tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post6357530704798207689..comments2024-03-16T04:13:10.154-07:00Comments on Physics with an edge: My response to the Forbes articleMike McCullochhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-39539956531380601782017-05-01T13:02:34.807-07:002017-05-01T13:02:34.807-07:00Mike S: Pilot Wave theory has been mentioned in re...Mike S: Pilot Wave theory has been mentioned in relation to the emdrive, but its predictions have never been tested against the thrust data so it is not yet a contender. A theory without a test is just hand waving. The double slit expt is fascinating and I am trying to publish a paper to show that time does not exist for quantum systems, so watch this space. Quantum theory is based on the idea that 'what cannot be measured does not exist'. Historically this sort of idea (the universe is succinct) has been behind almost every advance in science.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-15107329666051708132017-04-30T21:43:21.795-07:002017-04-30T21:43:21.795-07:00I'm a young person just getting started. Firs...I'm a young person just getting started. First thing I noticnoticed is I just can't force myself to believe the nonsense conclusion of the double slit experiment. Until I see different proof I'm going with pilot wave theory. Are your theories about emdrive neutral on that issue? Is it consistent to believe the rest of the phenomena and strangeness of quantum theory without drinking the koolaid on THE Schrodinger uncertainty principle? Thanks.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07488415001441962374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-43049503864870781402017-04-30T21:40:16.280-07:002017-04-30T21:40:16.280-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07488415001441962374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-10724403510730184442017-04-04T06:24:03.342-07:002017-04-04T06:24:03.342-07:00Dear Zack: Thanks for the comments. I like Cramer&...Dear Zack: Thanks for the comments. I like Cramer's TIQM: it is a step forward. I've developed a simpler, more philosophical approach, which assumes that time simply does not exist (dilates) for quantum systems since they cannot measure it, and I am trying to publish that (I think it will be accepted soon).<br /><br />I have to say I don't buy the Mach effect for various reasons, for example:<br />1) It has been made by adding complexity to a structure (GR) that the data shows is flawed at very low accelerations (galaxy rotation anomaly) so the Mach effect hypothesis, despite its complexity, can offer no solution to that huge problem.<br />2) As far as I know, the Mach effect's predictions have not been compared with the emdrive data (I've never seen a comparison) so I cannot agree that it 'works with the emdrive'.<br />3) Its agreement with even the experiments in its narrow range of applicability seems very patchy.<br />4) To me, the Mach effect has an overabundance of complexity without producing predictive success.<br /><br />I agree with your comment about common language. I am now, thank goodness, making a few social connections with the mainstream, so this is becoming a priority.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-2159358869042207972017-03-31T17:50:11.809-07:002017-03-31T17:50:11.809-07:00You might want to take a look at Cramer's Tran...You might want to take a look at Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and Feynman's Absorber Theory, and how this might be the missing piece for unifying quantized inertia with the Mach Effect and GR. Those 2 essentially identify the complex-conjugate of the wave function in QM as its advanced wave (backwards in time relative to 'ordinary' matter) echo. The Born rule then amounts to simply a transaction between past & future that occurs in net 0 time w/ respect to the rest frame of the measurement, conceptually solving the measurement problem & making quantum physics a lot more coherent in terms of what's physically going on.<br /><br />I bring this up for 3 reasons: <br />1) It would conceptually explain what's going on in the QFT 'vacuum', esp. quantum fluctuations, in a way that naturally fits with QI. It all becomes wave mechanics and horizons in the end. <br />2) QI becomes equivalent to the Mach Effect in certain classical limits, which would explain why both models can work for things like EM Drives. <br />3) This sort of temporal wave mechanics allows you to have effectively FTL effects without any violations of relativity or standard quantum physics. <br /><br />Just a thought. Ideally if you could package your theory in roughly the same mathematical language as QFT or GR, it could 'talk' to the world of the Standard Model and you could publish it where most of these theorists might see it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715202970846967552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-72207485389097992232017-03-12T06:45:00.142-07:002017-03-12T06:45:00.142-07:00Tension in the Hubble constant: H0 = 67 or 72? - w...