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

## Sunday, 14 January 2018

### How QI gets rid of dark matter

Many people have asked me for a simple, graphical explanation of how quantised inertia (QI) gets rid of the awful dark matter, so here it is, for them. We start off with a schematic of a galaxy (see below, in yellow). Outer stars have been observed to have a rotational speed (the red arrow) so big that the inertial (centrifugal) forces (white arrow) should be much greater than the gravitational forces from all the matter we can see (the black arrow) and so, if it had any decency, the galaxy ought to fly apart. The problem is that galaxies are showing no decency at all, and do not fly apart. Why? Mainstream astrophysicists add arbitrary dark matter to boost the gravity arrow and achieve balance that way. Quantised inertia shrinks the inertial arrow instead.

To explain quantised inertia I will start with an oceanographic analogy (see below). A ship is parked at a dock. Lots of ocean waves can exist and hit it from the seaward side (the wavy line), but no waves can fit within the gap between the ship and the dock, they don't resonate in that space, so on average the ship is pushed by the waves towards the dock. If the crew of the ship were unaware of the waves they would say "It is a magic force moving us towards the dock!".

There is another sea. One predicted by quantum mechanics. It is a sea of quantum particles, and we have only recently detected it because Hendrik Casimir showed that if you put two plates very close together, like the ship and the dock, the plates will move together. That has now been confirmed (in 1996) so this invisible sea really does exist. Now consider an object accelerating to the right (black circle, white arrow below). It will see the quantum sea, actually an enhanced version of it (Unruh radiation). Relativity now says that in the opposite direction to the acceleration, information will not be able to catch up with the object. So there will be a horizon, like a black hole event horizon (see the black crescent). In quantised inertia this horizon is treated just like the dock wall in the analogy. it damps the waves between the object and itself. As in the analogy the object sees more waves from the right and is pushed back, always against its acceleration. This 'asymmetric Casimir effect' predicts what we always assumed before to be a 'magical' inertial mass, because we couldn't see these quantum waves (which only exist in the object's reference frame).

Information also cannot get to us from beyond the Hubble horizon, since stars there are moving away from us at the speed of light. So this horizon damps the Unruh waves equally all around the object, and so it damps the waves on the right side (there already aren't any on the left) - see the change from the dashed waves to the solid waves, below. This reduces the effect of the aCe process detailed above, and the resistance to acceleration, the inertial mass. This reduction is more serious for the longer Unruh waves that occur for low accelerations,since these 'feel' the cosmic boundary more.

The prediction then is that inertial mass is lowered for stars at the edge of galaxies, since they orbit in a slow curve and have a very low acceleration. This reduces the centrifugal (inertial) force outwards (see the change from the dashed to the solid white arrow, below) and the inertial force now balances the gravitational force - quantised inertia predicts the balance exactly for these edge stars, using only the visible matter, the speed of light and the Hubble scale, so that no arbitrariness or dark matter is needed.

I hope you can appreciate the beauty and simplicity of this theory. It has not yet been tested on the insides of galaxies, I'll need a galaxy model for that, but it does predict a lot of other observations as well such as the cosmic acceleration and the emdrive.

References

McCulloch, M.E., 2017. Galaxy rotations from quantised inertia and visible matter only. Astrophys. & Space Sci. 362, 149. Link to open access paper

If you wish to support my work a little, you can do so here:
https://www.paypal.me/MikeMcCulloch

Zephir said...

It's increasingly difficult for me to follow your deductions, because they're based on various geometric models - MiHsC and QI, Unruh radiation horizons and some sort of Cassimir shielding, combination of very long and short distance effects. Could you get a bit more coherent in your thoughts?

Anonymous said...

Hi Zephir,
I recommend reading Mike book, it is well structured, details the theory in a logical path and tell how the ideas came to Mike...moreover is funny to read...

The only drawback is the price, but I can assure you is worth and really a fresh reading if you are interested in the subject. Can be also a good introduction to read scientic papers from Migrom ad McGaugh...

Jimmy Johnson said...

Mike,

Personally I find your explanation of how MiHsC solves the galaxy rotation so called anomaly extremely clear and succinct. In fact it is so clear and succinct that I suspect it will not be readily accepted. Where is the ambiguity, the artificial additions, and the associated ability to haggle over the correct interpretation? The explanation and conclusions are far too clear for the prevailing scientific climate. You may offend the Dark Matter proponents and psychologically scar them for life. What of the effect of the loss business to the coffe houses where the philosophical debaters haggle over the relative amount of Dark Matter and Dark energy that is required to make each galaxy rotation fit the data. Thousands of scientists may be thrown out of work, not to mention the loss of grant money.

It may well turn out that your MiHsC theory is wrong. Time and comparison with experimental observations and data will tell. That is the nature of real scienctific investigation and progress. However, if MiHsC does not pass muster it will definitely not be because it was not explained clearly.

Keep up the Good Work,

Jimmy Johnson

Michael xChaos Polák said...

Because in QI all accelerating objects (this means mostly rotating or orbiting, except few negligibly accelerating rockets and - maybe - chemical bond breaking events, mostly rotating or orbiting) are "seeing" each other's accelerating, supposedly instantly (faster than light). This sounds tricky, because even gravity waves were observed to travel at speed of light...

I was quite concerned about this, but to be true - the energy required to sufficiently change acceleration of sufficiently massive object to transfer substantial amount of information on cosmic-scale distances is clearly beyond any known physical phenomena (perhaps only the moment when fragments of rotating accretion disk falls beyond black hole event horizon is when some acceleration seen by nearby universe suddenly disappears).

Ziggy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ziggy said...

Michael xChaos Polák said:
" the energy required to sufficiently change acceleration of sufficiently massive object to transfer substantial amount of information "

Michael, would you be able to clarify what exactly is the "information" that you were referring to?

And, also from where this "information" is being transfered, and to where?

Ziggy said...

Dr. Mike said:

" To explain quantised inertia I will start with an oceanographic analogy (see below). A ship is parked at a dock. "

" There is a sea of quantum particles, and we have only recently detected it because Hendrik Casimir showed that if you put two plates very close together, like the ship and the dock, the plates will move together."

So far so good.

Casimir's two plates very close together is an analogy for a ship at a dock.
Keep in mind: two plates, a ship, and a dock, are all made of solid matter, and therefore are "visible" to all observers, at all times.

In case of Casimir's two small plates very close together,
it is enough that physical medium between them is quantum vacuum.
In case of a ship at a dock, clearly quantum vacuum is not enough,
because we need waves of water. Waves of water can carry much more energy than quantum vacuum fluctuations, and that is the reason why they can move a massive ship, as opposed to Casimir's two small plates very close together.

" Now, consider an object accelerating to the right (black circle, white arrow below). It will see the quantum sea, actually an enhanced version of it (Unruh radiation). Relativity now says that in the opposite direction to the acceleration, information will not be able to catch up with the object. So there will be a horizon, like a black hole event horizon (see the black crescent). In quantised inertia this horizon is treated just like the dock wall in the analogy. It damps the waves between the object and itself. As in the analogy the object sees more waves from the right and is pushed back, always against its acceleration. This 'asymmetric Casimir effect' predicts what we always assumed before to be a 'magical' inertial mass, because we couldn't see these quantum waves (which only exist in the object's reference frame). "

Now, I will explain why Mike's analogy does NOT apply.

Ziggy said...

Now, I will explain why Mike's analogy does NOT apply.

In the above case of two plates, a ship, and a dock, all are made of solid matter, and therefore are "visible" to all observers, at all times.

" Object accelerating to the right" is made of solid matter, and therefore is visible to all observers, at all times.

" In quantised inertia this horizon is treated just like the dock wall in the analogy. it damps the waves between the object and itself."

For Mike's analogy to apply, it would be nice if the horizon (being treated just like the dock wall, and like Casimir's plate) was made of solid matter.

The question that needs to be answered is: What the horizon is made of?

If the answer is: The horizon is made of "information", then the question that needs to be answered is: What this "information" is made of?

How would it be possible to damp the waves between the object and the horizon (the dock, the other plate), when the horizon is made of "information" ??

And, if this 'asymmetric Casimir effect' using Unruh radiation were to be the explanation for "inertial mass", it would be good to experimentally detect the Unruh radiation first.

Why ?!

Because otherwise, the only experimental proof of physical existence of the Unruh radiation would only be the physical existence of inertia.

” The concept of mass, with the concept of gravitational mass identified with the concept of inertial mass, is quantified and defined by gravitational phenomenology. Therefore, on purely logical grounds, the concept of mass so defined cannot then be used in the theories of physics as an explanation of the very phenomenology used to define and quantify it.”
— W. F. Heinrich, QuantumGravity.ca

So, it would be nice to have clear answers
to the following 4 questions :

1.
What the Unruh horizon is made of?

2.
What the information is made of?

3.
How would it be possible to damp the waves
between the object and the horizon,
when the horizon is made of the above "information" ?

4.
The "black hole horizon" is a horizon of a black hole.
For there to be a "black hole horizon",
there has to be a black hole first.
There is no such thing as a "black hole horizon" alone,
without a corresponding black hole.
What is "Unruh horizon" a horizon of?

joesixpack said...

