tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post1546556444548249381..comments2024-03-21T09:01:08.175-07:00Comments on Physics with an edge: How QI gets rid of dark matterMike McCullochhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-67306952514474783652018-04-09T13:03:58.959-07:002018-04-09T13:03:58.959-07:00Since quantised inertia implies a certain rettocau...Since quantised inertia implies a certain rettocausality I thought this research might be oc interest to you: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.amp?__twitter_impression=trueBen Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09648339351730075752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-57524556036549497322018-03-30T00:52:36.821-07:002018-03-30T00:52:36.821-07:00Hi everyone,
did you hear the latest, sensational ...Hi everyone,<br />did you hear the latest, sensational news? Astronomers say they have found one galaxy that does NOT contain dark matter, see: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-dark-galaxy.html<br />My favourite punchline in this article is the researcher's "argument" that NOT finding dark matter is the definite proof of its existence. :-)<br /><br />Enjoy,<br />RoulAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07476133769905441067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-37955930746693062542018-03-29T04:13:18.207-07:002018-03-29T04:13:18.207-07:00Hi everyone,
did you hear the latest sensational n...Hi everyone,<br />did you hear the latest sensational news? Astronomers say they found one galaxy WITHOUT dark matter, see: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-dark-galaxy.html<br />My favourite punch line in this article is the researcher's "argument" that NOT finding dark matter is the definite proof of its existence. :-)<br /><br />Enjoy,<br />RoulAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07476133769905441067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-84419393775934291012018-03-28T21:27:11.873-07:002018-03-28T21:27:11.873-07:00How does QI resolve the mathematic for NGC 1052-DF...How does QI resolve the mathematic for NGC 1052-DF2 where there appears to be no "Dark Matter" needed?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06792204083034146186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-25032531000934983312018-02-05T01:49:05.697-08:002018-02-05T01:49:05.697-08:00Hello Mike,
There is a new paper about Dark Matte...Hello Mike,<br /><br />There is a new paper about Dark Matter failure to explain why satellite galaxies rotate around galaxy in one plane. Please have a look:<br />https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/galaxy-rotations-raise-doubts-on-dark-matter<br /><br />How QI theory explain this?Josshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07417512639268165411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-18543715379743647822018-01-21T18:02:45.133-08:002018-01-21T18:02:45.133-08:00RichD said...
Now - let's assume an accelerati...<i> RichD said...<br />Now - let's assume an accelerating observer between the two virtual particles. </i> <br /> <br /> <br />Sorry, but I see no good reason to make such assumption. <br /><br />Accelerating observer between the two virtual particles?! <br /> <br />RichD, do you know what is the distance between two virtual particles? <br /> <br />And, tell me, how long is the time between <br />they pop in and out of existence? <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /><br />Ziggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215297051145082904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-74864004761934041272018-01-21T17:22:59.257-08:002018-01-21T17:22:59.257-08:00Ziggy
Smolyaninov has experimental results. Maybe...Ziggy<br /><br />Smolyaninov has experimental results. Maybe one assumption of Scholarpedia is wrong. Maybe the results would fail to be replicated...<br /><br />If we use angular momentum and note the sensitivity of modern thermal/radioimaging processing equipment, the acceleration or velocity required is much lower - still not as low as the article asserts. <br /><br />Say the experiment is repeated but it isn't Unruh radiation.<br /><br />That is interesting and non-trivial in itself.joesixpackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08912279232742819732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-3936528656846155112018-01-20T23:58:04.707-08:002018-01-20T23:58:04.707-08:00Hello Ziggy,
I think I understand the problem you...Hello Ziggy,<br /><br />I think I understand the problem you have with Unruh radiation. Allow me to take another try at explaining it to you. You said this:<br /><br /><i>On the other hand, in quantum mechanics, in case of a virtual pair made of TWO particles, in principle, it is possible that one of them could be invisible behind YOUR horizon, and the other one visible. </i><br /><br />So far, so good. You appear to understand the idea. Continuing on you said this:<br /><br /><i>Now, you say, that from your relativistic point of view it is true that, effectively, the invisible particle does not exist (for you). True. </i><br /><br />Very good. Effectively is the most important word here, please remember that. Continuing on:<br /><br /><i>Therefore your invisible particle of the pair is still visible to the other particle, and that is the reason that your visible particle is not free to go alone, because the connection between the pair does not become broken merely because you do not see one of them. Therefore the pair will annihilate, and there will never be any radiation. </i><br /><br />This is where you are having your difficulty. You aren't applying relativity here deeply enough.