I've suggested (& published in 21 journal papers) a new theory called quantised inertia (or MiHsC) that assumes that inertia is caused by relativistic horizons damping quantum fields. It predicts galaxy rotation, cosmic acceleration & the emdrive without any dark stuff or adjustment. My Plymouth University webpage is here, I've written a book called Physics from the Edge and I'm on twitter as @memcculloch

Tuesday, 8 September 2020

The Ball and the Teapot

Imagine a ball in space. Strictly speaking in physics and especially in quantised inertia you can't start talking about it being stationary or not because it has to be moving relative to some other object, so let's say it's static relative to a nearby teapot, but far enough away that the attraction from the teapot is small.

Now put a horizon on one side of it. According to quantised inertia this will damp the Unruh waves from the direction of the horizon and so the ball will be pushed by the imbalance in the Unruh radiation field towards the horizon. Another way to think about the same thing, the informational way (see reference) is that the horizon deletes the knowledge the ball has about the cosmos beyond it. Landauer's principle says that every time you delete information, say, you erase 101011 to 000000, then entropy decreases. That cannot be allowed, so the second law of thermodynamics says that high-entropy heat energy must appear to compensate. So computers get warm when you erase data. I've calculated this energy for the deletion of space, and it turns out to be just enough to power the movement of the ball predicted by quantised inertia (see ref).

So the ball accelerates towards the horizon. Now, as pointed out by several people online or in emails, what happens if suddenly the horizon disappears so the ball gets back all its knowledge about the cosmos behind it? The problem is, it still has the kinetic energy it picked up from the loss of information. Does it lose the energy when it gets the information back? The answer is not necessarily "Yes", because although the second law of thermodynamics says that 101011->000000 must release energy, there is no such imperative for 000000->101011, since there is no drop in entropy.

Can we use this asymmetry, and repeat the process to generate energy? I think that is what is happening with the cycling photons (near and horizon, then far..etc) in the emdrive. However, this brings up many fascinating new questions to ponder. Where is the information 'stored' while the horizon is close, so the system can get it back when the horizon is gone? Can information or heat be swapped between reference frames? How does this relate to the black hole information paradox?

Getting philosophical for a moment it makes sense that our new ability to model worlds ourselves (simulations, games) is inspiring new models of the one we are in, including my recent attempt to express quantised inertia using information theory. Is it just the latest useful analogy? (Probably). Is the cosmos a self-evolved bit-system? Or are we in a deliberate simulation? I'm sure the theologists will spend many a happy hour discussing that!

References

McCulloch, M.E., 2020. Quantised inertia, and galaxy rotation, from information theory. AdAp (accepted). Summarised in my ANPA talk here (the relevant bit starts at 16:24)

20 comments:

Unknown said...

I think any device that produces a fixed thrust from electrical energy, whether from QI, Emdrive, Woodward Effect (MEGA drive) could easily be engineered into an energy generation device. It's as simple as producing energy in one frame of reference and extracted it in another. Assuming your device works while rotating as the others should, it takes a constant power to accelerate a device from it's own instantaneous reference frame and thus the total energy to spin it up grows linear with time. Yet, from a non rotating perspective, the rotational energy grows as time squared. At some point, the object has more rotational energy as viewed from the lab than was input in the frame attached to it used to accelerate it. That energy obviously comes from the universe by whatever means allowed you to generate a constant acceleration from a constant electrical energy source.

In principle, not only should a working QI device provide constant thrust and thus constant acceleration from constant electrical power, variants of it should be able to provide you with that power in the first place once started.

Simon Derricutt said...

I agree with Unknown here. Any device that violates Conservation of Momentum will necessarily allow violation of Conservation of Energy too, and this is maybe the main reason why a lot of scientists will reject any experimental evidence that is at a low-enough level to be able to dismiss it as experimental error. There's after all a lot of experimental confirmation of both CoM and CoE, and thus far all claims of violation have either been bunk or experimental error, or so small as to be unconvincing to the majority. To convince people, the effect needs to be much larger. Even then, there will be the question of whether it's pushing on the container, or the Earth, or the solar wind, etc.. There will be great resistance to accepting that CoM and CoE have exceptions.

