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

Tuesday 7 July 2015

Ode to MiHsC

A more lighthearted summary of MiHsC, occasionally veering into a Yorkshire accent:

Inertia means you coast along, no-one ever explained the why,
but when you accelerate, a horizon opens behind you as you fly.

The horizon's like a black hole's, so it gonna be damn hot.
You'll see Unruh-heat, if accelerating, but nowt at all if not.

Heat is waves, and MiHsC theory says: they must fit from you to the horizon
because partial waves would let you see behind Mach's forbidden curtain.

So from behind you, horizonward, there'll be fewer waves impacting
The waves in front'll push you back, just as inertia's long been acting

OK so far, but can MiHsC say why in deep space physics fails?
In that slow realm the waves are as long as Hubble's cosmic scales.

So there MiHsC disallows more waves and inertial mass collapses.
Quite a shock, but maybe welcome if you've 'et too many biscuits.

Galaxies spin so fast the centrifugal force should explode 'em all.
MiHsC reduces this inertial force just right: it's really on the ball.

Cosmic acceleration is predicted since before accelerations disappear,
the Unruh waves grow too long to fit into Hubble's sphere.

Dark matter is like Ptolemy's epicycles on steroids, by computer.
MiHsC works with just a few lines, on a piece of paper.



Charles Munn said...

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!

Aaron said...

Nicely crafted!

Just now enjoying and discovering your work. Just wondering, is there any way to utilize these theories to bring an actual product to market (ala the EmDrive - at least potentially)?

Unknown said...

Mike- Serious questions about the differing methods used to calculate Q for EM Drive research are being raised at NSF. Starting to look like the true Q values for many tests are going to be far lower than currently listed (almost never above 10,000). Not sure what the implications of that are for your theory.

Mike McCulloch said...

Kelly: I'm pretty naive when it comes to markets. If MiHsC is 100% correct (I have evidence, but it's not unambiguous yet) then the applications would be big: new sources of energy from the zpf, new ways to move/launch objects, a loophole to FTL?

Mike McCulloch said...

Tim: The predicted thrust from MiHsC obviously depends on Q so a reduced-Q would give smaller thrust. This would make MiHsC's predictions of Shawyer's two experimental results worse, but, depending on the drop in Q, it might make the predictions of the four NASA results better since I tended to overestimate them (see the table in my paper).

Alain_Co said...

About disruptive technology like EmDrive, that change the world, the development is paradoxically much slower that normal technologies.

Michel Vanderberghe explained that simply "the more disruptive, the less funded".
It is not only fear to destroy existing market, but also fear that the replacement market does not start when required...

for LENR, Michen with LENr-Cities propose a model of "mutual assured development" to create a "market sandbox" where people of different interest (researcher, medium industrialist, corps) can reduce the risk of the revolution...

They have made a whitepaper

there is an older interview

It took much time, discussion, reading to start to understand the beginning...

Their method sure apply for EmDrive too.
without that, it will take many decades to start.

Anonymous said...

Maybe a new proof for MiHsC:

Jin Koda et al., “Approximately A Thousand Ultra Diffuse Galaxies in the Coma cluster,” The Astrophysical Journal Letters 807: L2, 2015, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L2, arXiv:1506.01712 [astro-ph.GA]

Lonely galaxies away from every other masses seems to need 99% of dark matter. It deserves to be checked under MiHsC to see if this fits with the theory.

Alain_Co said...

about innovation, this article interesting, not only because of the main conclusion but because of the observations

"In fact, as the data from a recent NIH Report shows, the more innovative a concept, the less funding it receives.

"Governments (and large corporations) have a tremendous fear of (public) failure, which leads to congressional investigations or lower stock prices. And as my friend Chris Lewicki says, "When failure is not an option, success gets really expensive!""

conundrum said...

Just a thought.

Could we detect alien spacecraft by looking for leakage from their EMDrives, spikes at say 24 GHz, or even higher?
Everyone is looking at optical regimes, and the "water-hole", very few at this band.

I suggested this idea by Email to some of the SETI folks a while back, and was summarily ignored.

Mike McCulloch said...

Well, it may be possible someday, but unfortunately your suggestion needs a lot of assumptions: 1) that emdrives are fully proven (not yet), 2) that aliens are here (not proven) and 3) there's no obvious emdrive frequency - it'll depend on the size of the cavity. Fun to think about though.