Rather than criticising theorists that in my opinion are doing things wrong, which is negative, exhausting and would take far too long :) it is more positive to thank those that I admire and who have inspired me in some technical way. I started this list a while ago and neglected to publish it. I have recently added to it, so here it is:
First of all: John Anderson, the co-discoverer of various spacecraft anomalies and more recently periodic variations in big G, without which I would have had far fewer anomalies to get me interested. I love his style because he publishes carefully analysed anomalous data and honestly points out that 'this is unexplained'. This is rare, and is a gift for a data-driven theorist like me.
Although the influence is not direct, I cannot not mention Stephen Fulling, Paul Davies, Bill Unruh and Stephen Hawking (with help from Zeldovitch, Starobinksy & Bekenstein). The discoverers of Hawking-Unruh radiation, without whom Quantised Inertia (QI) / MiHsC would not be possible.
Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff who in 1994 proposed the first model (stochastic electrodynamics) for how inertial mass might be caused by the zero point field (paper), a model that thrilled me when I first read it on a long train journey, like a chink of light would thrill someone lost in a cave. Later I decided it was the way to go, but wrong (it needs a arbitrary cutoff) and this inspired me towards QI/MiHsC and an asymmetric Casimir effect (aCe) which needs no cut-off. I am thrilled and honoured to now be in email contact with Hal Puthoff.
Mordehai Milgrom, who first suggested that physical laws might be wrong at low acceleration and invented MoND in 1983. Milgrom also speculated on a link between MoND and Unruh radiation but wasn't specific, and then discounted the possibility in 1999 saying Unruh radiation was isotropic so could not generate a force. Although MoND is a huge step up from dark matter, it is not as good as MiHsC because it lacks a specific model and needs a number to be input by hand (QI/MiHsC predicts this number by itself). However, Milgrom's papers on MoND were an inspiration to me, and he also kindly commented on (politely disagreed with) my first paper on MiHsC when I sent a draft to him.
Martin Tajmar who has the rare mix of being open-minded enough to test new anomalies while also being professional about it, and he brings much needed respectability to anomalous experiments. Also, like me, he is lucky enough to be married to a South Korean.
Scarpa et al. (2007) who wrote a brilliant paper on globular clusters (published at the first crisis in cosmology conference) that provided the first empirical evidence I was aware of that dark matter, which I didn't believe anyway, was wrong. The data also shows that QI/MiHsC, which depends on local accelerations, and not MoND which depends on external ones, was the answer.
Stacy McGaugh, who I met at my first astrophysics conference on 'Alternative Gravities' in Edinburgh in 2006, and who was the only one at the workshop who seemed to consider MiHsC seriously. He has been kind enough to send me stellar data from time to time, and I hope he will actually cite me someday! He has recently also co-published important results that falsify dark matter.
Jaume Gine, with whom I published the first collaborative paper on QI/MiHsC in 2016. This joint-paper was submitted to so many journals over a couple of years that I'm grateful for both his input and perseverence. The first paper on QI/MiHsC by another person solo was also recently published by Keith Pickering, and takes a refreshingly modified approach (here). Also, Prof Jose Perez-Diaz, who came to see me last year for a few months, and I enjoyed our many discussions. He is now trying to detect QI/MiHsC using a LEMdrive arrangement.
John Dorman who wrote the first, and incisively entertaining, review of my book, a review that struck truer to home than may be apparent from outside, since I sometimes feel just like a boxer in the ring. I now have it blue-tacked on my study wall. He has been especially quick to understand the central importance of horizons and suggested a new name for the theory: 'horizon mechanics'. This name could be used in future if and when gravity is incorporated, since 'mechanics' implies a complete system.
Finally to go back in time again: I submitted my first paper on MiHsC to the prestigious journal MNRAS in 2006, and fully expected to be rejected since I'd never submitted on astrophysics before (only ocean physics up till then). The reviewer said they "didn't exactly believe MiHsC, but it was more plausible than many alternatives which had been published", so they let it pass, to my great joy. The reviewer was also amused by my use of the word 'forecast' instead of 'prediction' (I worked at the Met Office at the time). If this first paper had been rejected I may have given up.
These are only some of the inspiring folk and someday I'll make a complete list. Thanks to all. Happy Easter!