There is experimental proof of Unruh radiation:

See:

Photoluminescence from a gold nanotip in an accelerated reference frame. Igor I. Smolyaninov, Physics Letters A 372, 7043 to 7045 (2008).

Is it enough? Probably not.

I (grudgingly) bought Mike's book. I don't know how much simpler an explanation people with postgraduate education in the sciences want.

As for gravity waves - assuming that gravity itself moves at the same pace presupposes that gravity is always propagated as a (special relativity observant) wave. Why is it contentious to argue such a presupposition may not be true if quantum mechanics is accepted?

I'm with Jimmy. QI may well turn out to be wrong.

However, the most impressive part of Mike's book is the presentation of regression modeling and plots of goodness of fit for the galaxy rotations and so on (SPARC data IIRC). I would like to look at the regression diagnostics and see if any time series corrections ought to be made but with raw data and no manipulation his model beats the orthodoxy hands down.

joesixpack said...

Interesting article, resource and alternative to Wikipedia (for students such as myself):

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Unruh_effect

No mention of our friend Smolyaninov...

RichD said...

I'll do my poor best to answer Ziggy's questions.

1) An Unruh horizon isn't made of anything. It's a demarcation, like an end zone in football or the boundary of a country.

2) Information isn't made of anything. It's simply the state of a system. For example the information describing a billiards ball is it's weight, position, and velocity. There is a good article on Wikipedia here that can get you started. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

3) Again, the horizon is simply a line in space. The definition of that line is "information on the other side of this line cannot get here". The damping is due to the fact that the horizon for an accelerating body is nearer to that body than the Hubble constant. So for an accelerating body, the universe appears lopsided, smaller on one side.

4) This appears to be question 1)

I hope this helps, and if anyone more in the know wishes to amend or expand on what I've written, please do so.

RichD

Alain Coetmeur said...

The best position on horizon is to analyse it like Einstein with simultaneity.
From the point of view of the observer, the only important one, the horizon is where spacetime stops now or when it stops there. (beyond it is extrapolating space of past time in the future, where there is nothing to receive the projection).

it looks like the paradox of twin photons with Bell inequality.

for me the ide is not that information circulate, but that only the observer determine what is finally, and univers is in a superposed state until result can be measured.

the "can be measured" is just what the horizon is about... the where-when limit of what can be measured.

after the big question that Einstein followed is also that there is a coherent operator to change the point of view of someone with someone else.
So what some sees beyond his horizon should be coherent with what someone else see from his referential...

only perception count, there is no essentiality is space

Ziggy said...

RichD said:

" I'll do my poor best to answer Ziggy's questions. I hope this helps, and if anyone more in the know wishes to amend or expand on what I've written, please do so. "

RichD,
Thank you very much for your answers to my above 4 questions.
Much appreciated.

" 1) What the Unruh horizon is made of?
4) What is "Unruh horizon" a horizon of? "

1) An Unruh horizon isn't made of anything. It's a demarcation, like an end zone in football or the boundary of a country.
4) This appears to be question 1)

An end zone in football, or the boundary of a country, is a demarcation, so it does not have to be made of anything, as opposed to the Mexican Wall, and in fact Unruh horizon isn't made of anything. This seems to pose the first problem for me, because Unruh horizon is supposed to physically function as a dock wall for a ship, or one Casimir's plate for the other.

A demarcation, like an end zone in football, needs to be painted to be visible, so we could say it is made of visible paint, because otherwise how would we know it is there in the first place? A boundary of a country does not need to be painted or walled, but then it usually refers to natural features of the land, like rivers, lakes, mountains, and specifies methods of measurement.

Now I will explain why 4) is not 1).

If demarcations are not to be made of anything material, then there has to be something else that they can refer to. For example, a bank of a river may (or may not) serve as a physical basis for a demarcation "line", without being painted.

3) the horizon is simply a line in space. The definition of that line is "information on the other side of this line cannot get here".

"information on the other side of this line cannot get here" is a valid definition for Unruh horizon as a line in space. OK.

Now, I will try to explain again why in my opinion Mike's analogies of a ship and Casimir plate do NOT apply.

One Casimir plate needs another plate for Casimir effect to be there,
and for the same reason a ship needs a dock's wall.

As you can see for yourself, Mike is talking about 'asymmetric Casimir effect'.
It seems to me that an example of an 'asymmetric Casimir effect' would be a "Casimir-like effect" taking place for a ship that is nowhere near a dock's wall, or a Casimir effect taking place for a single Casimir plate.

How could that work?

Ziggy said...

How could that work?

Well, instead of the second plate, or a dock's wall, all we need is to find any "horizon", a demarcation that isn't made of anything, but has a definition, like "information on the other side of this line cannot get here". Imagine being on a ship in the middle of the ocean. You can see Earth's horizon. Photons on the other side of Earth's horizon line cannot get to your ship, and that is why you can't see anything behind Earth's horizon.

In my opinion, if Mike's analogy is to be applicable, then for a ship, instead of a dock's wall, it would be enough to have Earth's horizon, or any other arbitrary "horizon", a demarcation line that isn't made of anything, for the effect to take place.

Let's imagine that we have a demarcation that isn't made of anything, in a form of an unmarked river bank. However, not every unmarked river bank that we can see is a demarcation (or horizon). If our demarcation (made of nothing) does not refer to anything physically detectable, like a river bank, then it has to be made of something physically detectable, like a rope, or fence, or a dock's wall.

Let's imagine that in case of a ship, we replace a dock's wall with a demarcation line on the water, which isn't made of anything, and hope that this demarcation line will do the job of a dock's wall.

Let's imagine that in case of a Casimir effect, we replace one plate with a demarcation line in space, which isn't made of anything, and hope that this demarcation line will do the job of of the second plate.

Another important issue is as follows: If Unruh horizon isn't made of anything,
How can the "nothing" radiate "something" ??

A physical "nothing" is an "absence", NOT a "presence".
Presence of money in your bank account can produce
a presence of interest money for you. On the other hand,
absence of money in your bank account can only "produce"
no interest, i.e. nothing.

In my opinion, any "horizons" that aren't made of anything physical,
can not produce any physical effects, at all.

So, my point is that there is no such physical phenomenon
as an 'asymmetric Casimir effect' anywhere,
other than in Mike's wishful thinking.

Because, once the impossible becomes possible,
then its possibilities become absolutely unlimited.

David Schroeder said...

Dear Mike,

I've been reading your open access paper at the Springer link, and wanted to know what was meant by "...a variable part a(prime) due to inhomogeneities in the matter distribution gives,...". I'm assuming that the a(prime) acceleration component refers to local movements of the galactic outer edge stars, just like there are relative motions of the nearby stars in our local neighborhood in relation to our sun. But I'm not entirely sure if that's the intended meaning.

Simon Derricutt said...

Building on RichD's definitions, that no information can come from the other side of the Rindler horizon means that effectively (as far as we can see or measure) there is absolutely nothing the other side of that horizon. This "nothing" is not even space as we know it. As such, there can be no wave in it either, and the node of any wave must be on the horizon.

The horizon is thus not made of anything, but has normal space on our side of it and nothing beyond it. Given that Unruh waves must begin with a node on the object and end with a node on the horizon, then we have a whole number of half-wavelengths between the object and the horizon. This gives a reason for the momentum to be quantised.

Though the reason given to explain the mathematics (that is to say, Unruh waves that sense that distant horizon in real-time) may change, the fact that the theory explains various experimental observations without any need for adjustable fudge-factors points to QI being closer to the truth than previous ideas. In time, this should be brought into the general span of quantum theory, which has the advantage that we don't expect quantum theory to make sense; we expect it to give the right answers. The theory that makes sense is likely some way in the future.

Ziggy said...

Simon Derricutt said :

" Building on RichD's definitions, that no information can come from the other side of the Rindler horizon means that effectively (as far as we can see or measure) there is absolutely nothing on the other side of that horizon. This "nothing" is not even space as we know it. As such, there can be no wave in it either, and the node of any wave must be on the horizon. The horizon is thus not made of anything, but has normal space on our side of it and nothing beyond it. Given that Unruh waves must begin with a node on the object and end with a node on the horizon,

Well, I was asking how it all could actually work
in physical reality, NOT in metaphysical theory.

Simon, while it is true that no information can come from the other side of the Rindler horizon means that effectively (as far as we can see or measure) there is effectively nothing on the other side of that horizon , it does not follow that just because we cannot see or measure beyond a horizon, there must be, in physical reality, absolutely nothing on the other side of that horizon, such "nothing" not even being space as we know it. That would be absurd!

Simon, you confuse your illogical, impossible metaphysical fantasies with physical realty.

Ziggy said...

Simon Derricutt said :

" the node of any wave must be on the horizon. The horizon is thus not made of anything, but has normal space on our side of it and nothing beyond it. "

Simon, if the node of any wave must be on the horizon,
but the horizon is not made of anything,
then how can we have node of a wave on something
that is not made of anything ?!