<br /><br />From a stationary observer, a virtual particle pair will arrive, annihilate each other, and then disappear. That is what happens, and it appears you understand that as well.<br /><br />Now - let's assume an accelerating observer and a Rindler horizon between the two virtual particles. The stationary observer will still see two particles with opposite attributes wink into and then out of existence. <br /><br />But the accelerating observer with a Rindler horizon won't see the same thing. The accelerating observer will only see one of them. You said as much above, your second quote confirms that.<br /><br />Now here is the important bit. Again, relativity. <br /><br />Remember my example with the star? The observer who leaves just before the explosion will live in a universe with the star always present?<br /><br />From the point of view of the observer leaving the scene at c, that is reality. The star always exists. A stationary observer has a different reality, the star explodes.<br /><br />Likewise, an accelerating observer will only see one particle of the virtual pair. A stationary observer will see two matched opposite particles wink into and out of existence. An accelerating observer will see only one, but that <i>will be their reality</i>. And since they only see one, there isn't an antiparticle <i>in their universe</i> and it won't annihilate. Because in their universe it doesn't have an antiparticle to annihilate it. It will persist just like a star just before supernova will persist if you run away at c. So since it remains in their reality, they will perceive it as radiation in a manner similar to Hawking radiation. And that is called Unruh radiation.<br /><br />Yes, it is terrible.<br /><br />It is horrible to think that acceleration is related to your personal reality. I hate knowing that when I am at the movies and I clap my hands, since they are in different accelerating frames they are in different universes. It is terrible to think about. It can drive you to drink. But it is absolutely true.<br /><br />Keep pushing onward, you are close to understanding this. Relax and give yourself permission to understand that relativity means there isn't any fixed reality. It's not space, and it's not time, it's spacetime and your movement through it determines your entire universe. Good luck!<br /><br />RichDRichDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06862524025762952800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-18496550284814232822018-01-20T08:21:19.868-08:002018-01-20T08:21:19.868-08:00The problem with the Unruh waves travelling at c i...The problem with the Unruh waves travelling at c is a bit of a sticky one. There may be an explanation using the SchrÃ¶dinger wave function though, since that exists over all known space at the same time and must also have nodal points (zero probability) at the horizons since there is "nothing" beyond them. The explanation seems to remain much the same, and since moving the edges of the probability density would also need to move the middle of it (where we actually see the particle), then it would give a reason why the particle has inertia. This reduces the scope of the SchrÃ¶dinger wave from infinite to only occupying all known space, but that's maybe a small price to pay and also makes somewhat more sense anyway. If the wave function spread into unknown space then there would be a probability that the particle jumped to unknown space. The requirement that the probability is exactly zero at the horizons will limit the spectrum of the waves that can be used to build the wavefunction. The maths for this is beyond me, though, so I'll leave it to others to think on.Simon Derricutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15137826634256652580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-36600308207754110532018-01-19T19:37:13.478-08:002018-01-19T19:37:13.478-08:00Let's calculate this :
If ... <br /> <br /><b>Let's calculate this : </b><br /> <br />If the linear acceleration of a body that is needed to reach a temperature difference of 1'K is 10,000 Trillion kilometers per second square, then what distance the body will travel during the time of one second ? <br /> <br /> <br />I strongly hope that it will be not much more <br />than 3 times 10 to the power of 5 . <br /><br /> <br /> <br />Ziggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215297051145082904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-42020622347835892312018-01-19T19:18:12.400-08:002018-01-19T19:18:12.400-08:00DF said...
Ziggy, have you looked at the links...<i> DF said...<br /> Ziggy, have you looked at the links I posted? </i><br /> <br /> <br />DF, yes, I have. <br /><br /> <br /> <br />Ziggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215297051145082904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-75229308117525055242018-01-19T19:14:34.858-08:002018-01-19T19:14:34.858-08:00joesixpack said...
Like I said, replication would ...<i> joesixpack said...<br />Like I said, replication would be great. </i><br /><br /><br />Like I said, it would be great if you stop ignoring my questions, <br />and start answering them. :-)) <br /> <br /> <br />Ziggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215297051145082904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-8368125078283848152018-01-19T19:09:38.523-08:002018-01-19T19:09:38.523-08:00joesixpack said...
