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, 14 November 2019

From Galactic Scales to Lab Scales.

The best way to bring about the revolution in physics that we all need - getting rid of dark matter and dark energy, unifying physics and making propellant-less thrusters and new energy sources possible - is to demonstrate QI in the lab. That is being attempted by the two groups I am funding using DARPA funds. I am not at liberty to divulge what they are finding - not due to DARPA but because the experimenters wish their results to be held back till they are sure. This is understandable but their results at least have given me an indication of what might work. I'd like to get many groups to try horizon drives for themselves and this is my attempt to explain how to do that. Please note I am not an experimenter, yet, so my suggestions may be naive in some way - you may well know better, so feel free to tell us all in the comments below. Everyone is welcome, even careful unpublished results will be useful, though most useful would be groups who know how to be uber-careful about artifacts & how to publish in journals.

The Experiment:

1. Make or buy an asymmetric metal resonance chamber (emdrive shaped or similar) that has a very reflective inside wall, so that light of the wavelength you are going to use will bounce around inside it many times before being dissipated as heat (high Q).

2. Place this cavity with its narrow end pointing up, on a digital balance (scale) capable of measuring a change in weight of preferably 0.01 mg (depending on your setup, see point 4), with a fast enough response time that sudden 'jumps' can be seen (see point 5) and able to log data to a PC.

3. Decide some way to get light into the cavity. This could either involve firing a laser in through a hole or using a fibre-optic, or placing a light source in there, eg: an LED with attached battery/capacitor (less efficient as multiple reflections will be reduced). Try to avoid having cables going into your cavity - they produce em forces & external mechanical forces.

4. Activate the light source. QI roughly predicts a thrust force of F ~ PQ/c, where c is the speed of light. So, for example for a light source with power P = 4W and for a cavity with a Q (number of internal reflections) of 100 the force is 1.3 microN and the weight change is 0.13 mg.

5. Plot a time series of the force before and after activation of the light. The QI thrust (if there) will show up as an initial jump at switch on. Any effects due to heating should be slower. These two effects can be isolated as Sonny White did in his 2016 emdrive paper (see references).

Please make sure that the expected QI thrust given by your P and Q is bigger than the scale's sensitivity (ie: watch your Ps and Qs!). The full QI thrust formula is F=PQL/c x ((1/wb)-(1/ws)) where L = length of cavity, and ws and wb are the width of the small and big ends. The way to enhance the QI effect is to improve the reflectivity of the inside of the cavity (higher Q), boost the power of the light source (higher P) or change the shape (L, wb/ws). I am intending to try this for myself, but as the German proverb goes "Einmal ist keinmal, zweimal ist immer". "Once is never, twice is forever", or to use the scientific expression "Things must be repeated to be sure". As I said above I am a theorist, so some of my suggestions here will be naive in some sense. Please tell all of us in the comments if you see a better way!

Acknowledgements. The above experimental plan has benefited from others such as M. Tajmar, J-L Perez-Diaz, Russ George and T. Taylor. Also many others on twitter who have made suggestions. Thank you!


McCulloch, M.E., 2018. Propellant-less propulsion from quantised inertia. J. Space Explo. 2018 Vol: 7(3). https://www.tsijournals.com/abstract/propellantless-propulsion-from-quantized-inertia-13923.html

White, H., P. March, J. Lawrence, J. Vera, A. Sylvester, D. Brady and P. Bailey, 2016. J. Propulsion and Power. doi:10.2514/1.B36120 https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120


mlodzian@onet.eu said...

It is worth analyzing the recent work of Marco Fadi
Theoretical and CFD analysis of gravity and galaxy
formation and rotation in a dilatant vacuum.

Jimmy Johnson said...


The big problem with trying backyard light experiments is that the reflective losses from ordinary reflectors is far too high to give cavities with high Q values. The emdrive related force equations show that force is directly proportional to Q. For example, a million watt laser in a cavity of Q=10 will give the same force as a 1 watt laser in a cavity of 10^7. Unsophisticated metal wall RF cavities can have Q values in the 10^7 range. A simple optical cavity with a metal film mirror would be lucky to get a Q=100. This problem can be alleviated somewhat by using multi-layer dielectric mirrors, but this starts to take the problem out of the backyard experiment arena. Even an imperfect seam in the cavity joints will result in poor Q at optical wavelengths. Because RF wavelengths are so much longer than optical wavelengths minute cavity irregularities do not cause such problems.

The foregoing is not an argument against using light as a means to test QI. Optical structures, like evanescent mode coupled resonant dielectric ring resonators, can have extremely high Q values above 10^7. However, I am unaware of an optical structure that is available to a home experimenter likely to have a high enough Q to produce measurable force.

