical evidence for your theory, as you can get. IMO you're good in it and the predictive power of your warm dark matter model isn't still exhausted. Second, you can jump to the MOND and holography bandwagon and to prove, how and why these models are equivalent to your model and to merge with mainstream in this way. Or finally you can start to think, how to develop more general model of dark matter, which would make you more progressive and cited by future generations - but also even more distant from mainstream, than by now.

Unknown said...

@zephir

you keep talking about dark matter, but miss that the theory being talked bout here does not use dark matter, it assumes there is zero (or near zero) dark matter.

you are missing that the hey to Mike's theory is the math that predicts the behavior, the explanations of why the formula works is far less important than the fact that it does (and that it does without requiring a 'magic number' being used)

David Lang (aka unknown above :-)

P.S. your concern for Mike's legacy is noted, but I'm pretty sure that he's not in this for his legacy, but rather because he spotted something that he thinks works better than what's currently used. Your "Concern Trolling" about how mike should abandon his positions so that he will be accepted more are not likely to help.

Zephir said...

@Unknown: we are talking here about dark matter like about colloquial denomination of deviations from classical relativity and Newtonian physics. In wider context every space-time curvature can be considered as a matter https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125645-800-you-are-made-of-space-time

For example in dense aether model the gravitational lens is additional matter surrounding the massive body like the atmosphere and it exhibits the surface tension, which has mechanical properties and which collects another bubbles of space-time, i.e. the dark matter particles. The actual behavior of dark matter is also much reacher, than the MiHsC/MOND theories describe, it for example not only makes large objects more cohesive, but also small objects more dynamic (hotter) and so on.

Zephir said...

reacher = richer

Unknown said...

redefining 'dark matter' to mean 'whatever it takes to account for the observations' instead of the traditional 'physical matter that we can't see' means that you can call anything 'dark matter'

it undermines all your statements to make this redefinition.

David Lang

Mike McCulloch said...

Unknown/David: I agree with you. Zephir's desire to name 'whatever is the cause of galaxy rotation' to be 'dark matter' is absolutely wrong, and misleading. I'm sure dark matter-ists would love it since they could claim to be right, even when proven to be wrong, but in science physical objects come before words, and dark matter means 'matter is there that we can't see'. Quantised inertia is the opposite: matter that we can see is not completely there. You could call it 'light matter' I suppose, in the sense of weight.

Zephir said...

@Mike: The dark matter represents quasiparticles of vacuum, i.e. the vacuum fluctuations which are on the verge of matter and radiation behavior (anapoles, anyons). Like I've said, the MOND/MOD/MiHsC/TeVeS/STVG, etc. theories describe only one component of dark matter and only subset of this component behavior. There exists lighter forms of dark matter, which form filaments and which don't fit the spherical symmetry of MOND/MiHsC - and also heavier, which are more close to massive particles, than all these theories expect.

I noticed, that you're fighting with ignorance of mainstream physics community often - but such a critique considers, you will not behave like ignorant yourself both with respect to older theories (Milgrom, holography, entropic gravity) - both these future ones (Zephir). Of course MiHsC theory is yours and the final strategy is solely up to you, but you should count with consequences.

Mike McCulloch said...

Zephir: Some of your comments are good, but some I do not agree with at all. For example you say 'there exist lighter forms of dark matter'. There is no direct evidence for that. Sure, there are filaments but explaining them by making a falsified hypothesis (dark matter) even more complex is a classic mistake made repeatedly in every epoch of history. It could be an effect of MiHsC, but I will not feign confidence until I can predict their size (without an adjustable parameter). That is the right attitude, and that is the difference between MiHsC and the other theories.

About your second comment. I am not ignorant of the other theories, and I like MoND as being an early clue to MiHsC, but I do not believe them because they do not agree with all the data DESPITE all having adjustable parameters. Therefore, they are wrong. Also, EG is not an older hypothesis, it was first published 3 years after MiHsC.

Zephir said...

My posts are all perfect - just some are so advanced, that you cannot understand them, because you're trapped in your mindset in similar way, like the mainstream physicists adhere on their own theories.

So once again: which geometric distribution of dark matter your or MOND theory predicts? It's given by their formula, which contains parameter like the radius or distance from massive objects - as such they cannot predict directional distribution of dark matter, like the dark matter filaments between galaxies.

Zephir said...

Your ignorance of Hc parameter of MOND theory is also kind of mainstream physics ignorance, as you're believing, that this theory operates with ad hoced parameters only. But this is not true for at least last ten years already. These theories all evolve with time and MOND theory is not an exception.

Entropic gravity is also quite old stuff that goes back at least to research on black hole thermodynamics by Bekenstein and Hawking in the mid-1970s and holography from mid 90's. It just gained popularity in connection with recent failure of SUSY at LHC and WIMPs models at detectors.

Josave said...

Zephir,

Will all due respect, youy don't understand MiHsC, there is simply not dark matter, and neither matter at all, all are just relations of distances and node points in Unruh low frequency radiation. Thet define the distribution of movement and inertia. Please, don`t insist in recovering the "matter" paradigm and advance yourself in a Machian distribution and non local theories.

I recomend reading of Lee Smolin article cited in this same post.

Happy easter to all,

Zephir said...

Actually I think I can understand the MiHsC better than McCulloch himself in this moment, because I can also see the limits of this theory (and also the ways, in which it can be substituted with another mainstream model which McCulloch denies obstinately in apparent fear from competition).

From certain perspective all massive particles are product of interference of some longtitudinal and transverse waves dancing at place, the dark matter particles aren't an exception. What else are the solitons and vortex rings, than the some special anyon particles (they can collide and bounce), which share their properties with waves (they cannot stop their motion at place) These objects (colloquially called scalar waves at the case of dark matter) can move collectively and / or by their very own the more, they more atemporal and massive they get.

My own dark matter theory gets even more non local than the MiHsC theory, once it deals with cold dark matter - but it also admits local cohesive effects of scalar waves, once it deals with hot dark matter. These components of dark matter are in dynamic equilibrium like the water droplets are in equilibrium with underwater turbulence and sound waves inside the Tibetian bowl filled with water.

Analytic D said...

Actually, I don't think you do understand MiHsC and the implications of horizons at various scales and the details of such system topologies.

Your word salad doesn't disclose your idea or meaning at all like you think it does. And anonymous reference to your own theory doesn't either. However, I think you are at least gesturing towards the truth of (the) matter.

Consider two tightly coorbiting particles. Their Rindler spaces are thus tight overlapping cones. Another particle could approach the pair yet never interact with the physically closer of the two because it is beyond the horizon edge for that particle. This type of close orbit sheltering is a powerful concept with big implications.

If there is really overlap in your ideas and horizons, you will find it there.

Zephir said...

Actually I do understand the cold dark matter just as an result of many overlapping Rindler spaces (shielding cones of hyperdimensional and superluminal holographic radiation) of multiple bodies. Your proposal would work, if the Rindler cones would propagate luminaly - but this is just what can be doubted in MiHsC model.