I'm not happy with the idea of information being stored at the edge (Hubble radius, normally), since that implies some mechanism for such storage, and some way of interpreting that stored information to produce the reality we experience. There's also the problem of encryption. If information is equivalent to energy, then it has mass, and a hard disk (or other storage system) will have a different mass when it has information as opposed to random numbers. If I'm given a disk with what I think are random numbers, but it is in fact encrypted, then the mass of that disk should change at the moment I'm given the encryption key. Meantime, someone without the encryption key will see the same mass as I did before I got the encryption key. The point here is that the same sequence of 1s and 0s can either contain information or not, depending on what else you know. Within chip design, at some points a low voltage may represent a 1 with a high voltage as 0, and at other points it may be the opposite, since a change from positive to negative logic saves on the total chip area needed.

Though information theory may give the right answers for a lot of situations, I see the underlying basis as paradoxical and therefore not a good basis to start from.

Simon Derricutt said...

/cont....
There's also a problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics in that in order to apply it requires a sufficiently-large number of transactions for the probabilities to become accurate (enough) predictions of what happens - it does not apply to any single energy transaction. The fewer transactions you consider, the greater the fluctuations from the predictions. In fact the definition of temperature itself is an average over sufficient time and space to have a sufficient number of energy transactions that the Boltzmann distribution applies, and that will only apply once thermal equilibrium is achieved, but like any equilibrium situation it is only approached asymptotically but never (in theory) actually will be achieved, just close enough that you can't measure the difference. Heat energy can only be carried by particles (here I'm defining a photon as a particle), and each particle will have a random-direction momentum. In principle, that momentum can be changed by a momentum exchange alone, so by using a field it should be possible to change the random-direction heat into single-direction kinetic energy without any energy exchange. Heat is thus not really a scalar quantity as we were taught, but instead has a momentum vector that averages to zero. Having an average of zero is not the same as not having a momentum vector at all. Whereas the tendency to becoming more-random over time is well-known (and at the basis of that is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle), the tendency of fields to introduce order (by changing the momentum vectors in one direction) is not so much considered. With a strong-enough field and the right particles that respond to that field, you can produce more order over time rather than more disorder. I hope to prove that experimentally.

As to whether we're in a Matrix-like simulation, that will be somewhat hard to prove. I think that's pretty unlikely, but likely a number of people will believe that and produce theories and experiments, and some of those may actually work. The universe is weird....

Unknown said...

Mike, have you studied the holographic principle in which information is stored on the surface of the horizon (in 2D)? Suskind seems to be a strong believer. Black holes don't destroy information, it is preserved on the event horizon. Then, as the black hole shrinks, it radiates that information back into the cosmos.

Robert said...

What I stated above does not imply to me that COE or COM are violated in reality as the energy and momentum comes from somewhere else in the universe. I think it's just borrowed but the different frames of reference argument is just how to take advantage of it for energy production. As for the 2nd Law, there are hundreds of statements of that law and some of them have been shown to be violated. The work of Sheehan shows that under certain conditions, ambient energy can be organized and extracted in violation of the usual understanding of the 2nd Law. In my mind the 2nd law in now a generalization of large systems but dethroned as a pure law.

Simon Derricutt said...

Robert - momentum is transferred by a force being transferred through a field. The fields we know about have a fixed propagation rate of c. When we are considering the standard situation of particles colliding, then the fields are in fact constant, and in that case the force times time will be equal and opposite and thus momentum is absolutely conserved. This does not exactly apply when there is a varying field or a wave, where the direction of the force and its magnitude will vary along the wave. In Newton's day, the existence of EM waves was unknown, and neither was the speed of light as a limiting velocity. However, using a high-enough frequency (in the microwave region) with enough power and with the right separation can (at least theoretically) produce a situation where the action and reaction are not equal and opposite but instead equal and in the same direction. This will violate CoM in reality. Rather than insist that momentum is nevertheless conserved in some way, I would instead suggest that it's better to accept that CoM only applies in the case of constant fields being used to transfer momentum. I also accept that this is somewhat heretical....

Yep, Professor Dan Sheehan has done some good work on 2LoT, but AFAIK hasn't yet produced a lot of power from a single heatsink. Maybe also worth checking on the Lovell Monotherm (and Robert Murray-Smith's replications of this and alternative ways of doing it) as cheap and relatively easy ways of getting enough power to drive an LED, that you can make on the kitchen table. It seems possible that this could be improved, since in effect we simply need to impose a single direction on the particles that carry the heat, so we only actually need a momentum exchange. Also note that a nantenna array tuned to around 10 microns wavelength will also violate 2LoT, and these have been made and tested by MIT and others. The problem is that currently the devices that have been made have been somewhat costly and don't produce enough power to be worth it, so there's not really a market. There's maybe a possibility of improving things a lot, enough for such devices to be practically useful and cheap. I'm working on it.