<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/5wnb93/tension_in_the_hubble_constant_h0_67_or_72/" rel="nofollow">Tension in the Hubble constant: H0 = 67 or 72?</a> - which value would look more correct by using of your derivation?Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-68119524552936058262017-03-12T06:40:11.049-07:002017-03-12T06:40:11.049-07:00BTW The original MiHsC theory uses diameter of Uni...BTW The original MiHsC theory uses diameter of Universe i.e. light speed and Hubble constant as a main parameter (in similar way like the MOND theory). Once this parameter can be expressed with uncertainty principle and gravitational constant, it would mean that only Planck constant and gravitational constant would be required for complete estimation of the speed of Universe expansion, not to say about quantum gravity effects. It points to the local i.e. geometric effect of expanding space-time illusion.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-3998075136618681122017-03-12T05:56:30.795-07:002017-03-12T05:56:30.795-07:00Mike, every theory or model explaining inertia sho...Mike, every theory or model explaining inertia should also explain the gravity or at least show, why/how they're equivalent. And gravity is local effect nonrelated to any distant information horizons.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-75035772033156987682017-03-09T08:37:11.697-08:002017-03-09T08:37:11.697-08:00Zephir & Josave: You both made interesting poi...Zephir & Josave: You both made interesting points about the non-local properties of Unruh radiation. I am trying to explain the MiHsC process as a more non-local, informational one. I'd be interested in your opinion of my recent paper here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.06787Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-74293218962301227542017-03-08T15:40:05.346-08:002017-03-08T15:40:05.346-08:00According Milgrom, Modified Inertia versions of Ne...According Milgrom, Modified Inertia versions of Newtonian Dynamics are non-locally theories, and so MiHsC is.<br /> <br />But this doesn’t mean that Unruh radiation (remember, a quantum paired generated photons) need to be superluminal. You just only need that every photon received is an entangled versions of a distant paired one. And Unruh radiation is entangled by its nature... good starting point.<br /><br />I am actually visualizing that a proper framework of Unruh generated radiation integrated all around horizon is the key for Mike’s Theory, and the role of distant entanglement is paramount…Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00601265849093294827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-1781655563780002842017-03-08T04:31:21.353-08:002017-03-08T04:31:21.353-08:00We already discussed it: the "Unruh radiation...We already discussed it: the "Unruh radiation" of yours must be superluminal for your theory being able to work - but Unruh radiation in its original meaning is just the form of light. Note also, that the explanation of inertia with inertia (radiative pressure) of some radiation is merely sort of circular reasoning. Therefore I wouldn't overestimate the physical logic of QI/MiHsC theory based on Unruh radiation in comparison to MOND theory, neither the explanation of the "non-adjustable" parameters of your theory with it.<br /><br />For me both your theory, both Milgrom's theory undoubtedly represent progress in physics, but their conceptual difference is IMO smaller than you would probably like to have. But for us - the rest of physicists - it's always good to have some competition..;-) Whereas MOND is already elaborated into its relativistic form (MOD), the derivations of yours are more straightforward and they have been applied to wider range of phenomena - so that everyone can choose what he likes more. Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-10758829030213755102017-03-04T07:12:33.208-08:002017-03-04T07:12:33.208-08:00Zephir: Milgrom said "Unruh radiation CANNOT ...Zephir: Milgrom said "Unruh radiation CANNOT cause inertial mass". In other words he did not and still does not accept MiHsC. I then said "On the contrary, Unruh radiation CAN cause inertia if you do something new and take account of relativistic horizons which make the Unruh radiation non-uniform in space" This is MiHsC, and I have made this point very clearly in my papers.