I can't figure out the force diagram HM calls for. If a 1kg particle is under 1 newton of force to the right, it's going to accelerate 1 m/s/s, let's say the force is maintained for a while. As the object accelerates, the Rindler horizon to the left exerts less and less force while the Hubble horizon stays roughly the same. Your book seems to be saying that this differential is just exactly enough to stop the particle. But where was the counterforce during the acceleration? Why does it provide the approximate stopping power only once the object stops? It seems like if you accept F=ma, you're already saying that zero force is zero acceleration, and you couldn't have a counterforce at all; nothing should be able to accelerate at all if the universe immediately provides equal "friction" to stop it.
OK, not "stop the particle"; I mean "stop the acceleration" to create the inertial property.
Dan: A few mistakes. First it is not true that the Rindler horizon to the left exerts 'less and less force' as time goes on, if the acceleration is the same, the horizon will exert the same force. Also, I do not accept F=ma. In QI the formula is F=ma-(2c^2/Cosmicsize).
I explained my question kind of poorly; let me try again. While the particle is accelerating, QI (hope I get this part right this time) says there will be a counter-force, which (99.999+%) cancels out the acceleration, and this is the reason objects stay at the same speed -- that is that the instantaneous acceleration is associated with a counterforce from the Rindler horizon in back?
/* In QI the formula is F=ma-(2c^2/Cosmicsize)... */
In another words the acceleration corrected to apparent space-time expansion as observed with light. MOND theory uses F = ma - (H0 c) instead with similar meaning (H and c are directly measurable, Cosmicsize cannot be measured directly, it must be derived from Hubble constant first r(Hs) ~ c/H0)
Dan: Just a quick correction: in MiHsC it is F=ma-m(2c^2/CosmicSize). I missed out the second m.
Zephir: No, in MoND it can be written in one variant F=m(fn(a/a0)).a where a0 has always been derived by fitting to lots of galaxy rotation data. MoND does NOT have a theory to allow you to go from cH to a0. Saying "it looks close to it" is not a theory. To further make the point, MoND does not even specify whether it is the gravity or inertial laws that are modified.
It's not germane to your discussion here so I hope this isn't inappropriate to post. But I was on a long drive last night and was thinking about QI while I drove.
Do you remember a joke from the early internet, something called the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? It's a parody religion based off of a Russel's Teapot type argument. It goes like this: The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a deity, and we know She exists because she is defined as invisible, and since we can't see her that proves her existence. As for the apparently contrary qualities of invisibility and pinkness, we know She's invisible, but we have faith that She is pink.
It dawned on me from reading your blog that dark matter theorists make the exact same argument! We know it exists because we can't see it, and even though we can't observe it directly we have faith that it has these properties.
Strange that a parody religion would so perfectly mirror a current scientific theory.
This article about observed black matter filaments claims "limited direct observational evidence of these dark-matter-dominated filaments"
In the actual context i do understand it as if it said, absolutely no thread of evidence what so ever.
But otherwhise the article talks about black matter as if it was as real as tax.
/* MoND does NOT have a theory to allow you to go from cH to a0 */
It has for twenty years already. If you whine about ignorance of mainstream physics toward you, you shouldn't also get ignorant toward others under hope, you'll become a part mainstream. Frankly, you're getting quite annoying with it and you should start to think, if it's not actually the reason of being ignored with competent people.
BTW If someone would read Milgrom's work carefully, he could put the serious question, who is actual author of the whole Unruh radiation stuff (BTW fringe, because Unruh radiation isn't superluminal) in MiHsC theory. You're at the verge of scientific plagiarism with your attitude toward Milgrom - and you're risking way morethan just ignorance of scientific community with it. At any case, it's your duty to do and publish thorough review of all ideas which preceded your own theory - not to deny their existence in the name of Einstein's "the secret of geniality is in hiding sources".
/* In the actual context i do understand it as if it said, absolutely no thread of evidence what so ever. */
What you understand can get quite fishy:
Researchers capture first 'image' of a dark matter web that connects galaxies (2017) versus Dark Matter Filament Studied in 3D for the First Time (2012), First Image of Cosmic Web Revealed by Deep-Space 'Flashlight' (2014)
Next first image of dark matter is scheduled to beginning of 2019 year..;-)
Hi, would it be in some way related to your theory ?
