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

Monday 25 April 2016

MiHsC in a Glass

Information horizons are predicted by relativity, but the point of MiHsC is that their consequences have not yet been included in physics. If you do include them, then you can explain a lot of mysteries, like galaxy rotation, cosmic acceleration, the emdrive and many others..

Imagine you have a glass of, to take a purely random example, beer, in your right hand. Someone pushes your arm and the beer glass moves to your left, the beer spills out to the right and you have to go looking for a mop. Physicists will tell you, "Oh, that's because of Newton's first law that things like to keep going at the speed they already are, so the beer is trying to maintain zero speed with respect to you ...and please pay to get my beer-stained shirt cleaned", but all that is just language, not an explanation.

What MiHsC says is that when the beer and glass accelerate to the left, logic notes that some information from far to their right, limited to the speed of light, will never catch up and an information dead-zone opens up light years away to the right, with a horizon enclosing it. The faster the acceleration, the closer the horizon. The zero point field from the point of view of the beer glass is in the form of Unruh radiation. It is usually uniform in space so energy cannot be extracted from it, but now that the beer glass has accelerated and formed a horizon, the Unruh radiation is damped by the horizon on the right hand side of the glass since some Unruh waves do not fit between the glass and the horizon (just as the zero point field is damped between two metal plates in the Casimir effect) and so more zero point field particles hit the glass of beer from the left than from the right, and it gets pushed to the right (inertia) just as in the Casimir effect more particles hit from outside the plates then in, pushing them together. You're holding the glass so your force opposes this inertia, but the beer responds to the horizon's effect on the zero point field and moves right.

MiHsC also says that this asymmetrical damping doesn't work for tiny accelerations since the Unruh waves get as long as the Hubble scale and so the Hubble horizon (a horizon formed as stars disappear from our view) starts to damp the waves equally all around, so the mechanism I've just descibed fails and so inertia collapses at low acceleration. This accounts exactly for why galaxies don't centrifugally explode like they should according to the old physics. No dark matter is needed.

No dark energy is needed either because the loss of inertial mass at low accelerations predicts a minimum acceleration for nature which looks like cosmic acceleration. The point is that MiHsC is all about information horizons making the zero point field non-uniform, so that unexpected energy can be extracted. An equivalent viewpoint that I'm working on now is that information stored on horizons can be released by 'squeezing the horizon' (an intro) but that's another blog..

A MiHsC Joke:

Traffic Officer: "Now then, Sir. Do you know you accelerated to well over the speed limit?"
MiHsCreant: "Sorry Officer. I was trying to see my Rindler horizon."


AdamW said...

So where does the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass come in?

Mike McCulloch said...

MiHsC technically breaks equivalence, but only for tiny accelerations and also the anomalous dynamics predicted by MiHsC are 'independent of the mass' so won't show up in the torsion balance experiments that are used to test equivalence, or in the Microscope satellite just launched. Galileo's two balls still fall together, but both slightly faster.

Alex said...

Can You specify what are these "zero point field particles" ?

Are they all elementary bosons ?

But there are plea of different bosons with different properties. Why all these different bosons acts upon target matter (leptonic and baryonic, charged and uncharged) in one way, in strong proportionality with target's rest mass ?

Analytic D said...

I'm not sure any work has been done trying to tie MiHsC to the Standard Model, yet.

The primary thought experiment I've had towards particle modelling is that coorbiting point masses at the particle scale will have very large accelerations, and thus very close Rindler horizons, which might behave like a particle radius of sorts, limiting interaction to a near scale. Beyond that scale, you can only interact with the point mass from the pair that is furthest from you, since one nearby is accelerating away (toward the other) and no longer exists in your reference frame. This of course depends directly on the orbital radius and velocty.

That mechanic could generate some very counterintuitive results. A high acceleration three point mass problem suddenly can contain sub domains where two of the bodies with high acceleration toward each other can each have horizons excluding the third body, only to have it reappear to both after a close pass. I find it interesting that AAB and ABB settings for the 3 point masses might have parameters under this arrangement that are ultimately stable, similar to UUD and UDD with quarks, while something like the massive top quark will not be accelerated sufficiently to create a near enough horizon to shield it and make it "stable".

Mike McCulloch said...

Linking MiHsC to particle masses is a definite priority, and something I have neglected so far. I've made a few attempts to link particle masses with radii, using eq. 4.2 in my book, from which you can get mass=(pi^2*h)/(48c*lengthscale), which with the numbers substituted in is:


The key is to start predicting and checking numbers. For example, I can get close to the proton radius from its mass, but I'm not sure what the length scale should be: radius? diameter? Using the Hubble scale you can get mass=10^69 kg. What could that be?

Interesting comment about quarks, need some numbers to test against..

Analytic D said...

