I've suggested (& published in 21 journal papers) a new theory called quantised inertia (or MiHsC) that assumes that inertia is caused by horizons damping quantum fields. It predicts galaxy rotation & lab thrusts without any dark stuff or adjustment. My University webpage is here, I've written a book called Physics from the Edge and I'm on twitter as @memcculloch. Most of my content is at patreon now: here

Sunday 3 May 2015

MiHsC vs 29 anomalies

Someone pointed out to me this week that I tend to publish papers predicting one anomaly at a time with MiHsC (quantised inertia) and these are easy for others to discount, but a paper showing how MiHsC predicts all the anomalies would have more impact. MiHsC now predicts 29 anomalies quite well (and doesn't mess up non-anomalies). Of course, I have already published a book which presents most of the results together, but it's good to be succinct, so I have summarised all  my published results, and some as yet unpublished, in this Table (click on it for a closer look):

The second column identifies the anomaly, column 3 shows the size of the observed anomaly, column 4 shows the MiHsC prediction of it, and column 5 is a brief discussion of the degree of success of MiHsC, and also mentions rival hypotheses, their degree of success, and how arbitrary they are. I have arranged the anomalies from the cosmic scale down to the Planck scale. It is always risky putting something like this up, because there may be errors, and some may disagree with my assumed cosmic acceleration for example, but I'm putting it up so people can make comments and correct me if needed.

The main point here is that my confidence in MiHsC is not due to its agreement with any one anomaly, which is rarely perfect, but the generality of all of them together (Introduction to MiHsC).


Unknown said...

Mike -

Currently at the rumored to be possible stage (from 'Mulletron') but it seems Shawyer might deign to post in the NSF EM Drive Thread. Interested?

Mike McCulloch said...

I'm interested, but I'm hoping he'll release some more experimental results, & I suppose that's unlikely..?

Unknown said...

Mike -

You and Rodal are apparently hoping for the same thing. Big Shawyer topics at the moment are his-

1) 'Demonstrator' engine (did you see the 'turntable vid' on that?) and the way it can reverse thrust;

2) not using dielectrics anymore;

3) contention about a 'moving frame of reference' (as I understand this explanation, the EM Drive is more 'ramjet' or 'turbo-charger' than direct propulsion source - well, sort of)

Basically, more info on older tests

Chief Admin Chris at NSF has offered to set up a dedicated Q & A thread, one question per post, should Shawyer decide to participate.

Unknown said...

Decided to park this here - a statement from Shawyer via Mulletron on the NSF site which I deem in danger of getting lost in the shuffle:


Shawyer said to use narrow band source for cavity with shaped ends.

Wideband is for cavity with flat ends.

Thus, Eagleworks is using the wrong type of signal source.


This appears to be crucial to whatever is really going on with the EM Drive. Any ideas, Mike?

Unknown said...

Apologies, but (potentially important) things seem to get lost in the noise at NSF:

Comment by Rodal on the Chinese experiments:


Paul March has addressed and explained this as follows: Chinese (Prof. Yang) calculated loaded Q factors are much higher than the Q's reported by Shawyer and by NASA' Eagleworks because of the unorthodox way that the Chinese calculate their loaded Q factors. Instead of using the S11 zero dB reference plane to measure their -3dB down bandwidths from, as is done elsewhere, the Chinese use the most negative dB S11 value located at the resonance frequency and measure up 3dB toward the S11 zero dB plane. Therefore, of course, the bandwidth figures used by the Chinese in this unorthodox calculation are going to be ridiculously small which yields correspondingly artificially large values of the calculated Q-factor. Prof. Yang's most recent paper containing the embedded thermocouple temperature measurements spell this out very clearly.

BOTTOM LINE: We have to communicate in a common language. When discussing Q's for Prof. Yang's experiments we cannot use Prof. Yang's calculated Q's as they are artificially high due to her unorthodox calculation. Instead, the procedure followed by Zen-In should be followed, which gives the real Q (which is actually lower than the Q's measured by NASA Eagleworks or by Shawyer).


Link to unpublished Graph of 2010 results by Mulletron


NWPU 2010 unpublished test results

Unknown said...

Ok, parking more stuff here:

First, from Rodal, after an involved discussion with warptech and deltamass:


Thanks !

Since the quick trip scenarios presented by Dr. White in his papers (that were paraphrased in the NSF article) assumed a constant acceleration under constant power, it looks like that there are two alternatives here:

1) At speeds v < m a = P/v => a = P/(m*v) therefore at constant power the acceleration is inversely proportional to the speed. Equivalently for constant acceleration the power needs to be increased proportional to the speed. Therefore the real performance of the EM Drive (for interplanetary missions or for going to Alpha Centauri) is much, much inferior to the calculations in White papers, and White with Joosten, etc. and they need to revisited.


2) as Paul March proposes, White's QV theory is the other side of the same coin as Woodward's Mach Effect,


for which they assume constant acceleration at constant power, and the energy paradox has to be formulated in terms of the inertial mass of Woodward instead. (All kinds of questions here remaining to be answered: is Woodward conjecture a real effect? is the EM Drive "thrust" due to Woodward Mach Effect? is there an energy paradox for Woodward's effect ?)