Zephir: Your argument is becoming ridiculous and I would suggest you read my papers, as you obviously have not. I do cite Milgrom and others where they are due, but I also point out what is very new in quantised inertia. For example, as I say in my latest paper, Milgrom discounted Unruh radiation in a paper in 1999 because he said it was isotropic so no force can be extracted (see what I said in my latest ApSS paper, page 2, left column, lines 8-12). One of the new contributions of quantised inertia is that relativistic horizons can make Unruh radiation anisotropic. This is new, as is the fact that QI can predict a0, and many other things.
I would also say that your comments are getting rather personal and I would urge you to try to stick to facts, where you can be useful. I put a lot of effort into writing papers, so it is shame that I have to correct misinformation from people who have apparently not read those papers.
/* Milgrom discounted Unruh radiation in a paper in 1999 because he said it was isotropic so no force can be extracted */
Like I've already said, Milgrom had it right, as the Unruh radiation cannot be the source of inertia *), at cosmological distances (Rindler horizons) the less, because this radiation is luminal by its very definition by Unruh and therefore too slow for to mediate inertia/gravity effects at these distances in your mechanism. Not to say, the explanation of inertia with inertia (radiation pressure) of Unruh radiation is sorta circular reasoning. Milgrom understood it before seventy years, whereas you didn't even after my repeated interventions. Nevertheless both Milgrom, both others continued to use his a0 = H0.c formula and many others did derive it from quantum vacuum models after him. I can exactly explain the reason of this controversy, because I do understand its extradimensional holographic nature.
The putting efforts into writing papers is meritorious but it's not enough by itself - one should also put an effort into reading the papers of others and to find the ways, in which they're connected each other. Or he can be accused easily of exactly the form of ignorance **), which he attributes to he peers. So whereas I can attribute you a lotta credit for extending of Milgrom ideas, I'm still forced to perceive your theory as a phenomenological fork of MOND theory - especially at the moment, when its more advanced relativistic form (MOD) has been already developed.
*) The situation, when author of theory got some new things correctly, whereas he misinterpreted its postulates and former assumptions is very common situation in science, and I collected many examples for it from relativity and quantum theory development. It's a deeper manifestation of Goedel's theorems: we cannot advance in formal theory without making its postulates inconsistent.
*) BTW This ignorance is ipso facto manifestation of dark matter effect in the cognitive space because the effort (i.e. time and inertia) exerted into ideas development - as its theorist you should already find a way, how to recognize its mechanism and how to avoid or even utilize it on your behalf.
/* Your argument is becoming ridiculous and I would suggest you read my papers */
I can assure You I'm reading it, but I'm not required to utilize their knowledge once you start with some claims, which can be dismissed without their reading by reading of articles of others.
I'd say, this is also difference in our conceptual understanding of dark matter: you (and Milgrom) are seeing it as a consequence of inertia of central body - whereas I can see it as a consequence of all surrounding bodies. At the moment, when this distribution violates spherical symmetry, then even the dark matter distribution would violate it too (filaments).
What @Josava did say in another thread should therefore apply to you a way more than to me.
Hi Yannick, I would say, the negative inertia is disallowed in MiHsC theory, because it results from kind of shielding of Unruh radiation, which cannot be negative be in similar way, like the shadow can get never brighter than its source. But maybe McCulloch will get inspired and he proposes some way, how to avoid this limit. In dense aether theory the negative gravity and inertia are not only both possible, but they're also source of overunity and antigravity effects. BTW The concept of negative mass is closely related to cold dark matter particles and so-called mirror matter concept and positive lensing of free spaces between galaxies.
Yannick: Thank you for the link. I predicted negative mass from quantised inertia (at v. low accelertns) in my first paper on it in 2007, see eq 9 of:
I do not know yet whether this bears any relation to this new result, which is fascinating and I particularly note their comment that it seems to 'hit a wall'. I need to do the calculations. The speed of light is very low in a BEC and this would have the effect of enhancing the anomalous (emdrive-like) effects of QI..
@McCulloch: The MiHsC theory can predict lower than normal inertia (actually just an inertial force, not the inertia as such) - but not truly negative one. The distinguishing the inertia and inertial force is also important here. Such an observation would violate the shielding mechanism, which the MiHsC is based on.
But MiHsC has more fundamental problem, as it doesn't really account to lensing of dark matter at all. Not to say the lensing of mirror matter of negative inertia filling the voids between galaxies. Could you attempt to address this problem in some way?
> ... it doesn't really account to lensing of dark matter at all.