Smolyaninov created an experime...<i>joesixpack said...<br />Smolyaninov created an experiment which relied on the extremely high angular momentum of electrons traveling around a gold plated curve (nanotip).</i> <br /> <br /> <br /><b>Yes, he did. </b><br /> <br />From: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Unruh_effect<br /><br />" It is <b>believed</b> that an analog under centripetal acceleration is observed in the spin polarization of electrons in circular accelerators." <br /> <br /> <br />However, other than in case of angular momentum and centripetal acceleration, we still need the direct experimental confirmation in case of linear acceleration, but any such direct experimental confirmation will be next to impossible, because the linear acceleration needed to reach a temperature differnce of 1'K would be far out of-the-charts at approx. 10,000 Trillion kilo meters per second square. <br /> <br />Joe Sixpack, as you know, some authors deny that uniformly accelerated detectors show a universal thermal response. They attribute the calculated results to improperly imposed boundary conditions at the horizon. The response from the conventional viewpoint is that mathematical subtleties at the horizon do not affect physical observations inside a causally complete region inside Rindler space, and still, others question the conclusion that the accelerated detector is radiating as seen from an inertial frame. The question appears to be mired in some definitional disagreements, for example on how to draw the line between radiation and vacuum fluctuation, what initial state to consider, and whether and how to go beyond first order in perturbative calculations. <br /><br /><br />Ziggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215297051145082904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-30854528620375338092018-01-19T18:57:34.412-08:002018-01-19T18:57:34.412-08:00joesixpack said...
I believe Smolyaninov created ...<i> joesixpack said...<br /> I believe Smolyaninov created an experiment which relied on the extremely high angular momentum of electrons traveling around a gold plated curve (nanotip). <b>The temperature rise only needs to be detectable and separable from any artifact based thermal effects.</b></i> <br /> <br /> <br />Sure, the temperature rise <b>only</b> needs to be detectable and separable from any artifact based thermal effects. <br /> <br />ONLY how to draw the line between radiation and vacuum fluctuation? :-)) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /><br />Ziggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215297051145082904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-10681278573268686782018-01-19T18:53:11.233-08:002018-01-19T18:53:11.233-08:00Persisting controversies in the Unruh effect :
...<b>Persisting controversies in the Unruh effect :</b> <br /> <br /><i>Some authors deny that uniformly accelerated detectors show a universal thermal response. They attribute the calculated results to improperly imposed boundary conditions at the horizon. The response from the conventional viewpoint is that <b>mathematical subtleties</b> at the horizon do not affect physical observations inside a causally complete region inside Rindler space. Others question the conclusion that the accelerated detector is radiating as seen from an inertial frame. The question appears to be mired in some definitional disagreements, for example on <b>how to draw the line between radiation and vacuum fluctuation,</b> what initial state to consider, and whether and how to go beyond first order in perturbative calculations. </i><br /> <br /> <br /><b>" How to draw the line between radiation and vacuum fluctuation"</b> is similar to the criticism in case of gravitational wave detection: <b>" If the correlation properties of signal and the noise are similar, how is one to know precisely what is signal and what is noise? "</b> See: <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/16/was-it-all-just-noise-independent-analysis-casts-doubt-on-ligos-detections/#2b9517795516" rel="nofollow">Was It All Just Noise? Independent Analysis Casts Doubt On LIGO's Detections</a>Ziggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215297051145082904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-85577181381113825632018-01-19T18:20:54.776-08:002018-01-19T18:20:54.776-08:00I believe Smolyaninov created an experiment which ...I believe Smolyaninov created an experiment which relied on the extremely high angular momentum of electrons traveling around a gold plated curve (nanotip).The temperature rise only needs to be detectable and separable from any artifact based thermal effects. <br /><br />Like I said replication would be great. joesixpackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08912279232742819732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-38854417618308375722018-01-19T17:58:40.592-08:002018-01-19T17:58:40.592-08:00joesixpack said on 15 January 2018 at 19:01
