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!
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.
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.
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
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.
Look at this bitter clinger..
Space.com: Can the EmDrive actually work for space travel?.
The discovery of two galaxies with an apparent no need of dark matter hypothesis, as they show very low velocity dispersion, has been announced : https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0d92/meta .
Have the behaviors of these galaxies been analysed at the light of QI ?
Yves: They realised that they misjudged the distance to these galaxies which means that they now look normal, ie: they look non-Newtonian just like all the other ones and are therefore compatible with QI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_1052-DF2
Mike : Ok, good news, God is with us !
I have a question relative to the article D.W. Sciama from 1953 "On the Origin of Inertia" (https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/113/1/34/2602000) in which Sciama makes reference to another paper to come whith a more complicated theory. I didn't manage to identify this paper. Do you know it ?
Abstract of ”On the Origin of Inertia” of Sciama
"As Einstein has pointed out, general relativity does not account satisfactorily for the inertial properties of matter, so that an adequate theory of inertia is still lacking. This paper describes a theory of gravitation which ascribes inertia to an inductive effect of distant matter. In the rest-frame of any body the gravitational field of the universe as a whole cancels the gravitational field of local matter, so that in this frame the body is "free". Thus in this theory inertial effects arise from the gravitational field of a moving universe. For simplicity, gravitational effects are calculated in flat space-time by means of Maxwell-type field equations, although a complete theory of inertia requires more complicated equations.
This theory differs from general relativity principally in the following respects:
(i) It enables the amount of matter in the universe to be estimated from a knowledge of the gravitational constant.
(ii) The principle of equivalence is a consequence of the theory, not an initial axiom.
(iii) It implies that gravitation must be attractive.
The present theory is intended only as a model. A more complete, but necessarily more complicated theory will be described in another paper."
Mike : Did you attend the 3 days long Princeton virtual workshop on "Unruh Acceleration Radiation, Vacuum Entanglement and Relativity" held the Decembre 8, 9, 10 2020 ?
Videos with written transcriptions are available.
Organizers: Marlan Scully and William Unruh
Arash Azizi, Texas A&M University
Michael Duff, Imperial College of London
Steve Fulling, Texas A&M University
Chris Pope, Texas A&M University
Marlan Scully, Texas A&M University and Princeton University
Anatoly Svidzinsky, Texas A&M University
Bill Unruh, University of British Columbia
are you still going to be posting to this blog? If not where do I follow your work?
Post a Comment