MiHsC doesn't accept the existence of dark matter at all, let alone any lensing effect from it. I believe that I've seen Mike cover lensing effects in MiHsC, but don't remember exactly where.
Unknown: Indeed, as I have said elsewhere, MiHsC applies to light as well as to matter so light passing by a galaxy will lose inertial mass (eg: just as in the emdrive's narrow end) and bend in the same way as the orbiting edge stars do. So MiHsC does predict lensing. I have not published a paper on this yet.
Well, except that the light bended with dark matter isn't redshifted (in the same way, like the light bended with gravitational lens, btw). It's good you didn't publish paper about it yet.
I think it would be fair to update Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
with Horison Mecanics including MiHsC.
After all you do belong to the "minority of astronomers, motivated by the lack of conclusive identification of dark matter"
Whether you like it or no, MiHsC is a theory as many other.
Where as Black Matter and Black Energy are concepts of beliefs that are based on pure speculation belonging to the category bad excuses.
Something you come up with when you cannot explain what you are seing and don't have an actual theory to back up your claims.
What I'm saying is, believing in Black Matter is like believing in Santa Claus.
There is no real theory behind it.
It's just a nice story that can make your kids (or funding partner) happy.
Perhaps in the future, a LIGO-VIRGO network could shed light on the "Black Matter" anommalies that are being detected.
Until then scientists should spend their time one quantifiable research where there is a chance of success.
Ulrik: Of course, I agree that quantised inertia / horizon mechanics / MiHsC should be on wikipedia, but I and others have tried and it always gets deleted. Feel free to try if you want.
I've had to conclude, after 10 yrs, that dark matter and other established topics, to survive as funding streams, have had to cover up viable alternatives. For example, my published papers for a while were refused by the arxiv (2013-2015). Why? I asked repeatedly. No answer. Now they are allowed on, but are all shunted into the general physics section, usually a place for unpublished non-astro work, so astrophysicists do not see my work on astrophysics. I think it's fair to say that this is unfair.
At least they let you on arXiv. I know at least one published astrophysicist who ends up on viXra because the arXiv don't think his papers are worthy of them. Exactly why I can't say, since he doesn't say anything heretical or bat-shit insane. Another persona non grata I know annoyed the arXiv gate-keepers enough to be banished, but I think his stuff just annoys people by kicking sacred cows of string theory.
Milgrom's theory is very similar and it prospers at ArXive quite well, multiple people are following it and referencing it. I already explained my understanding of this difference above.
/* I do not accept F=ma. In QI the formula is F=ma-(2c^2/Cosmicsize) */
The same effects works for whirligig beetles at the water surface: their centrifugal motion doesn't generate ripples there, until their speed and centrifugal acceleration remains lower than the speed of capillary wave propagation. Of course these beetles don't require any distant horizons for it and whole this effect has a very local origin, because it results from Brownian noise at the water surface (analogy of CMBR noise in cosmic space).
The question arises, how we could quantify this effect of Brownian noise in other way, than by measuring this minimal acceleration directly? We can utilize the speed of surface ripples scattering, which has the same origin and it results into analogy of Hubble red shift at the water surface. Once we measure the speed of surface ripples scattering, we can also predict the minimal acceleration of whirling beetles, which is in essence the approach which MOND/MiHsC theories use.
Such an approach doesn't imply, that the anomaly in acceleration has origin in distance, at which the surface ripples get scattered (i.e. the diameter of observable Universe) as McCulloch is proposing - this diameter only enables us to quantify the effects in independent way. Analogously, the fact that epicycle model enabled the medieval astronomers to predict the eclipses and planetary conjunction doesn't imply, that the planets are really moving in accordance of this model. The numerical regression is just - well - numerical regression. Try to think about it.
Breaking news: older, more turbulent spiral galaxies have slower edge rotation curves than the usual younger ones, according to the paper “Strongly baryon dominated disk galaxies at the peak of galaxy formation ten billion years ago” by R. Genzel et al. to be published in Nature.
Can MiHsC explain this?
… the paper can be downloaded on arXiv:
Julien: Thanks for the useful link. That fits qualitatively. If young galaxies are turbulent they will not need as much rotational speed to keep them above the minimum acceleration demanded by MiHsC. Must look at this more quantitatively..
McCulloch: In context of your theory it could correspond the smaller space for Rindler horizons at the boundary of observable Universe. In essence the dark matter effect should be disabled at the particle horizon of Universe.
Post a Comment