Sorry, sounds impossible to me.

Ziggy said...

joesixpack said:

" There is experimental proof of Unruh radiation : Photoluminescence from a gold nanotip in an accelerated reference frame. Igor I. Smolyaninov, Physics Letters A 372, 7043 to 7045 (2008). Is it enough? Probably not. "

It seems to me it goes roughly like this:

Hawking radiation comes from black hole horizon,
so Unruh radiation comes from Rindler horizon.

Why not ?

Let me explain why not.

First of all, black hole horizon does NOT radiate anything. Why?
Because Hawking radiation, if true, would be a result
of black hole separating a pair of virtual particles.
Based on this we could propose a demarcation line in space
that isn't made of anything, and call it black hole horizon.
Black hole horizon isn't made of anything, and therefore
of black hole separating a pair of virtual particles.

Black hole horizon is not a physical source of Hawking radiation.
Hawking radiation is a basis for postulating a demarcation line in space,
which isn't made of anything that we call "black hole horizon".

So, other than physically nonexistent black hole horizon,
we have at least a black hole that can separate a pair of virtual particles.

According to this analogy, Rindler horizon, like black hole horizon,

Black hole horizon is a horizon of a black hole and of the way black hole functions.
What is Rindler horizon a horizon of ??

Rindler horizon, like black hole horizon, cannot radiate anything physical.
However, black hole horizon corresponds to black hole and to how a black hole separates a pair of virtual particles. So, what is it that Rindler horizon corresponds to, for there to be any real possibility for Unruh radiation? If Rindler horizon isn't made of anything, and it does not corresponds to anything, then what would be a physical cause of Unruh radiation ?!

If we think of Earth as a sphere, then from it own side it has no horizons at all, other than those that we seem to see due to our limitations. Let's imagine two ships on the ocean, such that both are on each other horizons. None of them can see past its own horizon, but each can see past the other one's horizon. If one ship's horizon could physically radiate anything towards this ship, then why it could not radiate something towards another ship, too?

Ziggy said...

Simon Derricutt said :

" The horizon is thus not made of anything (does not exist), but has normal space on our side of it and nothing beyond it. "

You see, Simon, if something that does not exist physically
could actually have physical sides, then it would not have to physically
exist in order to radiate waves from our side of it.

WOW !!!

You know what, Simon? Why don't we perform an experiment
to see if Earth's horizon (the way we see it)
radiates waves of free-energy and anti-gravity?

Ziggy said...

Mike said :

" Rindler horizon, like black hole horizon, cannot radiate anything physical.
However, black hole horizon corresponds to black hole and to how a black hole separates a pair of virtual particles. So, what is it that Rindler horizon corresponds to, for there to be any real possibility for Unruh radiation? If Rindler horizon isn't made of anything, and it does not corresponds to anything, then what would be a physical cause of Unruh radiation ?! "

What would be a physical cause of Unruh radiation?

Then, there would be no physical cause of Unruh radiation,
which would perfectly explain why Unruh radiation does not exist
in physical reality, Mike.

However, assuming it does exist, then it would explain inertia.
Inertia, obviously, must have an explanation and this clearly proves

joesixpack said...

No, Mike refers to Smolyaninov.

It seems to me it goes roughly like this:"

This seems like a categorical error.

"Then, there would be no physical cause of Unruh radiation,
which would perfectly explain why Unruh radiation does not exist
in physical reality, Mike. "

Then explain away Smolyaninov's paper. If you can create mini black holes (if it is Hawking radiation) with his experimental method; you are could end up very rich or famous or both.

Mike McCulloch said...

Zephir: I can't see the inconsistency. I have explained QI as simply as I can here and I can't make it any simpler, not yet anyway. There's a local effect (which makes normal inertia) and a distant one (which modifies inertia slightly).

Mike McCulloch said...

Airenatural and Jimmy: Thank you for your helpful comments. Jimmy, your comment on clarity being a disadvantage reminds me of the 'Life of Brian'. Brian was not listened to when he spoke clearly, but as soon as he became mysterious and incoherent, he became a prophet. This may be why dark matter and string theory are so popular :)

I will remain as clear as possible: I have a deep love of simplicity, but QI in its way is far more mysterious than dark matter or string theory (it is not incoherent tho'). For example horizons: as RichD said clearly in his comment above, they are not things you can touch or see directly. Also, they exist only in the future of the accelerating objects and yet reach into the past to affect them. This is not as mad as it sounds, given the EPR paradox.

Simon Derricutt said...

Mike - anyone who quotes "Life of Brian" in explaining a problem gets extra marks. Such a lot of truth in that film.... I agree though that your explanation is maybe too simple to be accepted easily, especially when the Dark Matter research pays so well. Unfortunately, QI also doesn't need the Higgs particle to provide inertia, so also trashes the Standard Model (and makes it easier in the process) so a lot of people will feel that their Meaning of Life is under attack. You're upsetting a lot of people.

Ziggy- physics is all about what we can measure. If you can't measure something, then in physics it doesn't exist. It is hard to conceive of a volume of Nothing, where even space doesn't exist, but that condition must also exist within a Black Hole if you think about it. At the Schwartzschild horizon time stops, and so within that horizon spacetime as we know it also cannot exist, and the mass of a Black Hole must all exist on the surface with Nothing inside that surface. Similarly, for a particle, as far as it is concerned there is Nothing beyond its horizons. It may be difficult to think, but once you've overcome that hump then the explanations will make sense. Mike's idea is a new paradigm, and requires a re-think of the old ones.

Ziggy said...

joesixpack said:

" If you can create mini black holes (if it is Hawking radiation) with his experimental method; you could end up very rich or famous or both."

Well, I will leave being very rich and famous for you and Mike. :-))

Ziggy said...

Simon Derricutt said :

" Ziggy- physics is all about what we can measure. If you can't measure something, then in physics it doesn't exist. It is hard to conceive of a volume of Nothing, where even space doesn't exist, but that condition must also exist within a Black Hole if you think about it."

Simon - yes, I agree with you that when I think about it, this condition must also exist within a Black Hole.

But when I stop thinking about it, then this condition stops existing within a Black Hole.

Clearly, this condition does not physically exist outside of our imagination, because physics is all about what we can measure, Simon. If you can't measure a volume of Nothing, where even space doesn't exist, then in physics it doesn't exist, Simon.

Ziggy said...

Abstract:

It has been proposed that inertia can be explained as follows: when
objects accelerate in one direction a Rindler horizon forms in the other
direction, suppressing Unruh radiation on that side, and producing a
net Unruh radiation pressure that always opposes the acceleration,
just like inertia.

https://repositori.udl.cat/bitstream/handle/10459.1/58386/024515.pdf

When objects accelerate in one direction a Rindler horizon forms in the other
direction.

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

If "Rindler horizon forms", then what is it made of?
Matter? Energy?

I have heard, above, that a Rindler horizon isn't made of anything.

Then my question is: how something that isn't made of anything

Hey! But Unruh radiation seems to be suppressed, bro,
because there is inertia!!

Well, I would say that the only possibility for a Rindler horizon (that isn't made of anything) to be able to effectively suppress Unruh radiation, could only happen when Unruh radiation isn't made of anything, either, because one "nothing" is enough to suppress other "nothing".

Ziggy said...

joesixpack said:

" No, Mike refers to Smolyaninov. [...] Then explain away Smolyaninov's paper."

Before I will try to explain away Smolyaninov's paper,
you can try to explain away the following :

If "Rindler horizon forms", then what is it made of?
Matter? Energy?

I have heard, above, that a Rindler horizon isn't made of anything. Correct?

Then my question is: How something that isn't made of anything

It can't, because it is impossible.

If Unruh radiation happens to really exist,
then clearly it play no role in the mechanism of inertia.

Ziggy said...

Simon Derricutt said :

" Ziggy- physics is all about what we can measure. If you can't measure something, then in physics it doesn't exist."

Simon- I totally agree with you! :))

Now, I hope Mike will describe the physical method
that is used to measure Rindler horizon! :))

H i N T :

I have heard (above) that a Rindler horizon isn't made of anything ...

RichD said...

Ziggy,

There is an excellent and very readable introduction to Rindler horizons here:

http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Rindler/RindlerHorizon.html

You should try to grasp at least everything in the Preliminaries part of this document as a bare minimum to understanding Rindler horizons. It should help clear up some of your misunderstandings about their nature.

As you read, please remember that any event (which is to say, Information about that event) cannot exceed the speed of light. For example, if a star is just about to explode and you race away from the star at the speed of light, then from your point of view the star never explodes. Because news of the explosion can never reach you. As you race away at c, you will always see an unexploded star behind you. A stationary observer will have a different result and see the star explode.

Likewise for a Rindler horizon, if a particle pair forms with one half on each side of the horizon, any information about the farther particle can never reach you. So from your point of view the far particle doesn't exist. You would only see the nearer particle. That collection of nearer particles you would see is called Unruh radiation.

RichD

Ziggy said...