And from Rodal, as part of a discussion on correcting for air currents/thermal effects:


Excellent question. I think an answer is found by looking at the last pages: although there are a couple of posts detailing that Cullen (the first person to successfully measure the microwave radiation pressure in his PhD experiments) solved the thermal convection problem by using a mesh, there are countless replies here saying "Theories are theories. I will do exactly the same thing as Shawyer. " :) In other words: experimenters are doing what Shawyer did. Shawyer did not use a mesh.

The important bit here is Cullen (Rodal reviewed his 1952 paper, which dealt with a sort of 'EM Drive in a cylinder.' Cullen's paper is often referred to by Shawyer.

Andrew Palfreyman said...

I need some assistance from you in understanding how MiHsC can modulate inertia in a practical fashion. Please, if you can, describe an experimental set-up (in a lab) whereby such inertial changes could be expected to occur.

Mike McCulloch said...

One way to test for MiHsC in a lab is to produce huge local accelerations by whatever means, and look for the predicted local increase in inertia, which should appear as anomalous movements, or losses of weight. With your practical experience you may know of better ways to do this, but here are some possibilities:

1. Spin a disc very fast and weigh objects near it, but isolated from it. The weight should go down v. slightly (MiHsC increases its inertial mass slightly so its sensitivity to gravity decreases).

2. Weigh a superconductor as you let it warm up past Tc. At Tc the electrons decelerate, so MiHsC predicts the material's inertial mass should jump up briefly and the weight should go down (Modanese has seen something like this in expts).

3. Use an electric circuit that accelerates electrons or matter very fast.. I've read of your, March's & Woodward's piezo-electric expts.

Other more difficult (?) lab tests are to interfere with the Unruh radiation that MiHsC assumes causes inertia by applying EM waves, or creating horizons using metamaterials.

Unknown said...

Mike, this sounds a little like your theory:

Testing Dark Matter Theories on the Tabletop:



One of the intriguing facts about dark energy is that it seems to act with enormous force over the vast empty spaces in our universe - pushing space apart, while not having any measurable effect on the scale of planets or even the solar system. This adaptive nature of dark energy has motivated the theoreticians Justin Khoury and Amanda Weltman to formulate the so-called 'chameleon' model in 2004. They suggested that the main actor of dark energy is a particle which interacts strongly in a high vacuum, while being screened in 'denser' environments such as on Earth or even in the Milky Way.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-05-dark-energy-theories-table.html#jCp


Unknown said...

Mike, your theory is being discussed (mangled?) at NSF:

From Einstein79:

A coincidence indeed. I am reading his work now. He has a very interesting and unique approach but from what I read so far, he is still ignoring that space is an object. This "Unrah radiation" he uses is still based on virtual particles and not space itself and is only "created" (or seen) by moving objects. However, I particularly like his idea of a macroscopic Casimir effect because that certainly is a space-time anomaly.

If I were to use his ideas I would only use this "Unrah radiation" to describe the doppler shift of the space-time wave function as a result of the object moving. An object does not need to be moving in order for it to "feel space" and/or be perturbed by it. The Casimir effect is an excellent example of this. As far as the allowable nodes he wrote about, he kind of contradicted himself by stating that only certain wavelengths would be allowed between the object and the Rindler horizon because he assumed that the speed limit for light is what limited the transfer of information but then later suggests that the speed of light can vary under this approach. I find this contradictory because if the speed of light can vary then nothing would limit information exchange thereby allowing all possible wavelengths. There also is the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. In this situation, the transfer of information is not limited by light at all but is instantaneously transmitted directly through the space-time mechanism whether the particles are moving or not.


From Deltamass in response to above:

McCullough has a paper "Newtonian gravitation from the uncertainty principle" which is very creative, but cannot possibly be right. Sitting next to me here is a Mettler mechanical balance that weighs down to half a Planck mass (10 ug). He asserts that anything smaller than mP does not gravitate.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike McCulloch said...

Jajestemglupi: MiHsC makes specific predictions with no arbitrary inputs, so it is a theory. You can find links to all my papers on my university website, in the publications section, here:


Simon Derricutt said...

Mike - with reference to your May 10th answer here, it may be worth looking at Richard Banduric's work at http://displacementfieldtechnologies.com/ and http://www.electricspacecraft.org/index.html . Richard has measured force from rotating one charged disc relative to another. The experiments seem to still be progressing nicely, though AFAIK he hasn't produced enough force yet to lift a quadcopter. He found the relevant force in Faraday's equations. You'll probably find it interesting to look at, anyway.

Mike McCulloch said...

Simon: Thanks. Indeed, MiHsC predicts behaviour like this (weight loss for mutually spinning discs). With the information they give on the website it is not possible to calculate a MiHsC prediction. I'd need a disc radius, an exact rpm and a disc mass, but a rough estimate shows it could be the right order of magnitude. However, MiHsC does not need a potential difference, so that is a difference..