Inter...<i> joesixpack said on 15 January 2018 at 19:01<br />Interesting article, resource and alternative to Wikipedia (for students such as myself): http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Unruh_effect<br />No mention of our friend Smolyaninov.</i> <br /> <br /> <br />Every physicist, who aspire to be unbiased and objective about his own pet-hypothesis, should try to put a comparable effort into verification, as well as into falsification. <br /> <br />My complaint about some people here is that they seem not to be self-critical enough, and tend to conveniently ignore most arguments in favor of Unruh radiation falsification. <br /><br />Well, I have just realized that I may be guilty of the same, i.e. favoring falsification of Unruh radiation. <br /> <br />Since Joe Sixpack suggested the above link, let me quote: <br /> <i> <br />" The Unruh effect is a surprising prediction of quantum field theory: From the point of view of an accelerating observer or detector, empty space contains a gas of particles at a temperature proportional to the acceleration. <b>Direct experimental confirmation is difficult because the linear acceleration needed to reach a temperature 1'K is of order 10 to the power of 17 km/s2,</b> but it is <b>believed</b> that an analog under centripetal acceleration is observed in the spin polarization of electrons in circular accelerators. Furthermore, the effect is necessary for consistency of the respective descriptions of observed phenomena, such as particle decay, in inertial and in accelerated reference frames; in this sense the Unruh effect does not require any verification beyond that of (relativistic-free) quantum field theory itself. The Unruh theory has had a major influence on our understanding of the proper relationship between mathematical formalism and (potentially) observable physics in the presence of gravitational fields, especially those near black holes." </i> <br /> <br /> <br />Well, let's start from the bad news that any <b>direct experimental confirmation</b> will be next to impossible, because the linear <b>acceleration</b> needed to reach a temperature of 1'K would be far out of-the-charts at approx. <b>10,000 Trillion kilo</b> meters per second square. <br /> <br />The way I see it, the problem is as follows: I want to push my family mini van, and to get it rolling I need to accelerate it just a wee bit, so I try to push it, but it is full of shopping and heavy, and before it even budges, I can feel its inertia. Now, it has started rolling! So, let's try to calculate the actual value of the acceleration and the corresponding value of net Unruh radiation pressure difference on my family mini van, because from the point of view of my <b>accelerating</b> mini van, empty space contains a gas of particles at a temperature proportional to the acceleration. <br /> <br />Let's imagine that the temperature in front of my mini van is 1'K lower than in the back of it. There is a net pressure difference that should push my car forward. I imagine that in the winter, if I light a bonfire behind my car and start blowing on it, it will accelerate the car forward, and if we reach the temperature difference of just 1'K, then its acceleration will be as calculated above... ?? <br /><br />OK, this was just a joke, of course, but <b>please correct me if I am wrong:</b> We need an un-imaginable acceleration in order to produce a mere 1'K, so in case of the near-zero acceleration of my mini van, do we produce enough net difference to justify the inertia that I feel before my car budges? <br /> <br /> <br /><b>Another interesting issue is this : </b><br /><br /><i>" Unruh effect does not require any verification beyond that of (relativistic-free) quantum field theory itself.</i> <br />Ziggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215297051145082904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-79538684979789279612018-01-19T16:24:01.971-08:002018-01-19T16:24:01.971-08:00Ziggy,
Have you looked at the links I posted?Ziggy,<br /><br />Have you looked at the links I posted?DFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10334227396537789918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-61370268238969536752018-01-19T13:55:12.714-08:002018-01-19T13:55:12.714-08:00joesixpack said...
Ziggy - we indeed should questi...<i> joesixpack said...<br />Ziggy - we indeed should question the validity of even the JPL work on the EM Drive (but no one has disproven it yet). The challenge now would be for you to accept the JPL empirical results and <b>explain what the mechanism of the EM Drive is.</b> </i> <br /> <br /> <br /><b>joesixpack, thank you for giving me the opportunity! :-)) </b><br /> <br />It is worth keeping in mind that in physics, experimental results, if properly produced, are always more important than any theory, because we cannot hope that properly produced experimental results will somehow change in order to make us happy and fit our beloved pet-hypothesis. <br /> <br />So, there are experimental <b>results,</b> and there is also issue of <b>interpretation</b> of them. <br /> <br />Experimental results, if properly produced, do not change. The only thing that can change is their interpretation, and that is the reason why we can have multiple alternative interpretations (hypothesies) at the same time, and they all may be reasonable and more or less valid. <br /> <br />joesixpack, I do not see any reason NOT to accept <br />all the JPL's work on the EmDrive. <br /><br />I just do NOT see any reason to accept <br />the theory behind Unruh radiation.<br /> <br />So, the following is <b>my alternative</b> explanation <br />of what the mechanism of the EmDrive is. <br /><br />Due to illustrations that I cannot display in this post, <br />you need to read it from the following page <b>: <br /><a href="https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/emdrive/" rel="nofollow"><br />https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/emdrive/</a> </b> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Ziggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215297051145082904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-57220085802965006152018-01-19T13:12:16.601-08:002018-01-19T13:12:16.601-08:00joesixpack said...