My opinion is that optical wavelength testing is likely to require university or commercial lab resources to give measurable results. Amateur scientific investigation with limited resources of what you label quantum drive forces has a much more fertile ground in the RF arena. I do not think that it was serendipitous that the apparent discovery of force without reaction mass ejection came during Shawyer's experiments with RF resonant cavities.

Jimmy Johnson

tshort said...

Switching gears: the following evidence of objects spinning together sounds a lot like QI effects.



Might be a good test of the simulator you and your postdoc are putting together.

tshort said...

Here's the most recent coherence paper cited by the article above:


Managalar said...

I wanted to add this: forcing photon asymmetric resonance can make the particle "act" as if it has taken on mass

"During the research the unique behavior of photons trapped in the cavity was found as they behaved like mass-bearing quasi­particles."

"Properties of these quasi­particles, including electric charge, magnetic moment and mass, depend on the symmetry of the crystal and its spatial dimension."


Ireland as seen from America said...

Thanks for the update, Mike. I was wondering how things were coming along, and assuming the worst. I am a little bit worried about the amateur construction, as Jimmy pointed out. While positive result might be good, negative results due to inadequate design & construction might lead people to believe "this is all a hoax". That being said, it's too important to ignore, and I am going to give it a go. But it's important that people realize the limitations of this device.

SkyLoop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Javier Freire Venegas said...

Dear Mike,
I agree that a table top experiment will be very interesting to test your QI.
Following your proposal to repeat Podklentnov experiments with a normal gyroscope (no superconducting) I got a Super Precision Gyroscope. With new AA batteries it spins faster than 12000 RPM. I mounted a cylindrical steel test mass (aprox. 56 g) on a digital bascule (precision 0.01g) and the weight did not changed, even when the test mass was at 2 mm of the gyroscope outer ring, spinning at 12000 RPM or at 0 RPM.
The tests were done last week near Barcelona (Spain) from 11 AM to 5 PM (Universal Time).
Perhaps this negative result is due to inadequate design or understanding.

mikenyc said...


Hot off the presses.

Mike McCulloch said...

Dear Javier. Thank you for attempting an experiment! However, as I said in my book, to work it has to be cooled down to 77K or so to reduce background accelerations. There are other reasons it might not work as well and we can get into an email discussion if you like. Have you tried putting the gyro on the balance? (I know there is likely to be a problem with vibration).

Mike McCulloch said...

Javier: Using the formula in my paper which tests QI on the Podkletnov experiment (da = 7x10^-12R^2r/as), the change in weight in your 12,000 rpm experiment due to QI should be about 0.004%. The mass was 56g so the weight should change by ~2 milligrams. Since your balance only measures down to 0.01g you cannot measure that. You need a better balance.

Zephir said...

Wasn't similar thing proposed or even observed already? Here laser light deflect optical fiber by reactive force of light.

Mike McCulloch said...

Zephir: There have been many theoretical proposals for propellant-less propulsion. The proposal you cited is based on GR, which is certainly not QI. None of the previous proposals worked or we'd be on Mars or beyond by now. QI is a new proposal with specific tests, one of which may have shown the expected thrust (Tajmar's) but not yet conclusively. The deflection of the optical fibre resolves an interesting controversy in physics but does not look like new physics. We know that torches, for example, will show a recoil due to the momentum of exiting light (very small!). The QI drive will show a much higher thrust than that.

William E Smith said...

Mike : I am embarrassed that I have only just read this BLOG trail. I tend to follow your Twitter by the hour assuming "everything" is to be seen there. This is great reading and gives me much more hope you are onto something. Bill

William E Smith said...

Mike : what if I try to talk UManchester into making you a graphene "rocket". What would be your ideal shape?

Mike McCulloch said...

William: Our model indicates so far that a shape like Bart Simpson's head is about right, ie: one side smooth, the other zig-zagged. A 'Bart Drive' :) However, graphene does not reflect light. It might be a good material for a resonating microwave cavity though?

Zephir said...

This is the reaction to the question


dense aether theory explains materialization of photons by dynamic foam model of vacuum: energy of photon makes vacuum more dense in similar way, like soap foam shaken, when the density gradient gets sufficiently dense, then the photon will start to bounce inside of its own density gradient like light ray inside water droplet.

Dr. mtp said...

For shapes like this, you can use porous silicon, see e.g

If you need metal or other nanocoating, event that is possible with ALD for such structures.

I hope this might help to show if there is effect or not, e.g. placing such porous surface close to each other.

Unknown said...

Have you engaged with an Si manufacturer to build a couple of wafers to test the sub-micron cavities? The Si manufacturer I worked for for 35 yrs has a research lab that is responsible for working with scientists and universities on leading edge ideas whether directly in their product tech or not.

Also, if you have a standard design in Si you could also put an LED in the mix as part of the design in Si if desired.

One last question, you are using asymmetry as part of the design using light. From a Qi perspective does an asymmetrical capacitor using electric fields produce thrust in a similar manner?