Whereas I used to take CoM, CoE, and 2LoT as absolutely true, Shawyer's EMDrive first made me question CoM, and Dan Sheehan's work made me question 2LoT, and though the effects in both cases were very small they seemed solid enough to show that violations were possible. Professor Fu's work on 2LoT is also convincing. Engineering is a matter of improving something that works, and we don't bother trying stuff that we consider is actually impossible. Mike's work on the flyby anomalies, galaxy rotation velocities, wide binary stars, and the various non-reactive drives similarly says that there's a possibility of improving how well reactionless drives work, because (again) the universe doesn't actually work the way we used to think it did. Like the other violations of laws we used to think were inviolable, the difficulty is in devising a way to do the stuff practically and reasonably cheaply.

mikenyc said...

I am happy to be educated. In order for CoM to be violated, my understanding is that translational symmetry must be broken (Noether). A horizon appearing would do just that. However, news of the horizon appearing should take a finite time; similarly, any cosmic length scale horizon should manifest itself after a very long time of Ω/2c. So I am not clear that QI as currently formulated is properly relativistic. Also, when discussing creating and destroying horizons these times should appear. Please feel free to clarify my confusions.

Simon Derricutt said...

MikeNYC - since Mike hasn't replied to your point yet, maybe I can suggest something. I was very much influenced by Feynman, who said that no matter how nice a theory was, or how many situations it's been shown to be right, if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong (paraphrase). I figure that the experimental evidence is that the EMDrive and Mach Effect Drive actually work, even though the forces are not currently large, and so CoM is shown to be not always true by experiment. Of course, people may agree or disagree on that....

I also have a problem with the rate of information transfer between the Hubble horizon and the particle, given that the Unruh wave is an EM wave and thus (as far as we know so far) limited to the speed of light. However, there is experimental evidence that quantum entanglement does indeed transfer information instantaneously, and that the "spooky action at a distance" is actually a real thing. In theory, at least, a fundamental particle does not have a hard limit but is instead fuzzy and there is a calculable probability of finding it at any point in all space, and this was my reason for suggesting that it could be this "matter wave" (which is instantaneously present at all points in space) that might instead be the agent by which the horizon has an affect on the particle here and now. To make that work, we would need to change the definition of the wavefunction slightly, so that instead of reaching to infinity it would instead have a boundary that expands at the speed of light. Thus a particle created 13.8 billion years or so ago would have a boundary at the Hubble radius, and one created since then would have a smaller radius, but in each case the actual node or boundary will be expanding into "the unknown to that particle" at the speed of light, and thus gaining knowledge of what used to be beyond the boundary because some of its matter is now there.

Experimental evidence shows that Newton's law of gravitation is not precise at large distances. Mike's theory explains those deviations using only experimental data with no fitting parameters, so to me at least there's most likely a lot of truth in it even if the details may not be quite correct yet - basically the current Hubble radius does affect things here and now by some mechanism. That in turn implies an instantaneous effect, and not one limited to the speed of light. As such, any theory proposed to explain the experimental data will likely break the limits imposed by Relativity. Quantum entanglement also breaks those limits. However, I'd suggest that Relativity defines what we'll see and measure using light as our yardstick, and that this may not be what is actually happening.

Collision of a particle and antiparticle produces two EM waves in opposite directions, and though the reverse is also possible it seems to be a lot less probable. However, such a "new" particle should have a reduced inertial mass for a short time until its boundary encompassed enough of the rest of the universe we currently know. Kind of hard to measure, though. Still, that anomaly should be there if the theory is near-enough to the truth.

Yep, the explanation is weird. But is it weird enough to match what's really happening?

Philosopher Rex said...

Just a crazy philosophical rambling of a non-physicist who likes thinking about things that are way beyond his understanding ...

Photons going the speed of light, don't experience time. Our peculiar sub-light brains interpret information carried by photons sequentially because we experience time. In the case of an entangled pair of photon's we are asking one photon what the other sees - bypassing the filter of time - hence spooky action at a distance. Because from the photon's perspective, everything in the universe happens simultaneously.

;-)

Robert said...