RichD said :

" Information about that event (photons) cannot exceed the speed of light. For example, if a star is just about to explode and you race away from the star at the speed of light, then from your point of view the star never explodes. Because news of the explosion can never reach you. As you race away at c, you will always see an unexploded star behind you. A stationary observer will have a different result and see the star explode. "

RichD,

First of all, thank you for the link. I will take a closer look at it. I imagine that it would be the working definition of "Rindler horizon" for Mike?

We both know that no realistic obserer can race away from a star at the speed of light, and therefore sooner than later some photons from the explosion will reach, and even surpass this race-away observer.

Yes, as long as the photons from explosion do not reach me,
I have no other way of knowing that the star exploded.

There are two facts:

1.
I do not see any photons from the explosion.

2.
star exploded.

" I do not see any photons ; star exploded "
is not physically identical with:
" I do not see any photons ; star did not explode " .

If you look at the night's sky, and suddenly you notice
a supernova, I hope you do not look at your wrist watch,
and say: "this star exploded now". Again, there are two facts:

1.
You observed a supernova at your local time (here) ;

2.
how long ago this supernova actually exploded (there)
relative to the moment of its observation on Earth,
can be calculated, if we know the distance to that star.

I will come back to the issue of Rindler horizon
and Unruh radiation in my next post.

Ziggy said...

RichD said :

" Likewise for a Rindler horizon, if a particle pair forms with one half on each side of the horizon, any information about the farther particle can never reach you. So from your point of view the far particle doesn't exist. You would only see the nearer particle. That collection of nearer particles you would see is called Unruh radiation. "

Dear RichD,

Hello my friend! :))

that is capable of actually understanding what I write,
and capable of discussion with me.

RichD, if you belive that your above quoted understanding
and description of Rindler horizon and Unruh radiation
is correct, then I am happy to inform you that now
it is completely clear to me, and finally
I will be able to communicate to you in your own "terms", dear RichD.

Especially helpful for our mutual understanding
was your preciding example of racing away from supernova.

So, before I made my final point on the issue,
if you really care to understand my opinion.

Simon Derricutt said...

Maybe the best way to describe the Rindler horizon is that on our dide of it things exist, and on the other side things do not exist as far as we can tell. It is thus not a valid question to ask what it is made of. It is simply a demarcation line.

Ziggy - once again you are pretending to quote what I write and changing the words. That may mean you didn't read them, or that you are simply a troll. Where you quote other people I now look to see if you have mangled what they wrote. If you don't want to understand Mike's ideas, then go somewhere else. You obviously have your own ideas of how physics must work, since you published your website here. I wasn't impressed by it.

Ziggy said...

Dear RichD,

To make my final point clear to you
I will need to describe a couple of examples.

Presently, there is a growing Flat Earth Movement
bent on convincing the rest of us that the Earth is flat :
http://www.newsweek.com/flat-earth-conspiracy-america-726761

It's worth noting that historically it has taken a considerable amount of time
and effort in order to demonstrate that Earth is an actual sphere.

If we were to unconditionally trust our direct
sensory perception (observation), then yes,
the Earth is a flat circle, and even a stationary one.
Moreover, this flat circle is small enough
that we can directly observe its edge, the horizon.

On the beach, I have actually witnessed a ship sailing towards the horizon.
I saw nothing beyond the horizon, so I assumed that there was nothing there,
other than the empty sky, and once the ship reached the horizon, it looked like
it went over the edge, as if slowly falling into the abyss,
and it disappeared! It effectively stopped existing for me!

I could estimate the distance to this dangerous place (horizon),
and I imagined that if, from the beach, I observe ships
going over the edge of the horizon, then I would actually see
the abyss (over the edge) if I were to be close enough
to this clearly visible dangerous demarcation line
of the end of our flat, circular World.

But those brave ancient mariners that had gone exactly so far from the shore
discovered that not only there was no edge there at that distance from the shore,
and that somehow they could never come closer to the horizon!

So, I would say that the horizon that we are able to observe
is merely an optical illusion, a deceptive appearance,
and not the actual edge of our flat, circular World.

Yes, at the horizon ships disappear, but only from our view,
and it does not mean that they fall over the edge into the bottomless abyss,
nor that they somehow really stop existing.
Appearances (observations) can be deceiving.

SECOND EXAMPLE

As long as the photons from the exploding star do not reach my eye,
I have no other way of knowing that the star exploded.
However, there are two facts:

1.
I do not see any photons from the explosion ;

2.
star exploded.

" I do not see any photons, star exploded ; "
is not physically identical with:
" I do not see any photons ; star did not explode " .

Appearances (observations) can be deceiving.

Coming back to the issue of Rindler horizon and Unruh radiation.
The analogy here is black hole horizon and Hawking radiation.

Ziggy said...

Coming back to the issue of Rindler horizon and Unruh radiation.
The analogy here is black hole horizon and Hawking radiation.

Based on Hawking radiation, we can observe an apparent
demarcation line and call it black hole horizon, Hawking radiation being
an actual real physical process of how a black hole
separates particles of a virtual pair.

Based on Unruh radiation, we can observe an apparent
demarcation line and call it a Rindler horizon.

In the light of my two above examples, I would say
that "black hole horizon" is a valid observation because it refers
to an actual real physical process of how a black hole
separates particles of a virtual pair.

And therefore I need to say that "Rindler horizon" is not a valid observation,
because it does not refer to any actual real physical process,
because such "Unruh radiation" is as physically real,
as the "edge" of spherical Earth.

In my analogy, a black hole is akin to flat circle, which has
an actual real physical edge, i.e. "black hole horizon",
whereas "Rindler horizon" is a deceptive appearance
akin to the "edge" of spherical Earth.

We can actually observe the "edge" of spherical Earth!
But this observation (appearance) is a deceiving one,
because we know this for the fact that sphere can not have any "edges"
despite us actually observing them! So, even though
we observe the edge of the spherical Earth, it is physically impossible
to fall over it, because this observation is deceptive (invalid)
because it does not refer to anything in physical reality
other than our limitations and imperfections of sensory perception.

Coming back to the supernova analogy.
Just because we seem to see the star as "un-exploded",
it does not mean that from its own side it has not exploded already.

Dear RichD, by the same token, in case of Unruh radiation ....

Ziggy said...

Dear RichD, by the same token, in case of Unruh radiation,
from our point of view the far particle doesn't exist.
We would only see the nearer particle. That collection of nearer particles
that we seem to see is merely a deceptive appearance called "Unruh radiation",
because in reality these virtual pairs had annihilated instantly long time ago,
just like the star had exploded long time ago, and just because
from our point of view we cannot see it,
it does not mean that from its own side the star did not explode,
and that from their own side these virtual pairs did not annihilate instantly.

You see, Hawking radiation is a result of an actual real physical process
of how a black hole separates particles of a virtual pair.

If "Unruh radiation" were not to be a mere deceptive appearance,
then there would have to be some actual real physical process
behind how virtual pairs are separated.
So, how does that physically happen?

Well, it does not really physically happen at all,
because these virtual pairs are "separated"
merely by virtue of the deceptive result of our observation,
just like the "exploded" and the "un-exploded" stars are separated
merely by virtue of observation -- a deceptive appearance.

"Unruh radiation" is akin to falling over the edge ("Rindler horizon")
of spherical Earth. It is merely a deceptive appearance
that does not correspond to anything in physical reality,
and therefore cannot itself in turn produce any real physical results.

"Hawking radiation" is akin to falling over the edge ("black hole horizon")
of flat circular Earth. It is an actual real physical phenomenon,
and not a deceptive appearance, and therefore Hawking radiation
can itself in turn produce other actual real physical results.

I will quote from one of my above posts,
one of the unanswered questions :

" Black hole horizon corresponds to black hole and to how a black hole separates a pair of virtual particles. So, what is it that Rindler horizon corresponds to, for there to be any real possibility for Unruh radiation? If Rindler horizon isn't made of anything, and it does not correspond to anything, then what would be a physical cause of Unruh radiation? "

THE GRAND & FINAL ANSWER :

What "Rindler horizon" corresponds to is a deceptive appearance
that is a result of our observation, and which is called "Unruh radiation".
Observations are well known to produce deceptive appearances,
as you can see for yourself while looking at Earth's horizon,
i.e. the impossible "edge" of a sphere!

P. s.

This blog could be better called:

Physics from the edge of our flat Earth

So, my dear blind-believers, who are wandering on the edge of flat Earth,
if you don't have anything better to do in your life, then please,
be my guest, and keep beating this dead horse.

Good luck.

Ziggy said...

RichD said :

" Likewise for a Rindler horizon, if a particle pair forms with one half on each side of the horizon, any information about the farther particle can never reach you. So from your point of view the far particle doesn't exist. You would only see the nearer particle. That collection of nearer particles you would see is called Unruh radiation."

Dr. Mike McCulloch said on 17th January 2018 at 02:21

" For example horizons: as RichD said clearly in his comment above, they are not things you can touch or see directly. Also, they exist only in the future of the accelerating objects, and yet reach into the past to affect them."

So, what about Rindler horizon acting in the accelerating object's present moment? Not needed?

