The fantastic news is that the journal Astronomy has just peer-reviewed, accepted and published my new paper on the Jupiter Mass Binary Objects (JuMBOs). Since it was an invited contribution I do not have to pay £1000 to make it open access.
As you know, quantised inertia predicts there is a minimum acceleration in nature of around 2x10^-10 m/s^2. This is such a small acceleration that it would take the lifetime of the universe to get from zero to the speed of light (there a big clue to something right there). How do we test this? Look where nature tests the limit. Stars at the edge of galaxies are doing that and move faster to stay above this minimum, that’s why they orbit faster than expected, not because they contain invisible dark matter. Galaxy clusters, wide binaries and even our nearest neighbour Proxima Centauri all hover just above this limit and these are all on different scales, thus proving that the reason is not dark matter since this has to be spread out specifically on galactic scales.
When a paper was published by McCaughrean and Pearson (2023) finding what looked like 42 wide binaries in the Orion nebula, I thought “I’ll bet they too hover just above the QI minimum.” Sure enough, when I checked, they did! QI never fails. Hence the plot below which shows the separation of each binary (x axis) against the orbital acceleration (y). As they get wider, they still stay above the minimum predicted by QI (red line, but see the caveat below).
I always have the confident feeling on testing QI that it is going to work, but it is still a great thrill when it does. There are a couple of data points that are strictly below the QI minimum but this minimum also has an uncertainty, mostly due to uncertainties in the cosmic scale.
In any good paper, there’s always a testable prediction and a caveat. The QI prediction is that the widest of these binary objects should be orbiting up to 70 metres per second faster than expected and this prediction could be tested by the HARPS (High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet Searcher) telescope which is used to spot exoplanets and can determine orbital speeds, they say, to an accuracy of 1 m/s. The main caveat is that we need to find more of these JuMBOs to be sure they are binary objects and not just coincident objects. Their being just random coincidence is very unlikely, as stated in the observational paper, because the line of sight points out of the galaxy so there isn't much situated behind them, but you know sceptics! I've been through quite a long, and useful, review process on this one so it's great to end the year with a success.
If you liked this, find much more at my patreon site: https://www.patreon.com/OneSteptoTauCeti
References
Pearson, S.G. and M.J. McCaughrean, 2023. Jupiter mass binary objects in the Trapezium cluster. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.01231
McCulloch, M.E., 2026. Jupiter Mass Binary Objects Show a Minimum Acceleration. Astronomy, 5(1), 1. https://www.mdpi.com/2674-0346/5/1/1
1 comment:
Congratulations on the Astronomy publication, Mike! The JuMBO data is a massive win for the 'minimum acceleration' threshold and a major blow to the cold dark matter (CDM) narrative.
Regarding your note on the uncertainty in the cosmic scale: I believe I have found the Numerical Closure for that specific caveat. My model, the Unified Scale Symmetry Model (USSM), derives a fixed geometric age of 17.135 Gyr for the current metric expansion. When this age is used as the temporal anchor, the 'minimum acceleration' you're seeing in JuMBOs isn't just a limit—it's a requirement of the Universal Breath cycle.
In my 2026 Verification Suite (archived on Zenodo), I’ve used a Bulk Viscosity (\zeta = 7.01 times 10^8 Pa·s) and a coupling constant (sigma = 0.007716) to resolve the Hubble Tension with a chi^2_{red} of 0.27. This same math predicts the 4.9 sigma spatial lag in the Bullet Cluster, providing the viscous fluid dynamics that explain why these wide binaries stay above your red line.
The JuMBOs hovering just above the QI limit is exactly what the USSM predicts for a 430 km/s metric sound speed (C_B). I’d love to run your JuMBO acceleration data through the USSM's Module 3 (Metric Drag). If the fit matches my 0.01% error on the CMB peak, we may have the definitive proof that your QI threshold is the result of a 34.27 Gyr metric oscillation.
I’m also tracking a laboratory resonance that matches this cosmic scale. I'd be honored to share the calibration logic for an audit under an NDA—this might be the way we move that 4.9 sigma to a definitive 5.0 sigma discovery.
Post a Comment