Regarding COM violations, my suspicion is that EM fields can carry huge amounts of momentum under the right conditions but the physics establishment is too busy inventing new ways to say it mustn't because they can't stand that something truly useful might be invented. Why do I think that? Consider any powerful electrical machine that transmits large forces between parts like a rotor and stator in a motor. Since the speed of light is finite, the interaction happens through the propagation of EM fields. Thus, the field must at some point be carrying large amounts of momentum before it 'knows' it will interact with a solid part and generate a large force and momentum in the part. Yet if we instantaneously remove the other interacting part, suddenly the momentum carried away by the field is extremely weak.

Simon Derricutt said...

Robert - that's a good observation. However, try considering that the field only produces a force, and does not actually carry momentum. A momentum transfer is force times time, and if the fields used are non-varying then the forces are equal and opposite and apply for the same time, and in that case momentum will be conserved. Given the speed of light, for most varying fields we actually use in motors the approximation that they are constant is close enough to accurate that we couldn't measure the difference. There's maybe also an uncertainty in the velocity of an EM wave in near-field, where before the wave has settled into the "normal" transverse wave the effective velocity may be significantly higher and the wave may be partially longitudinal rather than transverse. I'm no way certain about that, but there are anomalies in near-field and the longitudinal wave model may explain them. This is a good-enough reason to use a resonant cavity of high Q where the waves are effectively far-field and well-defined when trying to get an interaction between the antenna and a wave with a defined phase difference, in order to try to generate a non-reactive force.

This non-conservation of momentum in certain situations was noted by Feynman in https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_26.html#Ch26-S2 (see figure 26-6). He left that as a problem for the student to figure out, so maybe he didn't have an explanation as to why momentum wasn't conserved. My proposal is that momentum is not necessarily conserved, and that the fact that we normally see that it is conserved is simply that we do not normally set up the conditions needed for it not to be conserved. Momentum is a useful concept, but not fundamentally a conserved quantity. The axiom is demonstrably flawed, as Feynman noted but didn't follow that to its conclusion.

Given that the axiom of CoM lies at the heart of QM (and QI), and that since Newton we've considered it to be always true, it's not easy to re-consider the body of theory with situations where it doesn't apply. It's easier to consider specific situations we've set up where we would expect to see an anomaly, though, such as frequencies in the microwave range and above and high-enough field strengths and phase-differences to produce forces that are not equal and opposite.

The question I asked was "why is momentum conserved?" rather than just take it as an axiom. A silly question maybe, and for centuries it was experimental fact. It's only been fairly recently that there's been experimental evidence that it might not be, and a lot of people simply reject the evidence as being experimental error (and a lot of the claims before Shawyer were indeed experimental error). Once we accept that fields transmit forces (but not momentum as such) we can maybe work out a way to get a large-enough force to be useful.

Roberto said...

I think the computer example of "erasing" from 101011 to 000000 is wrong, because 000000 is a symbol with the same properties as 101011 and you are going from one ordered state (101011) to another ordered state (000000). The computer is heating because it has to switch some MOSFET to execute this command.

Robert said...

Simon, my point was that if momentum is conserved, and I think it always is, there would have to be an equal momentum carried away by the field interacting with an object as the object gaining momentum from the field. But your point and Feynman's problem show that since the speed of light is finite, things don't always cancel out but we never notice that in real machines. They tend to average out but that is different. It suggests to me that the instantaneous interaction of the field and some object is where the real action always is. If that is true, it's not just two objects canceling out their momentum, it is each object and the intermediating field at that object that cancel out. Thus on average, so do the two objects and the two fields but not perfectly.

I realized this, as have many others I believe, when I considered the interaction of two current carrying wires separated by a distance such that the switching of the currents is coordinated that the forces on each wire is always in the same direction. The two wires are made part of the same physical system. Then there is a net force on the system. This is possible due to relativity meaning the finite speed of light. In that case the momentum should still be conserved but the field carries it away opposite the device which is why I think the fields can carry huge momentum. Tuval and Yahalom wrote papers on their version of that idea which they call a Relativistic Engine. Natuarally, the critics ignored it or claimed it can't work and came up with 'hidden momentum' which seems to be defined in a way to prevent people from proposing ideas based on the finite speed of Light. Physicists love to enforce the laws and they love it when they find laws to stop all the fun. But I think they can be wrong sometimes,

Simon Derricutt said...

Robert - I agree with your start-point here, but then I also considered how we can tell whether a field is carrying momentum, and how much. As far as I can tell, we can't measure any difference between a field that is carrying a lot of momentum and one that isn't - it's when that field interacts with a current that we see the force (and thus momentum change). The bigger the current we use to measure the momentum being transferred, the bigger the momentum change rate.