If Rindler horizon exists only in the future of the accelerating object, and yet reaches into the past to affect it, then do I have to take your word for it, or could you write an explanation such that it could pass the peer-review at Arxiv, and be published there?

I am holding my breath ....

joesixpack said...

A dead horse with empirically driven, peer-reviewed research articles, Ziggy.

You are also just ignoring Smolyaninov. You keep on insisting that Unruh radiation has not been observed from a physical process; this probably isn't true. Smolyaninov made an observation - Hawking radiation so far probably doesn't have such a direct observation.

Mike's analogy with the harmonics of an instrument isn't hard to understand. The speed of light is the physical constraint. This is the Hubble Sphere though, the ultimate Rindler Horizon. What's the problem? It is an easy to understand analogy.

"If Rindler horizon exists only in the future of the accelerating object, and yet reaches into the past to affect it, then do I have to take your word for it, or could you write an explanation such that it could pass the peer-review at Arxiv, and be published there?"

Do you have a problem with a Feynman diagram or the quantum eraser experiment?

Simon Derricutt said...

Quantum physics does not have to make sense. It is enough that it gives the right answers, and that we can use it to design semiconductors and quantum computers, to name a couple of uses. At some point in the future we may find out deeper reasons for the rules that have been found by experiment to work. Much the same with QI - whether you understand it or not it gives a much better answer than Dark Matter or MoND, since you don't need to have adjustable parameters. QI may allow us to get a better EMDrive by design rather than by hunch and Edisonian experiments.

The Rindler Horizon is simply a line separating what can affect the particle in question and what cannot. Like other such demarcation lines, it doesn't have to be made of anything. The horizon of a Black Hole is similarly not made of anything, but is simply the point where time stops from our point of view (so it may be different for different observers, in the same way that the Rindler Horizon is different for different particles). In quantum theory at least, there is the possibility that there is an absolute time, given that entangled particles remain connected no matter how far apart they are - flip the spin of one and the other flips at the same time, and this only avoids paradox if such flips happen at the same instant and not just when one particular observer sees the events happen. There is thus the possibility that particles at extreme distance from us (at the Hubble distance) can affect us in this instant rather than needing us to wait until the light from there reaches us. This begs the question of course of why particles beyond that distance could not also affect us similarly, but that's going to remain a question that needs thinking about until someone works out a decent answer.

Still, QI gives a prediction that matches (to within experimental error) to measured data for the fly-by anomalies, rotation of galaxies both recently and in the far-distant past, and the EMDrive experiments, and all without needing to use fudge-factors to match theory and experiment. AFAIK, no other theory has this success. Since it makes sense that the size of the current universe will have some effect on what's in it, then even if the details aren't quite right yet then QI is usable in its current form.

For the alternative current explanation of inertia, look to the Higgs particle. Though *something* exists in one of the expected ranges and has been claimed as the elusive God particle, this doesn't result in a perfect explanation yet. See https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21734379-no-guts-no-glory-fundamental-physics-frustrating-physicists . No-one has found any real evidence of Dark Matter either. If we can't measure something, can we say it exists anyway? That requires Faith, and also a lot of trust that we've deduced the correct answers, and I have neither.

RichD said...

Ziggy,

I think I see your problem. In an earlier post, you said this:

" I do not see any photons ; star exploded "
is not physically identical with:
" I do not see any photons ; star did not explode " .

I believe your difficulty is that you don't understand relativity. Don't feel bad, it's a tough concept to wrap your head around. It took me some time too.

So let's go back to my exploding star example.

The star explodes, and I race away at the speed of light. Photons notifying me of the explosion can never reach me. But the star did explode, right? My not being aware of it doesn't mean it didn't explode. That's your point with the flat earth analogy, correct?

Here's the difficult part. Relativity.

From the point of view of a stationary observer, the star does explode. The observer will see the explosion and live in a universe with that star forever gone.

But from the point of view of my leaving the scene at c, for me the star does not explode ever, and I will live in a universe that always has that star in it.

Relativity dictates that neither point of view is the "absolute" truth because there isn't any such thing. The first observer lives in a universe without that star, the second observer lives in a universe with that star, and both are correct - and this is the important part - relative to their observations. That's relativity in a nutshell.

The concept you should study is a Light Cone. It describes causality and its dependence upon the speed of light. This is the simplest explanation I can find for one: http://aschoonerofscience.com/how-things-work/what-is-a-light-cone/

Good luck!

RichD

Jimmy Johnson said...

A comment on whether understanding is required in science:

While it is true that experimental facts (data) trump guesses (hypotheses) in science, that is not the same as saying science is the accumulation of formulas and methods that work. There is an added ingredient sometimes called knowledge or understanding required. Without the ingredient of understanding the probability of predicting new effects or extending the consequences of a theory into new areas drops to near zero. If something does not make sense it cannot be said to be understood.

The scientific method is not the application of the Edison like, “try everything and see what works” process. The scientific method starts with a hypothesis, an attempt at understanding from a basic level. The hypothesis is not a guess at the results or a formula, it is a guess at a concept from which to deduce results or consequences. As such, its formulation attempts to understand how the natural world behaves. A scientific hypothesis that does not make sense to its author is a contradiction. If it does not make sense its consequences cannot be determined. A statement without testable consequences is not a scientific hypothesis and cannot be the basis of a theory.

It is true that it is not necessary for everyone to understand a hypothesis, or for it to be the basis of an acceptable scientific theory. If rules can be formulated that can be performed by rote then the theory can be very useful. It is not however true that a theory does not require understanding by its author, or that it be able to be explained by its author in a logical manner to others of open mind. This is really where the demarcation between science and religion begins.

In engineering it is perfectly acceptable to have a "use whatever works" mindset. The material progress of civilization attests to the workability of that attitude. Scientific concepts, however, require the additional constraint of understanding of cause or nature.

Jimmy Johnson

Ziggy said...

RichD said on 18 January 2018 at 10:36 ....

Dear RichD,

Thank you for your continuing patience and meritorious arguments in our discussion.
I agree with everything you wrote in that post. I knew that, too.

You provided me with clear answer and explanation :

" Likewise for a Rindler horizon, if a particle pair forms with one half on each side of the horizon, any information about the farther particle can never reach you. So from your point of view the far particle doesn't exist. You would only see the nearer particle. That collection of nearer particles you would see is called Unruh radiation."

For you this explanation somehow seems to be good enough,
and to me it is not.

In this scenario we have a quantum phenomenon: " if a particle pair forms..."

Now, we introduce an ambiguous concept: "horizon".

Black hole "horizon" is a quantum horizon, while light cone is a relativistic horizon.

In my humble opinion, the confusion that I see in our discussion stems from misapplying a relativistic concept of horizon to quantum phenomena, i.e. to "particle pair forms".

It would be nice if it could really worked like that, but then, by the same token, we could quantized spacetime, and thereby unite quantum mechanics with relativity.

So, finally, here is the heart of the problem!

The reason that it is invalid to use relativistic concept of horizon for quantum phenomena is that there is no unifying of quantum mechanics with relativity, because such unification had been shown to be simply impossible.

Dear RichD, in my next post I will give you a clear example how this substitution of one "horizon" for the other does not work.

There is another interesting issue, though.

" This collection of nearer particles you would see is called Unruh radiation."

I hope I am not the only person that still have doubts whether "Unruh radiation"
has been really seen, or experimentally detected.

Nobel Prize was given for the apparent detection of gravitational waves, and still there are credible and legitimate doubts in mainstream physics community :

Was It All Just Noise? Independent Analysis Casts Doubt On LIGO's Detections

Ziggy said...

joesixpack said...
You are also just ignoring Smolyaninov. You keep on insisting that Unruh radiation has not been observed from a physical process; this probably isn't true. Smolyaninov made an observation - Hawking radiation so far probably doesn't have such a direct observation.

Just because Smolyaninov made an observation,
Here is a Nobel Prize observation that is still in question:
Was It All Just Noise? Independent Analysis Casts Doubt On LIGO's Detections
(click the link one post up)

Hawking radiation is a physical result of simple and clear physical process,
while "Unruh radiation" is a deceptive appearance due to relativistic misperception,
which I will explain in detail in my next post.

Ziggy said...

Dear RichD,

In Relativity, there is no such thing as a virtual pair.
In Relativity, a SINGLE photon is either behind YOUR horizon (invisible),
or visible to you. There is no such possibility that half of the photon is invisible behind YOUR horizon, and its other half is visible, and as a result of you not seeing the other half, the two halves become separated, resulting in "Half-photons" radiation!

On the other hand, in quantum mechanics, in case of a virtual pair made of TWO particles, in principle, it is possible that one of them could be invisible behind YOUR horizon, and the other one visible.

Now, you say, that from your relativistic point of view it is true that, effectively, the invisible particle does not exist (for you). True.

However, at the same time, from the relativistic point of view of your visible particle of the pair, the other particle, even though invisible to you, is still visible to it, because YOUR horizon is relative to you, and the visible particle's horizon is relative to it.