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-64656609088706274412017-03-04T06:34:54.688-08:002017-03-04T06:34:54.688-08:00Milgrom also explains it and he even discusses, wh...Milgrom also explains it and he <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9805346.pdf" rel="nofollow">even discusses</a>, why the Unruh radiation cannot serve as an origin of inertia. That means, he is not only the original author of the MiHsC idea - but he also recognized first (1999) the conceptual problem of this model.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-89285675155015436822017-03-01T06:28:03.721-08:002017-03-01T06:28:03.721-08:00Zephir: I am very aware that in MoND a0 looks like...Zephir: I am very aware that in MoND a0 looks like cH, but my point is that there was no 'physical' model that explained the link. In QI there is.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-37211358760842962532017-03-01T05:33:19.078-08:002017-03-01T05:33:19.078-08:00The adjustable parameter of MOND can be calculated...The adjustable parameter of MOND <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805346" rel="nofollow">can be calculated easily</a> as a product of Hubble constant and light speed. After then both MOND and MiHSC theories get very similar each other. You should also study the theories of others - not just to push your ideas: such an attitude would make you ignorant crackpot. BTW <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-eisenstein/the-need-for-venture-scie_b_8045434.html" rel="nofollow">The Need for Venture Science</a><br /><br />Regarding porous time, in dense aether model the time is hyperdimensional in similar way, like the space and the hyperdimensional objects look porous from low-dimensional perspective. Whole the MOND/MiHsC is about stuffing the flat 4D space-time based theories with hyperdimensional effects of quantum fluctuations. <br /><br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-56859310499760868972017-02-28T04:16:17.060-08:002017-02-28T04:16:17.060-08:00Zephir: It is not quite so simple: Unruh radiation...Zephir: It is not quite so simple: Unruh radiation is a wave in all the quantum fields, not just light, and also in my opinion time is porous for quantum systems (paper submitted). I am not sure how this all fits together yet, but it is a radical change that includes redefining time.<br /><br />I disregard entropic gravity because it is falsified by dwarf galaxies. It predicts anomalies occur just on large scales but they are even worse on dwarf scales. QI predicts this, EG doesn't.<br /><br />MoND was a great step forward in 1983 but it requires an adjustable parameter and has no physical model. QI is free of these problems.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-73811926392279569642017-02-28T02:23:12.039-08:002017-02-28T02:23:12.039-08:00/* it'll have to be superluminal */
Well, aft.../* it'll have to be superluminal */<br /><br />Well, after then it just cannot be an Unruh radiation, which is form of light - it's as easy as it gets. Other than that, the MiHsC theory would work well, because its formal derivation isn't dependent on the denomination of its mechanism. The similar problem faces the holographic model, which also requires superluminal projection mechanism to work. <br /><br />I can understand, you're delimited against Verlinde's and Milgrom's models by now due to competition - but these theories have many aspects in common with MiHsC. You could for example apply your theory to explanation of holographic noise events in this connection.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-3133130578774740352017-02-25T02:23:19.585-08:002017-02-25T02:23:19.585-08:00Zephir: Your comments make sense. Koberlein is as ...Zephir: Your comments make sense. Koberlein is as you say trying to drown out MiHsC, but his use of ad hominems instead of evidence discredits his argument. Interesting that you question my use of Unruh, but there is a smoking gun for it. Galactic problems start exactly at radii where Unruh radiation gets to the scale of the cosmic horizon. A clear empirical signpost. But indeed it'll have to be superluminal..Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-79851047182301455462017-02-24T15:14:36.070-08:002017-02-24T15:14:36.070-08:00My take on this story (1, 2)My take on this story (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/5u7zkw/quantized_inertia_dark_matter_the_emdrive_and_how/ddv083j/" rel="nofollow">1</a>, <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/5u7zkw/quantized_inertia_dark_matter_the_emdrive_and_how/dduz4q3/" rel="nofollow">2</a>)Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-41495950443488705262017-02-23T12:46:24.923-08:002017-02-23T12:46:24.923-08:00Joesixpack: Thank you sincerely for your support, ...Joesixpack: Thank you sincerely for your support, but I should just point out that my undergrad degree was in physics. The confusion arises due to my PhD which was in physical oceanography (ocean physics). This is just as much a part of physics as anything else, and I'm very glad my PhD was in that subject because I enjoyed it and the attitude of the subject (epitomised by Henry Stommel) was that of a newly-developing data-driven field, which is a freer environment to learn to do creative research in. In contrast, in theoretical physics students and later lecturers are far too much in awe of the rigid theories built by past masters and often put theory over data. I am now re-importing this data-driven attitude (used by the greats of the past) back into theoretical physics.<br /><br />Not that my background matters anyway: the first rule of science is that you attack the theory and not the person. The fact that I get attacked just means they can't fault MiHsC.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-345972438788149502017-02-23T12:42:42.705-08:002017-02-23T12:42:42.705-08:00Hi Mike
Good point. Ad hominem means they've f...Hi Mike<br />Good point. Ad hominem means they've failed to pick apart your idea.qraalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13436948899560519608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-78920778889373242142017-02-23T11:37:03.320-08:002017-02-23T11:37:03.320-08:00Joesixpack: Thank you sincerely for your support, ...Joesixpack: Thank you sincerely for your support, but I should point out that my undergrad degree was physics. The confusion arises due to my PhD which was in physical oceanography (ocean physics). This is just as much a part of physics as anything else, and I'm very glad my PhD was in that subject because I enjoyed it and it is more real, more respectful of data, and the attitude of the subject (epitomised by Henry Stommel) was that of a newly-developing field, which is a freer environment to learn to do creative research in, than say theoretical physics where students are far too much in awe of the rigid structures built by past masters. I am now applying a freer creative attitude to theoretical physics.<br /><br />Not that this matters anyway, the first rule of science is that you attack the theory and not the person. The fact that I get attacked just means they can't fault MiHsC.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-16930815712835661352017-02-23T11:21:19.291-08:002017-02-23T11:21:19.291-08:00Dear Pop: Thank you for your comments. I appreciat...Dear Pop: Thank you for your comments. I appreciate them. Indeed, question everything, especially those who seem 100% sure!Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-33620658423157995712017-02-22T17:29:37.992-08:002017-02-22T17:29:37.992-08:00The cheapest sledge was the assertion made by some...The cheapest sledge was the assertion made by some ill-informed, "science never changes", homespun "debunkers" is that Mike McCulloch isn't a physicist (read comments elsewhere). <br /><br />Well, if you publish nearly enough papers in peer reviewed journals to become a professor of that field, I reckon you've earnt that qualification in that field as well. It doesn't matter if your undergrad wasn't an exact fit. <br /><br />This reminds me of how Jensen(?) had to create the Journal of Financial Economics to get his paper published - now it is a leading journal in both fields and he created a hybrid one overnight!joesixpackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08912279232742819732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-56804560083588381462017-02-21T03:52:50.956-08:002017-02-21T03:52:50.956-08:00I think physicists have all the right in the world...I think physicists have all the right in the world to search for dark matter convince people and get funding to do it. It is after all an hypothesis among many others. However the fact they dismiss any other hypothesis because it denies theirs (in a way), is completely unacceptable for a group of people that pride themselves to be "the open minded thinkers of the planet".<br /><br />I'm not a physicist, I'm just an enthusiast (and a dreamer), and in the end it doesn't matter if QI is right or wrong, accepted or rejected, what it matters to me is the example of open mindedness and of critical thinking in the face of factual evidence (not just for the sake of it). <br /><br />Thank you, you've been an inspiration, and determined me learn more, search for more knowledge about physics, question and judge than ever. You are an example to me, and I hope many more like me.<br /><br />Sincerely <br />Catalin Pop<br />Pop Catalin Severhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10767225265147312372noreply@blogger.com