Ziggy - I agree that Smolyanino...<i> joesixpack said...<br />Ziggy - I agree that Smolyaninov's paper/results require more confirmation and repeatability. We indeed should question the validity of Unruh radiation results, black holes and the LIGO data.</i> <br /> <br /> <br />And I went even one step further, <br />and questioned the <b>validity of the theory</b> behind Unruh radiation. <br /> <br />According to the reasoning I presented earlier, <br />Unruh radiation is theoretically impossible. <br /> <br />If you think that my argumentation was flawed, <br />then please explain how it was so. <br /> <br />If you think that you can theoretically explain <br />the physical causes of Unruh radiation, <br />then please let me know, and I will let you know <br />the reasons why I am, or am not, convinced. <br /> <br /> <br /> Ziggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215297051145082904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-25635690288383029912018-01-19T12:56:48.727-08:002018-01-19T12:56:48.727-08:00joesixpack said...
Ziggy - You are barking up the ...<i> joesixpack said...<br />Ziggy - You are <b>barking</b> up the wrong tree there </i> <br /> <br /> <br />joesixpack, I apologize to you for <b>my barking.</b> <br /> <br />I will never happen again.<br /> <br />Promise. <br /><br /><br /> <br /> <br /><br /><br />Ziggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215297051145082904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-79765485201794271732018-01-19T11:29:54.854-08:002018-01-19T11:29:54.854-08:00Unruh radiation is impossible and doesn't exis...Unruh radiation is impossible and doesn't exist. End of the story. The horse was dead on arrival. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09644013049137326634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-18562395631877700192018-01-19T08:57:35.393-08:002018-01-19T08:57:35.393-08:00Mike,
When you said "Also, they exist only i...Mike,<br /><br />When you said "Also, they exist only in the future of the accelerating objects and yet reach into the past to affect them. This is not as mad as it sounds, given the EPR paradox." It might be helpful to give some historical comparisons.<br /><br />Soon after Maxwell created his equations of electromagnetism, it was realised that they had two solutions, the retarded solution (which corresponded to electromagnetic waves as we know them) and the advanced solution (which corresponded to electromagnetic waves travelling backwards in time). Most people thought that the advanced solution did not have a physical significance (this is what I was taught in the 1960s). There was a notable disagreement back in the first decade of the 20th century between Einstein and Ritz (http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/rtzein.htm) where Einstein argued that the advanced solution was equally as real as the retarded solution.<br /><br />In the mid-1940s Feynman and Wheeler created a time-symmetric absorber theory of Quantum Mechanics. While this was unsuccessful, out of it came the transactional interpretation of QM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation) that was developed by John G Cramer in 1986 and uses both advanced and retarded waves. As Wikipedia describes it: 'In TIQM, the source emits a usual (retarded) wave forward in time, but it also emits an advanced wave backward in time; furthermore, the receiver, who is later in time, also emits an advanced wave backward in time and a retarded wave forward in time. A quantum event occurs when a "handshake" exchange of advanced and retarded waves triggers the formation of a transaction in which energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc. are transferred.'Laurence Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12022978799028708943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-46415431693177782192018-01-19T04:05:07.788-08:002018-01-19T04:05:07.788-08:00Well said "Unknown".
Ziggy - the empiri...Well said "Unknown".<br /><br />Ziggy - the empirical data doesn't support dark matter (unlike QI). You are barking up the wrong tree there and I agree that Smolyaninov's paper/results require more confirmation and repeatability. We indeed should question the validity of Unruh radiation results, black holes and the LIGO data - and yes even the JPL work on the EM Drive (but no one has disproven it yet). <br /><br />I think Mike has 20+ papers now showing empirical confirmation of QI. If he has the explanation wrong, that can change later. (We still, after all, don't know why C is except in special circumstances, invariant). The sum of the empirical statistical modeling rejects a hypothesis of falsification for QI.<br /><br />The challenge now would be for you to accept the empirical results and explain what the mechanism is of the EM Drive that converts "lost" EM radiation into Unruh radiation. joesixpackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08912279232742819732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-56686567596167113672018-01-19T00:05:23.515-08:002018-01-19T00:05:23.515-08:00David Lang writes:
Math is not reality, and reali...David Lang writes:<br /><br />Math is not reality, and reality is not math<br /><br />Math is useful when the results of the calculations result in predictions that we can use in reality<br /><br />It doesn't matter if "Unruh radiation" really exists or not if the formulas are a better match for reality than other theories. Especially if they can explain and let us optimize an EMdrive.<br /><br />Why it works is FAR less important than the fact that it does work, and if QI let's us predict the effect from the design, the rest doesn't matter much.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12084309137541367977noreply@blogger.com