Therefore your invisible particle of the pair is still visible to the other particle, and that is the reason that your visible particle is not free to go alone, because the connection between the pair does not become broken merely because you do not see one of them. Therefore the pair will annihilate, and there will never be any radiation.

If your observation of a single particle of the pair would somehow made it physically free of the other one in the pair, then and only then it could be free to go alone (radiate), because other than you merely observing (or not observing) a particle, no other physical cause exists, like for instance a black hole, that would be physically able to separate the pair.

What I am saying is that, for the above reasons, Unruh radiation is physically impossible, and never happens in physical reality.

BUT it is possible !!!
Because Smolyaninov made an observation !!!

Just because Smolyaninov made an observation,
I hope I am not the only person that still have doubts
whether "Unruh radiation" has been really seen,
or experimentally detected. Nobel Prize was given
for the apparent detection of gravitational waves,
and still there are credible and legitimate doubts
in mainstream physics community :

Was It All Just Noise? Independent Analysis Casts Doubt On LIGO's Detections

Ziggy said...

Dear RichD,

I sit on the beach, OBSERVING a motor-ship connected by a chain, or a rope, to a container-ship behind it (with no real motor, but with a tiny propeller powered by a AAA electric battery trying to pull in opposite direction towards the beach), both going towards the horizon.

As long as I can OBSERVE both ships, I can see the reason for the container-ship being pulled (moving).

Now, the leading motor-ship disappears behind (my) horizon (from my point of view the "far" particle does not exist anymore).

Then, according to your reasoning, I would expect container-ship (with a tiny propeller) to stop, because I can observe no reason for it to be pulled over the horizon any longer.

Me observing container-ship alone, with motor-ship non-existent (over the horizon) gives me hope that container-ship, by using tiny propeller, could come back to shore (as Unruh radiation).

This is never going to happen. Why?

Because, even though from my point of view motor-ship does not exist for me anymore (is behind MY horizon ), the motor-ship still does exist for the container-ship, because it is not beyond its horizon, so naturally, it will be pulled over the horizon too, and there is no chance of it ever coming back to the shore (as Unruh radiation).

Therefore, Smolyanov could not possibly observe any such Unruh radiation.

BUT !!! Smolyanov made the observation !!!

Just because Smolyanov made an observation,

I hope I am not the only person that still have doubts
whether "Unruh radiation" has been really seen,
or experimentally detected. Nobel Prize was given
for the apparent detection of gravitational waves,
and still there are credible and legitimate doubts
in mainstream physics community.

Why not give Smolyanov a Nobel Prize in Physics
for the experimental detection of Unruh radiation ??

Ziggy said...

joesixpack said...
A dead horse with empirically driven, peer-reviewed research articles, Ziggy.

YES, joesixpack.

Exactly like the Dark matter&energy. :-))

Ziggy said...

Dr. Mike McCulloch said on 17th January 2018 at 02:21

" For example horizons: as RichD said clearly in his comment above, they are not things you can touch or see directly. Also, they exist only in the future of the accelerating objects, and yet reach into the past to affect them."

Yet, such Rindler horizon, as RichD said clearly in his comment above,
isn't made of anything physical, and therefore cannot physically affect
any objects not only in the future and in the past, but neither in the present,
nor become a physical cause of any physical results, like Unruh radiation.

Because Unruh radiation (strictly speaking) does not "come off" Rindler horizon,
we have been trying to find its physical cause.

Clearly, no physical cause of any such "Unruh radiation" can possibly exist (see my previous posts).

So, other than the non-existent "Rindler horizon"
what else could possibly explain inertia?

DF said...

Ziggy,

You say: "If your observation of a single particle of the pair would somehow made it physically free of the other one in the pair, then and only then it could be free to go alone (radiate), because other than you merely observing (or not observing) a particle, no other physical cause exists"

So how do you explain that experiments by Wheeler and Scully show that photons behave like waves or particles depending on whether they are observed or not:
https://youtu.be/VqULEE7eY8M?t=1794
https://youtu.be/VqULEE7eY8M?t=2099
You can't say that it is physically impossible, because those eperiments proved that it is possible.

Regarding Unruh radiation. Yes, some scientists say that it does not exist:
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0509151
but others suggest a way to detect it:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.2208

DF said...

"So, other than the non-existent "Rindler horizon"
what else could possibly explain inertia?"

That is a Nobel prize question, so it is unlikely that anyone would post the answer here. ;)

DF said...

Or ask the extraterrestrials ;) They seem to know what inertia and gravity is, because according to many reports it seems like they have no problems with manipulation of inertia and gravity any way they wish.

Ziggy said...

Dear Dr. Mike,

Hello,

I would like you to know that I do like you very much as a person.

And, you are one fine young theoretical physicist, too.

In my opinion, your inertia hypothesis is very interesting, even brilliant,
especially so that there seem to be no other serious contenders at the moment.

It needs to be emphasized that the highly speculative,

If experimental detection of "Unruh radiation" were to be
then you should be next, receiving Nobel Prize
for explaining the mechanism of inertia.
I mean it.

With respect,
Ziggy

P. s.

Mathematics is not physics,
and mathematical physics is not experimental physics.
In order to demonstrate that I am not picking on you
for some dark and hidden conspiratorial reasons,
the following is my, essentially identical, criticism
of the alleged experimental detection of gravitational waves :

Ziggy said...

.... CONTINUED from the above post

Gravitational waves

EXCUSE ME, BUT IS THIS NOT THE FABRIC
OF EMPEROR’S CLOTHES THAT IS WAVING ?!

The three distinguished physicists of international renown were awarded over a million dollars, along with the highest and the most prestigious prize in world science for their decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves.

Therefore, no doubt, gravitational waves must exist, and be experimentally detectable. If spacetime, as a fabric, a real physical entity, can be bent and curved by mass of planets and stars, then surely there could also be physical ripples, or waves, in this fabric. After all, Albert Einstein is the greatest scientific genius of all time. He must have been right. Trust me.

Well, then why would Prof. George F. R. Ellis, or some other respectable mainstream physicists, have any doubts pertaining to the degree to which our representations of the nature of spacetime are an adequate representation of its true ontological nature?

" The hidden issue underlying all this discussion is the question of the ontological nature of spacetime: Does spacetime indeed exist as a real physical entity, or is it just a convenient way of describing relationships among physical objects? Is it absolute or relational? I will not pursue this contentious point here. I emphasize that the discussion in this paper is about models, or representations, of spacetime, rather than making any ontological claims about the nature of spacetime itself. However, I do believe that the kind of proposal made here could provide a useful starting point for a fresh look at the ontological issue, and from there a renewed discussion of the degree to which our representations of the nature of spacetime are an adequate representation of its true ontological nature."

https://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0605/0605049.pdf

Does spacetime exist as a real physical entity, or is it just a convenient way of describing gravitational interactions among physical objects?

In my opinion, spacetime does not exist as a real physical entity, and is merely a mathematical construct, which neither can be physically bent, curved, nor can wave.

The reason for my opinion is that if spacetime were to be a real physical entity, then it would follow that it must be composed of something physical, like matter, or energy. If so, then spacetime could not only be easily experimentally detectable, like air of our atmosphere, but also it could be quantized. However, one of the reasons that we do not yet have a theory of quantum gravity, is that it was simply impossible to quantize spacetime:

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26729

Well, how would you expect to realistically quantize something that does not exist as a real physical entity that is made of matter, or energy?

And, by the way, spacetime is not made of quantum vacuum, either. Then maybe spacetime is made of very, very tiny, special, invisible and undetectable “spacetime atoms” ?

Unfortunately, if spacetime were to be made of matter, like “spacetime atoms”, then wouldn’t we effectively have the same old Luminiferous Aether that had already been consigned to the Museum of Scientific Blunders?

The most important and fundamental issue is this:

Ziggy said...

The most important and fundamental issue is this:

As a real physical entity, what exactly is spacetime made of ? Is it possible to detect not just the physical existence of how this “fabric” allegedly bends, curves, or waves, but simply to detect the physical existence of this “fabric”, apart from it bending, curving, or waving? Is it possible to detect the physical existence of antything (large-scale) that is not bending, curving, or waving?

That is the reason why, according to Frank Wilczek, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the most disturbing question in physics is:
Why doesn’t empty space weigh anything ?!

https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-feynman-diagrams-are-so-important-20160705

WHAT IF THE COSMOS HAD NO FABRIC ?!

My answer to the question: What exactly is spacetime made of ?, is that spacetime is, obviously, made of space and time.

To quantify “time”, we use physical devices called “clocks”, and to quantify “space”, we use various linear, or other devices. But why there isn’t any device that we could use to quantify spacetime ?!

Now, the question is: Does a clock go around, because time physically flows through it, like flowing water that is powering a water-wheel?

And, when the clock stops, does it mean that it is because time stopped, and is not “flowing” anymore?

It is quite clear that a clock is not a device that could, even in principle, detect the physical existence of time passing, or not passing (static time).

There is no such device that could, even in principle, detect the physical existence of time (passing, or not) nor the velocity of its possible “flow”, and there is no such device that could detect the physical existence of space, nor the actual number of dimensions that space might have.