From there I made the (heretical) leap that the field is not carrying momentum at all, but instead it's the interaction of the current and the field that produces a force that is independent of the source of that field (though obviously that current itself produces a field that will, after a propagation delay, affect the source field generating current). This is the same as your point that it's the instantaneous interaction of the field and the object that is where the action is. Since normal interactions use either a constant field or where the rate of change is relatively slow, then momentum is normally conserved, or at least so closely that we can't see any difference from absolute conservation.

Where we differ, therefore, is in whether the field actually carries momentum or not. I'm suggesting it doesn't, and that momentum itself, whilst a useful number to measure, is not actually a conserved quantity. Though momentum is normally conserved, it is possible to engineer a system where it is not conserved.

Around 3.5 centuries after Newton proposed his laws of motion (1686) it might be reasonable to suppose that we'd find some things he missed, in the same way as we've found that his law of gravity isn't quite perfect.

I wouldn't have thought to question CoM without the experimental results from the EMDrive, or Jim Woodward's Mach Effect Drive. As far as I can tell, though, those measurements are valid even though small. We can't however be totally certain that they work until they are tested in space - it could still be interactions with the environment. However, any working reactionless drive also implies that energy is not actually a conserved quantity, too, so it gets more heretical still. For most situations, CoM and CoE will apply, but there are exceptions and we can engineer them once we understand why those exceptions exist. That's pretty dramatic.... Also crackpot, of course, given the centrality of those conservation laws and how well they've been confirmed so far.

If we propose that it's the interaction of an object and a field here and now that produces a force, and that a momentum change is just the force times the time for which it acts, and that normally this works out such that momentum is conserved but it may not be conserved because of propagation delays, then that fits the experimental evidence. It's a small correction to Newton's 3rd law of motion, whilst leaving the first two as being valid even in a relativistic world where the mass changes with relative velocity, and where a straight line is actually a geodesic in spacetime. Maybe there's also a philosophical point here that time is a human construct and, for a particle, there is no future and no past, but only now, so the only things that matter to a particle is what is happening right here and right now - made a bit more difficult because the probability-wave (or maybe the matter-wave) exists everywhere within its Hubble radius to some extent, but that is what Mike's theory deals with so maybe we're getting a handle on that, too.

Robert said...

But the source of the conservation of momentum is the isotropic nature of space. Conservation laws are from symmetry and not due to the details of the interactions. Therefore two separated objects never actually interact with each other, just with fields. If momentum is generated in an object by a force over time, momentum is also generated in the field and carried away in my view. However, your model would give the same results.

A possibly simple way to test this would be to impinge a planar radio or microwave (maser) on a plate with alternating currents in phase with the wave so the Lorentz force is always in the same direction. The magnetic fields and current would be 90 degrees to each other. Will there be a Lorentz force much larger that any photon pressure on the plate? I think there will be.

Simon Derricutt said...

Robert - during the course of thinking over the last few years I've been trying to define what a field actually is. We can state what fields do, of course, but exactly what causes them to exist? Possibly an anisotropy in space. The initial reason for the conservation laws was experimental, and (like Black Swans) if we've never seen something happen, we've extrapolated that it can't happen. It could also be true that we just haven't set up the conditions where those laws are not descriptive of what happens (or traveled to a place where Black Swans exist). I also started from the idea that momentum must be carried away in the field, since we know that photons carry momentum. However, as you noted in your motor analogy, the amount of that momentum carried appears to vary with how you measure it (for an EM field, how large the current you use to interact) so that leads to a paradox - possibly the field carries so much momentum that it is sufficient for any type of measurement we've tried so far and we're only catching a fraction of it, but then we'd see the momentum change at the source being a lot more. Since the generator of that field cannot predict the future (at least I think that's true) it cannot put just the right amount of momentum into the field so that, in future when it interacts with something else, it is taken out and everything balances.

If we use an EM wave, I presume that it will consist of photons, and so there is a certain minimum momentum in that wave. However, that minimum is a lot smaller than the force and momentum change we can extract from the wave, and of course the momentum change we can extract is variable anyway. If we say that causality is always true, and that the future is not precisely predictable, then I can see no way that the EM wave can carry more momentum than that of its photons.
/tbc

Simon Derricutt said...