10^69 kg is quite a bit. But the coorbiting rindler mechanism would leave a lot of EMeye unobservable externally. For example, if gravity were a sheltering phenomenon of sorts, then anything coorbiting with extremely high acceleration would barely interect with anything, outside of a rare close pass. Neutrinos fit that bill.

Mike McCulloch said...

Oops. 10^-69 kg!

qraal said...

1E-69 kg is a figure I've seen for graviton mass. Makes for the interesting idea that gravitons get heavier in the deep past.

qraal said...

As for the Rindler horizon of quarks, the Rindler Horizon is c^2/a, while quarks orbiting at ~c in the radius of a proton, R, require a centripetal acceleration of c^2/R...

TeckaCZ said...

I have chosen this quite general, introductory article as placeholder for my questions in discussion. I somehow decided, that it would be great if MiHsC/Unruh radiation/Rindler horizons was to be the "new physics" for 21st century, allowing us to better understand what we see and maybe use some new tweaks and hacks to see little bit more and satisfy our curiosity. But people with academic background use far more sophisticated language to communicate laws of nature and this language includes many "security features", protecting them from introducing new ideas. Maybe there is place for someone in "buffer zone" between "big paid science" and general (Internet) public, maybe not... so now the "questions" (I started already on twitter, so some of the questions are already answered).

We have the "new E=mc^2", the MiHsC formula:

mi = m (1 - 2c^2/|a|*T)

but it's not entirely clear, what are constants and what variables in this formula, and how we get to know these values. It's obvious, that at the beginning of MiHsC idea was that we sometimes (indirectly) observe behavior driven by the ratio between Hubble scale T (which is something we observe) and c^2 (which we know means something since relativity emerged). But this indirect observation went long unnoticed or even denied.

Now some questions/ideas/insights:

1) The formula is valid for each "massive particle" (newtonian term anyway.. may turn out to be oversimplification as well). Each particle has it's own distance to horizon, T, which is sometimes as big as universe as we observe it (from our own minimum acceleration point of view, consisting of all rotational movements of Earth around Sun and Sun around galactic center), sometimes it can be much smaller (as is suspected in cases of sonoluminiscence or EmDrive). It can be probably said, that measured acceleration IS the distance to horizon - that these are just two ways how to observe the same quality of particle (eg., when we measure potential energy in gravitational well, and now how big is g of given well, the potential energy and distance both describe the same quality

2) as already mentioned by @memcculloch on Twitter: it's obvious, that horizon of particle cannot be larger, than horizon of cosmos within which the particle is contained, but this is already excursion from the good old 17th century arithmetic into quite modern (20th century) sets theory! (note: as a 80's kid, which means "natural born programmer", I tried to study computer science, but failed badly, mainly because of calculus and other math :-). How the particle should know, that it's horizon is restricted by being embedded in some cosmos with larger horizon, in the first place? Maybe be trying to further decelerate.. but either not being able to do so (never minding how hard you try - just like trying to accelerate of c, speed of light), or rather: not being able to find any direction, in which absolute |a| would decrease instead of increase (I like this more, because by using absolute, scalar value |a| instead of vector, some information is lost... in order to change value of |a|, particle must "know" in which direction delta-a should be applied)

TeckaCZ said...

3) now let's discuss the "normal" m, from which mi (observed intertial mass) is determined. What is this "uninertial mass"? Probably the one we observe as gravitational mass. The only way we can measure gravity is to let two massive particles gravitationaly interact, which can be done either in free fall, or by countering the force by some reactive force. In free fall in vacuum, two gravitationaly bound objects, not in orbit around each other, accelerate towards each other. Objects acquire kinetic energy, but this energy should be 1/2*mi*v^2, derived from modified inertial mass, not from gravitational mass. Due to acceleration, mi is usually slightly less than m, which means, that not all gravity potential can be converted into kinetic energy. (Which means... what? energy is not conserved? or it is conserved, but potential energy in gravity well is not as big as we think?)

4) how to measure a in the first place, if we are not observing huge complex systems of objects from great distance, like galaxies, but rather small objects? If we dive into small scales, like atoms or molecules, then Heisenberg principle of uncertainty is at play, and it maybe even harder to measure a or |a| of small particles, as it is already hard to measure their velocity (or momentum: there is well-known trade-off between measuring momentum or location, but not being able to determine both). I actually to consult PhD chemist about that, it seems possible, that there it is actually possible to determine quite exact |a| between two quantum-entagled (?) "data packages" of momentum-location of two particles. So far, our possible triboluminiscence-MiHsC connection is blured by fact, that I was told, that when crystal lattice is broken, it is not as simple as "atoms do not move, do not move, then accelerate, than move". We would definitely need some "quantum-mechanics-aware" version of MiHsC for predicting observation on quantum-scale, which would mean starting to talk the weird language of quantum mechanics (which so far have driven insane anyone who tried so). This may be true for sonoluminiscence-MiHsC connection as well: maybe we have tiny non-blackhole informational horizons caused by ultra-high accelerations just in-front of our eyes, within reach of low-cost DIY/basic-school experiments, but we can't be sure before we know how to calculate those ultra-high |a| affected by quantum effects.