I know, at the first glance it looks like space must have 3 dimensions (at least). At the first glance it also looks like the Earth is flat and motionless, and it looks like color is a property of physical objects. Because appearances can be deceiving, scientific method prefers objective experimental results.

When a cosmonaut’s spaceship comes back to Earth after traveling long time at near-the-speed-of-Light velocity, and his clock is late, relative to clocks on Earth, then what does it mean? Well, maybe cosmonaut’s clock electric battery is running low? ;-)

Wait a minute! For a Nobel Prize to be awarded, something physically real must have been detected!

No doubt. But whatever that was, it was not the fabric of the Cosmos waving that was detected. Maybe it was just noise that was being misunderstood? If the correlation properties of signal and the noise are similar, how is one to know precisely what is signal and what is noise?

For the fabric to wave, the Emperor’s clothes would have to be made of something physically real.

Yes, it is that simple
.

The Emperor has no clothes
.

https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/gravitational-waves/

Ziggy said...

RichD said...
Ziggy, I think I see your problem. I believe your difficulty is that you don't understand relativity. Don't feel bad, it's a tough concept to wrap your head around. It took me some time too.

RichD, let me share some of my philosophical reflections with you.

Our observations of physical reality and their results,
are not the physical reality itself,
because these are two radically different things.

“What we observe is not nature itself,
but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
― Werner Heisenberg

However, in our everyday lives, this seemingly obvious distinction is blurred, because for all practical purposes, we naturally identify results of our observations with nature itself. We are under quite a strong impression that, in our everyday lives, we see reality objectively, as it is. Or at least, that is what physicists seem to aspire to.

What we use to "sense" physical reality are, fundamentally, our sensory organs and other technical sensors, all of them utilizing mostly electromagnetic waves of various frequencies as carriers of various "signals".

Humans are rather slow in general, our perceptual processing frequency is much lower that the frequency of incoming signals. As long as electromagnetic signals travel close to the speed of light, in our everyday lives we are under illusion that we somehow objectively "see" everything happening "in real time". Even in our everyday lives, we can only sense the signals brought to our sense organs via electromagnetic waves, so there is nothing really fundamentally "objective" about that to begin with. It is just an impression that we love to fall for.

The bigger distances grow, the more everything becomes out of wack for us, because we are not used to wait for electromagnetic signals to reach us, while we have extra time to scratch our heads. Suddenly, our perceptual processing frequency is much higher that the frequency of incoming signals. And here enters Relativity, to save our scientific day, and help us to regain some degree of our cherished "objectivity" in this hostile cosmic-distance environment.

As I will try to explain, this is a very tricky job, because from certain perspective, the more something becomes "relative", the less "objective" it is. It reminds me of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics.

It would seem that every one of us could live in our own relative (subjective?) universe that may be very different from other people's relative universes, hopefully not so much different as to disconnect and turn into a parallel universe. So, when we finally add up all the relative (subjective?) perspectives, hopefully we will get some fairly "objective" picture of the entire universe, without internal self-contradiction, which would necessitate splitting into multiple parallel universes.

TO BE CONTINUED ....

Unknown said...

David Lang writes:

Math is not reality, and reality is not math

Math is useful when the results of the calculations result in predictions that we can use in reality

It doesn't matter if "Unruh radiation" really exists or not if the formulas are a better match for reality than other theories. Especially if they can explain and let us optimize an EMdrive.

Why it works is FAR less important than the fact that it does work, and if QI let's us predict the effect from the design, the rest doesn't matter much.

joesixpack said...

Well said "Unknown".

Ziggy - the empirical data doesn't support dark matter (unlike QI). You are barking up the wrong tree there and I agree that Smolyaninov's paper/results require more confirmation and repeatability. We indeed should question the validity of Unruh radiation results, black holes and the LIGO data - and yes even the JPL work on the EM Drive (but no one has disproven it yet).

I think Mike has 20+ papers now showing empirical confirmation of QI. If he has the explanation wrong, that can change later. (We still, after all, don't know why C is except in special circumstances, invariant). The sum of the empirical statistical modeling rejects a hypothesis of falsification for QI.

The challenge now would be for you to accept the empirical results and explain what the mechanism is of the EM Drive that converts "lost" EM radiation into Unruh radiation.

Laurence Cox said...

Mike,

When you said "Also, they exist only in the future of the accelerating objects and yet reach into the past to affect them. This is not as mad as it sounds, given the EPR paradox." It might be helpful to give some historical comparisons.

Soon after Maxwell created his equations of electromagnetism, it was realised that they had two solutions, the retarded solution (which corresponded to electromagnetic waves as we know them) and the advanced solution (which corresponded to electromagnetic waves travelling backwards in time). Most people thought that the advanced solution did not have a physical significance (this is what I was taught in the 1960s). There was a notable disagreement back in the first decade of the 20th century between Einstein and Ritz (http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/rtzein.htm) where Einstein argued that the advanced solution was equally as real as the retarded solution.

In the mid-1940s Feynman and Wheeler created a time-symmetric absorber theory of Quantum Mechanics. While this was unsuccessful, out of it came the transactional interpretation of QM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation) that was developed by John G Cramer in 1986 and uses both advanced and retarded waves. As Wikipedia describes it: 'In TIQM, the source emits a usual (retarded) wave forward in time, but it also emits an advanced wave backward in time; furthermore, the receiver, who is later in time, also emits an advanced wave backward in time and a retarded wave forward in time. A quantum event occurs when a "handshake" exchange of advanced and retarded waves triggers the formation of a transaction in which energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc. are transferred.'

Bruce Shephard said...

Unruh radiation is impossible and doesn't exist. End of the story. The horse was dead on arrival.

Ziggy said...

joesixpack said...
Ziggy - You are barking up the wrong tree there

joesixpack, I apologize to you for my barking.

I will never happen again.

Promise.

Ziggy said...

joesixpack said...
Ziggy - I agree that Smolyaninov's paper/results require more confirmation and repeatability. We indeed should question the validity of Unruh radiation results, black holes and the LIGO data.

And I went even one step further,
and questioned the validity of the theory behind Unruh radiation.

According to the reasoning I presented earlier,

If you think that my argumentation was flawed,
then please explain how it was so.

If you think that you can theoretically explain
the physical causes of Unruh radiation,
then please let me know, and I will let you know
the reasons why I am, or am not, convinced.

Ziggy said...

joesixpack said...
Ziggy - we indeed should question the validity of even the JPL work on the EM Drive (but no one has disproven it yet). The challenge now would be for you to accept the JPL empirical results and explain what the mechanism of the EM Drive is.

joesixpack, thank you for giving me the opportunity! :-))

It is worth keeping in mind that in physics, experimental results, if properly produced, are always more important than any theory, because we cannot hope that properly produced experimental results will somehow change in order to make us happy and fit our beloved pet-hypothesis.

So, there are experimental results, and there is also issue of interpretation of them.

Experimental results, if properly produced, do not change. The only thing that can change is their interpretation, and that is the reason why we can have multiple alternative interpretations (hypothesies) at the same time, and they all may be reasonable and more or less valid.

joesixpack, I do not see any reason NOT to accept
all the JPL's work on the EmDrive.

I just do NOT see any reason to accept

So, the following is my alternative explanation
of what the mechanism of the EmDrive is.

Due to illustrations that I cannot display in this post,
you need to read it from the following page :

https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/emdrive/

DF said...

Ziggy,

Have you looked at the links I posted?

Ziggy said...

joesixpack said on 15 January 2018 at 19:01
Interesting article, resource and alternative to Wikipedia (for students such as myself): http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Unruh_effect
No mention of our friend Smolyaninov.

Every physicist, who aspire to be unbiased and objective about his own pet-hypothesis, should try to put a comparable effort into verification, as well as into falsification.

My complaint about some people here is that they seem not to be self-critical enough, and tend to conveniently ignore most arguments in favor of Unruh radiation falsification.

Well, I have just realized that I may be guilty of the same, i.e. favoring falsification of Unruh radiation.

Since Joe Sixpack suggested the above link, let me quote:

" The Unruh effect is a surprising prediction of quantum field theory: From the point of view of an accelerating observer or detector, empty space contains a gas of particles at a temperature proportional to the acceleration. Direct experimental confirmation is difficult because the linear acceleration needed to reach a temperature 1'K is of order 10 to the power of 17 km/s2, but it is believed that an analog under centripetal acceleration is observed in the spin polarization of electrons in circular accelerators. Furthermore, the effect is necessary for consistency of the respective descriptions of observed phenomena, such as particle decay, in inertial and in accelerated reference frames; in this sense the Unruh effect does not require any verification beyond that of (relativistic-free) quantum field theory itself. The Unruh theory has had a major influence on our understanding of the proper relationship between mathematical formalism and (potentially) observable physics in the presence of gravitational fields, especially those near black holes."

Well, let's start from the bad news that any direct experimental confirmation will be next to impossible, because the linear acceleration needed to reach a temperature of 1'K would be far out of-the-charts at approx. 10,000 Trillion kilo meters per second square.