/cont

For your experiment, that looks to me to be what's happening in the EMDrive, with the cavity providing the multiplication of the field strength and thus making the force large enough to actually measure. On Mike's "minding Ps and Qs" post I put up an idea on an alternative way of achieving this. It might even work.... This produces the plane wave you required at the plane equilateral triangle, with a box reflector bouncing it back and providing a high Q. Since the currents and the magnetic fields need to interact, that will only happen for the skin depth of the currents and the penetration of the magnetic field into the conductor, so I'd expect that this wouldn't work with a superconductor where in theory magnetic fields stop at the surface, though I suspect that in practice there is still some penetration of magnetic fields into the skin of a superconductor.

For me, the start-point is that, since the EMDrive (and other reactionless drives) actually works, our theory that momentum is always conserved must be flawed. There is at least one exception for which it doesn't apply. Mike's theory gives us one reason for an exception, where the horizons are not equidistant from a particle, and there's also a possibility of an exception where the phases of interacting currents and EM waves are engineered to produce a unidirectional force. It also seems likely there's a third exceptional situation, as with Richard Banduric's Electric Space Drive (see http://electricspacecraft.org/index.html ) where I'm certain that Richard's measurements are honest, and last time we talked he'd achieved 100mN or so. Still some possibility of interaction with the surroundings (or vacuum chamber) that will only get resolved by a test out in space, but pretty impressive nevertheless. The possibility of an environmental interaction also exists for the EMDrive or Jim Woodward's ideas, too. We won't know they really work until they are tested in space - there could be some currently unknown interaction we haven't thought of.

Noether's theorem is that symmetry gives rise to conservation laws. Is that symmetry always actually there, though? Mike's asymmetric horizons breaks symmetry and thus allows us to break conservation. Producing a phase asymmetry may also do that. A diode breaks symmetry, too, and allows us to get a unidirectional flow from a wave. Maybe it's the asymmetries we should be concentrating on.

George Soli said...

Hi Mike:
Information has Landauer mass that curves spacetime and forms the Rindler event horizon associated with an accelerating observer. The gravitational field of Landauer-information mass generates the gravitational force of inertia in Euclidian space. Space is Euclidian in the gravitational instanton and time is complex. The vacuum is also Euclidian because the vacuum is dielectric. The electrodynamics of QI (Quantum Inertia) is also Euclidian in the Hamiltonian, and this is used to enforce the Darboux theorem on Hamiltonian symplectic space. This is required to write down an EEPoE (Euclidian Electromagnetic Principle of Equivalence). The EEPoE is required to preserve Unruh radiation thermodynamics. If the gravitational instanton is Wick rotated back into the Rindler wedge, QI physics reemerges as described by Mike McCulloch and the PoE appears to be violated, but it is NOT. Gravity and Electrodynamics are equivalent at the Planck scale and at the Hubble scale, because of UV/IR mixing between the scales as described by the theory-of everything none as the IKKT matrix model. The IR equivalence between Mike McCulloch’s Hubble scale Casimir electromagnetic radiation and the Hubble scale gravitational radiation responsible for Dark Energy, cures, or heals, the apparent PoE violation.
The gravitational field of Landauer-information mass generates the gravitational force of inertia in Euclidian space. In the gravitational instanton the Rindler event horizon is one Planck length above a point at the center of the complex plane in polar coordinates in Euclidian space. The QI electromagnetic field causing inertia is symplectic in Euclidian space with Hamiltonian time. The QI instanton gravitational field causing inertia is Newtonian in Euclidian space with complex time. The Hamiltonian and complex times are mirror symmetric and the electromagnetic and gravitational fields are dual and of equal strength at the Planck and Hubble scales.
In the absence of QI shielding the fiber optic loop em drive system would be balanced and the symplectic Unruh radiation would NOT cause an anomalous acceleration. The force of inertia would be balanced around the fiber optic loop. As the QI shield modulates the Unruh radiation around the loop, the force of inertia is also modulated around the loop, and an anomalous gravitational acceleration is produced causing the em drive effect.
At this point we restate the operational duality between the symplectic electromagnetic Unruh radiation being modulated by the QI shield and the resulting modulation of the instanton Newtonian gravitational force that causes inertia. With this operational duality firmly in mind, it does not seem so sacrilegious to shield gravity with a metal plate and go interstellar.

Unknown said...

I thought the EMdrive's tiny force measured in an experiment was attributed eventually to heat radiation just as happens in satellites in vacuum?

Mike McCulloch said...

Unknown: AFAIK no mundane explanation has been produced that predicts the data. What is your source on the thermal solution?