TeckaCZ said...

5) in some of MiHsC "narratives" (because I really don't how to call it better :) "predictive narratives", maybe), even c is not constant! (trying to explain stuff like astrophysical jets). But this is big step into "extreme relativism" avoided even by general relativity. MiHsC boasts not introducing any arbitrary adjustable parameters, but does it as the cost of making even c adjustable! :-) I am not saying it's completely wrong... it just makes me laugh. But I should probably not care how the rabbit got into the hat in the first place :) At least, universe where c is not constant would be much better place for space opera sci-fi genre (which is part of my motivation to study MiHsC anyway).

6) back to the basics: MiHsC considers "relative acceleration" of objects. The problem is, that object knows about its "absolute acceleration" only: it feels force, which relativity says is undistinguishable from gravitational force (eg. light should behave same in lift/rocket, constantly accelerating in open space, and on the surface o planet). Two accelerating rockets closely missing each other are perfectly ok in general relativity: as long as they don't smash into each other or don't weight too much, they can safely ignore each other. But not so in MiHsC: two objects with high relative accelerations somehow indirectly interact, maybe because their Rindler horizons interact (I imagine this as two wakes of a boat interacting, then boats running into each other wakes and rocking.. cosmic horizon plays the role of water surface in this case, and acceleration role of constant speed)

TeckaCZ said...

Experiments needed, not just "predictions":

It seems, that the only way to achieve ultra-high acceleration which can be measured with great accuracy is rotation. Alternatively, the EMdrive's "photons in a can" approach. But experiments with rotation are limited by material properties, experiments with canned microwaves by buoyancy. But even macroscopic observations are somehow limited and not controled (for example: although unlikely, we don't know weather there are not organised clusters of black holes lurking all around galaxies, although it will be substantially harder for them to lurk also around star clusters). So, we should start talking about not-yet-done experiment in controlled environment (because astronomical observation, while fancy, are observing very complex distant environments, which we don't know in detail, and we are only trying to construct our models of them).

Such experiment should not promise sensational results (like Emdrive) and should be better disguised as kind of general boring science. (Well, I would like to see Emdrive replicated.. but may we still don't understand something about it and still work with some false positives which are byproduct of experimental setup...)

I can imagine two way to do MiHsC controlled experiment:

I. macroscopic, probably "controlled flyby anomaly". It can be specially designed trajectory (maybe highly eccentric heliocentric? what about reaching beyond Jupiter orbit, but without gravity assist, not reaching escape velocity? maybe mission to Troyan asteroids?). MiHsC may also predict something about upcoming Solar Probe trajectory (quite high relative accelaration near Sun). Or, maybe the most low-budget experiment of all: put two identical cubesats in almost same initial orbit and make one of them spinning very fast (maybe the second one two, but later). We don't need much feedback from them - just general becon telling where are they... maybe even visual signalling of location would be enough.

II. microscopic. If some chemists are able to estimate acceleration when different materials break up, MiHsC may be able to predict wavelenghts of triboluminiscence events, because MiHsC knows "how near the horizon gets". So far, observed effects range from X-ray to visible. Predicting why sometimes it is X-ray and sometimes it is visible, may attract some attention. (Additionally, it is interdisciplinary research, which is where most new surprises can be expected anyway).

The same is valid for sonoluminiscence: if MiHsC can predict anything useful, eg. wavelenghts for different gases in bubble, different sizes of bubble, different audio frequences, than they must start to take it seriously.

TeckaCZ said...

It's boring, but this is what real institutional science would do: they would task students with lot of of boring calculations and experiments, and they will contemplate only surprising, unexpected results.

I know it is not much, and that simulations are not very popular with MiHsC.. but I still belief, we should run some simulations. Maybe just few particles... millions is nothing, these days. There will be some differences in our simulations... our mini-galaxies would rotate differently from newtonian, relativistic and dark-matterian galaxies. They would have different incentives to start moving in the first place (minimum allowed a). Of course, we can run the same models with or without modified inertia, and see which patterns emerge (we can add invisible matter, like primordial black-holes, as well). All this can be done as few lines of Python (well, maybe C... to make it iterate faster), on pretty amateur basis.

With internet, we can crowdsource the stuff which would be student-sourced in mainstream science. (eg. I am lazy to do math, but I am not lazy to code and I have lot of hardware doing stupid PHP for customers during daytime, where I can run lot of stuff late in the night... nothing big, but still more then supercomputers few decades ago could do). I cannot invent the formulas myself, but I can iterate them for millions of interacting points, just to see what happens (remember: it is not enough for galaxies to rotate.. they also form spiral arms, etc. such simulations were first done decades ago, and this is also where dark matter was arbitrarily added, to make these simulations look fancy)