The way I see it, the problem is as follows: I want to push my family mini van, and to get it rolling I need to accelerate it just a wee bit, so I try to push it, but it is full of shopping and heavy, and before it even budges, I can feel its inertia. Now, it has started rolling! So, let's try to calculate the actual value of the acceleration and the corresponding value of net Unruh radiation pressure difference on my family mini van, because from the point of view of my accelerating mini van, empty space contains a gas of particles at a temperature proportional to the acceleration.

Let's imagine that the temperature in front of my mini van is 1'K lower than in the back of it. There is a net pressure difference that should push my car forward. I imagine that in the winter, if I light a bonfire behind my car and start blowing on it, it will accelerate the car forward, and if we reach the temperature difference of just 1'K, then its acceleration will be as calculated above... ??

OK, this was just a joke, of course, but please correct me if I am wrong: We need an un-imaginable acceleration in order to produce a mere 1'K, so in case of the near-zero acceleration of my mini van, do we produce enough net difference to justify the inertia that I feel before my car budges?

Another interesting issue is this :

" Unruh effect does not require any verification beyond that of (relativistic-free) quantum field theory itself.

joesixpack said...

I believe Smolyaninov created an experiment which relied on the extremely high angular momentum of electrons traveling around a gold plated curve (nanotip).The temperature rise only needs to be detectable and separable from any artifact based thermal effects.

Like I said replication would be great.

Ziggy said...

Persisting controversies in the Unruh effect :

Some authors deny that uniformly accelerated detectors show a universal thermal response. They attribute the calculated results to improperly imposed boundary conditions at the horizon. The response from the conventional viewpoint is that mathematical subtleties at the horizon do not affect physical observations inside a causally complete region inside Rindler space. Others question the conclusion that the accelerated detector is radiating as seen from an inertial frame. The question appears to be mired in some definitional disagreements, for example on how to draw the line between radiation and vacuum fluctuation, what initial state to consider, and whether and how to go beyond first order in perturbative calculations.

" How to draw the line between radiation and vacuum fluctuation" is similar to the criticism in case of gravitational wave detection: " If the correlation properties of signal and the noise are similar, how is one to know precisely what is signal and what is noise? " See: Was It All Just Noise? Independent Analysis Casts Doubt On LIGO's Detections

Ziggy said...

joesixpack said...
I believe Smolyaninov created an experiment which relied on the extremely high angular momentum of electrons traveling around a gold plated curve (nanotip). The temperature rise only needs to be detectable and separable from any artifact based thermal effects.

Sure, the temperature rise only needs to be detectable and separable from any artifact based thermal effects.

ONLY how to draw the line between radiation and vacuum fluctuation? :-))

Ziggy said...

joesixpack said...
Smolyaninov created an experiment which relied on the extremely high angular momentum of electrons traveling around a gold plated curve (nanotip).

Yes, he did.

From: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Unruh_effect

" It is believed that an analog under centripetal acceleration is observed in the spin polarization of electrons in circular accelerators."

However, other than in case of angular momentum and centripetal acceleration, we still need the direct experimental confirmation in case of linear acceleration, but any such direct experimental confirmation will be next to impossible, because the linear acceleration needed to reach a temperature differnce of 1'K would be far out of-the-charts at approx. 10,000 Trillion kilo meters per second square.

Joe Sixpack, as you know, some authors deny that uniformly accelerated detectors show a universal thermal response. They attribute the calculated results to improperly imposed boundary conditions at the horizon. The response from the conventional viewpoint is that mathematical subtleties at the horizon do not affect physical observations inside a causally complete region inside Rindler space, and still, others question the conclusion that the accelerated detector is radiating as seen from an inertial frame. The question appears to be mired in some definitional disagreements, for example on how to draw the line between radiation and vacuum fluctuation, what initial state to consider, and whether and how to go beyond first order in perturbative calculations.

Ziggy said...

joesixpack said...
Like I said, replication would be great.

Like I said, it would be great if you stop ignoring my questions,

Ziggy said...

DF said...
Ziggy, have you looked at the links I posted?

DF, yes, I have.

Ziggy said...

Let's calculate this :

If the linear acceleration of a body that is needed to reach a temperature difference of 1'K is 10,000 Trillion kilometers per second square, then what distance the body will travel during the time of one second ?

I strongly hope that it will be not much more
than 3 times 10 to the power of 5 .

Simon Derricutt said...

The problem with the Unruh waves travelling at c is a bit of a sticky one. There may be an explanation using the Schrödinger wave function though, since that exists over all known space at the same time and must also have nodal points (zero probability) at the horizons since there is "nothing" beyond them. The explanation seems to remain much the same, and since moving the edges of the probability density would also need to move the middle of it (where we actually see the particle), then it would give a reason why the particle has inertia. This reduces the scope of the Schrödinger wave from infinite to only occupying all known space, but that's maybe a small price to pay and also makes somewhat more sense anyway. If the wave function spread into unknown space then there would be a probability that the particle jumped to unknown space. The requirement that the probability is exactly zero at the horizons will limit the spectrum of the waves that can be used to build the wavefunction. The maths for this is beyond me, though, so I'll leave it to others to think on.

RichD said...

Hello Ziggy,

I think I understand the problem you have with Unruh radiation. Allow me to take another try at explaining it to you. You said this:

On the other hand, in quantum mechanics, in case of a virtual pair made of TWO particles, in principle, it is possible that one of them could be invisible behind YOUR horizon, and the other one visible.

So far, so good. You appear to understand the idea. Continuing on you said this:

Now, you say, that from your relativistic point of view it is true that, effectively, the invisible particle does not exist (for you). True.

Very good. Effectively is the most important word here, please remember that. Continuing on:

Therefore your invisible particle of the pair is still visible to the other particle, and that is the reason that your visible particle is not free to go alone, because the connection between the pair does not become broken merely because you do not see one of them. Therefore the pair will annihilate, and there will never be any radiation.

This is where you are having your difficulty. You aren't applying relativity here deeply enough.

From a stationary observer, a virtual particle pair will arrive, annihilate each other, and then disappear. That is what happens, and it appears you understand that as well.

Now - let's assume an accelerating observer and a Rindler horizon between the two virtual particles. The stationary observer will still see two particles with opposite attributes wink into and then out of existence.

But the accelerating observer with a Rindler horizon won't see the same thing. The accelerating observer will only see one of them. You said as much above, your second quote confirms that.

Now here is the important bit. Again, relativity.

Remember my example with the star? The observer who leaves just before the explosion will live in a universe with the star always present?

From the point of view of the observer leaving the scene at c, that is reality. The star always exists. A stationary observer has a different reality, the star explodes.

Likewise, an accelerating observer will only see one particle of the virtual pair. A stationary observer will see two matched opposite particles wink into and out of existence. An accelerating observer will see only one, but that will be their reality. And since they only see one, there isn't an antiparticle in their universe and it won't annihilate. Because in their universe it doesn't have an antiparticle to annihilate it. It will persist just like a star just before supernova will persist if you run away at c. So since it remains in their reality, they will perceive it as radiation in a manner similar to Hawking radiation. And that is called Unruh radiation.

Yes, it is terrible.

It is horrible to think that acceleration is related to your personal reality. I hate knowing that when I am at the movies and I clap my hands, since they are in different accelerating frames they are in different universes. It is terrible to think about. It can drive you to drink. But it is absolutely true.

Keep pushing onward, you are close to understanding this. Relax and give yourself permission to understand that relativity means there isn't any fixed reality. It's not space, and it's not time, it's spacetime and your movement through it determines your entire universe. Good luck!

RichD

joesixpack said...

Ziggy

Smolyaninov has experimental results. Maybe one assumption of Scholarpedia is wrong. Maybe the results would fail to be replicated...

If we use angular momentum and note the sensitivity of modern thermal/radioimaging processing equipment, the acceleration or velocity required is much lower - still not as low as the article asserts.

Say the experiment is repeated but it isn't Unruh radiation.

That is interesting and non-trivial in itself.

Ziggy said...

RichD said...
Now - let's assume an accelerating observer between the two virtual particles.

Sorry, but I see no good reason to make such assumption.

Accelerating observer between the two virtual particles?!

RichD, do you know what is the distance between two virtual particles?

And, tell me, how long is the time between
they pop in and out of existence?

Rafał Krych said...

Hello Mike,

There is a new paper about Dark Matter failure to explain why satellite galaxies rotate around galaxy in one plane. Please have a look:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/galaxy-rotations-raise-doubts-on-dark-matter

How QI theory explain this?

Geoff Marshall said...

How does QI resolve the mathematic for NGC 1052-DF2 where there appears to be no "Dark Matter" needed?

Roul Sebastian John said...

Hi everyone,
did you hear the latest sensational news? Astronomers say they found one galaxy WITHOUT dark matter, see: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-dark-galaxy.html

Enjoy,
Roul

Roul Sebastian John said...

Hi everyone,
did you hear the latest, sensational news? Astronomers say they have found one galaxy that does NOT contain dark matter, see: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-dark-galaxy.html