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

Sunday, 11 October 2020

Patreon Site

I'm trying an experiment on Patreon. I'm publishing two chapters per week of my sci-fi comedy novel, based on quantised inertia, and I'm also trying to write entries on the other days on whatever physics I happen to be thinking about at that time. A sort of online science diary. As my position in academia is becoming a little tenuous I thought this might be a good plan B, or a way to transition to more independence. The first chapter of the story is at: https://www.patreon.com/posts/38133557 I hope you enjoy it!

5 comments:

Simon Derricutt said...

Mike - "my position in academia is becoming a little tenuous" sounds a bit worrying. Is this because your theory is regarded as crackpot even though DARPA thought it was worth investigating? If so, I'd worry more about the state of academia. There are experimental results, as well, even though your ideas imply that some fundamental laws have exceptions and that the universe is somewhat different than we thought it was. This might turn out to be a "100 scientists against McCulloch" moment....

You now have 3 derivations for QI from different viewpoints and methods - that implies that there is a fundamental link between those three approaches. As regards conservation of momentum, I've approached that from a different direction again and can show that CoM only applies to situations with a constant field producing the force between objects, whereas the propagation velocity of a change in the field means that with a changing field the action may not be equal and opposite to the reaction, and thus momentum is not conserved in that case. Seems few people are willing to even consider that argument, and would rather believe that Newton was absolutely correct. However, forces can only be transmitted by a field, and there is no actual contact between lumps of matter. The properties of the field, and in particular the propagation velocity, are important.

The difficulty with your theory is of course that information about the horizon is available here and now through the (quantised) possible wavelengths of the Unruh waves. However, that same difficulty exists in quantum theory with spooky action at a distance, and that is experimentally confirmed and is being used in quantum computers. Entanglement is and remains hard to explain, but appears to be experimentally true. Information can actually be transferred instantaneously, even though we don't know what's actually happening in the process.
/tbc

Simon Derricutt said...

/cont

Maybe the difficult barrier to overcome is that "the science is settled". We should always be examining our basic assumptions to see if they remain valid when experimental anomalies show up. Those anomalies point to there being a problem in the theory - we haven't yet got the explanations right. Producing a theory that predicts the normal response and the anomaly might lead to things becoming possible that are currently considered impossible - for QI that's not only a reactionless space drive but also a way to produce energy from *nothing*, but of course that's trashing some very fundamental laws that have so far proven to be true with every test. On the other hand, the situations you are creating are also ones that have not been used for testing those laws in the past, and so though the default position is that those laws ought to apply we should not insist that they will do so, since it's the experimental data that is important and not what we think it ought to be.

From your (and others') experiments so far, it seems that matter itself produces some sort of horizon, with partial damping of the waves (whether those waves are Unruh waves or *something else*). The question that occurs to me is how that can be improved so that all waves must have a node at that point, since that will make the effects much larger. Possibly Alzofon had an answer to that, by pumping energy out of the quantum field using an analogue of a refrigeration cycle through aligning the spin of nuclei and allowing them to become disordered again by the virtual particle storm. Thus the virtual particle storm becomes stilled, and like stopping a guitar string with your finger, a node would be produced. This is definitely tinfoil hat territory, but there's a possibility it might be true and might actually work even if the theory side may not be entirely correct. It might be true enough to work. Of course, I was initially inclined to ignore this because of the UFO connection, and I'd expect others to have much the same initial reaction too. Still, add in QI to Alzofon's theory and it produces a picture that might work. Probably still not the absolute truth even if it works, but at least a step closer.

George Soli said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
George Soli said...

Hi Mike:
It seems like forever that physicists have been saying that we need to experimentally probe Planck scale physics. And it is easy to understand that we need to discover how the Planck scale UV can mix with the experiment IR because we cannot build a big enough particle accelerator to probe the Plank scale directly. QI probes the Planck scale because the IR Casimir force interacts at the UV Planck scale to produce the force of inertia. For your Bloggers I have described QI Planck scale physics with IKKT string physics and posted preprints on ResearchGate. Mike's book, Physics from the Edge, Appendix D, "Asymmetric Casimir Effect" eloquently describes the need of QI to interact at the Planck scale. I sincerely hope that my string physics work will lead to the Spanish fiberoptic QI experiment being repeated. Thank you, George

Unknown said...

Mike, I hope you are going to comment soon about the Popular Mechanics article, esp. about the 'photon loop' and the California 'consortium' results? Thanks.