16 Predictions of quantized inertia where experiments could validate the predictions and the theory

Dr. Mike McCulloch, Lecturer in Geomatics, had created a model for inertia called: Modified inertia by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect (MiHsC) or quantized inertia. Nextbigfuture covered it a few months ago. Mike uses it to explain the controversial emDrive.

The idea of inertia is that in a vacuum, where there is no friction, objects move along in a straight line at constant speed until you push on them.

MiHsC predicts a lot that has been seen already. MiHsC predicts ‘specific’ new effects that can be looked for more effectively. Some predictions have not had calculations to predict exactly would would be seen so they are more like ideas for experiments rather than rigorous predictions.

Progess in Physics – Can the Emdrive Be Explained by Quantised Inertia?

Progress in Physics – Energy from Swastika-Shaped Rotors

The Frontiers of Physics – Testing quantised inertia on the emdrive

Predictions of quantized inertia:

1. In MiHsC inertial mass is enhanced when the peak wavelength of the Unruh spectrum (determined by acceleration) fits exactly within the Hubble scale. So for any accelerating/spinning object: solar system or galaxy, there should be some acceleration or radii with higher inertial mass because the Unruh waves fit exactly (resonate) and some with lower. This should give rise to subtle concentric patterns in these systems. For example, for Pioneer it would lead to tiny variations in the Pioneer anomaly.

2. In MiHsC as acceleration decreases the inertial mass drops towards zero (explains galaxy rotation without dark matter) so for any system ejecting mass into deep space at some point the inertial mass should dissapear and the gravity pulling it back should dominate. These systems should then have rings around them at the radius where accelerations are ~7×10^-10 m/s^2.

3. More generally, there should not exist any mutual acceleration below about 7×10^-10 m/s^2 today, and further back in time this minimum acceleration, a_min=2c^2/(Hubble scale), was higher, since the Hubble scale was smaller, so ancient (high redshift) galaxies should have greater spin for less visible mass.

4. The opposite case, for objects coming from deep space into the Solar system, or into galaxies, their acceleration is increasing so they should gain inertial mass by MiHsC and slow down anomalously, just like an inverted Pioneer anomaly, and of the same size (it will appear as though there’s unseen mass at the outer edge of the system).

5. Along a spin axis the mutual acceleration with surrounding matter is zero so inertial mass should collapse for nearby objects there and produce unusual dynamics. For Earth this predicts the flyby anomaly, but it is hugely magnified for slow spinning system, eg: galaxies, and should result in axial jets (galactic jets?).

6. If an object in deep space, far from other objects (in the low acceleration MiHsC regime) spins or moves, then objects nearby (cosmically speaking) should tend to spin or move in the same sense. This is similar to the Tajmar effect in the lab, also predicted by MiHsC.

7. GPS satellites have a different mutual acceleration with the spinning Earth at the equator and pole, so they should show an small latitudinal dynamical anomaly.

8. In MiHsC, Rindler horizons destroy information behind them, so if we take this further, then for example the Rindler horizon of a rapidly-enough accelerating object may come close enough to block the gravity from eg, the Sun in a detectable way. For a 10cm diameter disc a spin of 23,000 rpm is needed to block the Sun.

9. If you super-cool an object to damp all acceleration, and then spin it (very fast) or for example ‘jerk’ electrons within it (eg: flash drive or superconductor passing its transition temperature) then its inertial mass (weight) should change depending on the size of the change in acceleration. For a 10cm disc an acceleration of 500,000 m/s^2 should reduce weight by 2%.

10. MiHsC breaks equivalence in a subtle way: two objects dropped in a Fallturm (Fall tower) would still fall together (so MiHsC won’t show up in torsion balance tests) but they will fall ever so slightly faster than expected (for a 110m high tower they’ll deviate from the expected position at the bottom by 7.5 nm). Also, a spinning object should fall more slowly.

11. If an object is given a huge acceleration, for example in the CERN LHC, (or a fast spin) the Unruh waves it sees (normally light years long) could become short enough that our technology can get a handle on them (a few km). Either EM-radiation or metamaterials could be used to interact, damp or deflect those Unruh waves (their Em-component) and thereby control the inertial mass of the object.

12. MiHsC predicts the emdrive (if it is assumed that photons have inertial mass) by saying crudely that more Unruh waves fit into the wide end than the narrow. It follows that if the narrow end was fine-tuned to fit the individual Unruh waves better, despite being narrower, then the emdrive thrust should be reversible. MiHsC also predicts that the speed of light should change inside the emdrive.

13. Since MiHsC predicts that all waves that don’t fit into the Hubble scale are disallowed, then this should be the case for waves of thermal radiation too. Hence mind-buggeringly cold objects should radiate very slightly less than expected. At 100pK the effect should be one part in 10^20.

14. MiHsC predicts a minimum acceleration in nature, 6.7×10^-10 m/s^2, the acceleration for which the Rindler horizon reaches the Hubble horizon and can’t be any larger (this explains cosmic acceleration) and MiHsC also predicts a maximum acceleration of 10^52 m/s^2 when the Rindler horizon shrinks to the Planck area. Acceleration and mass should be quantised near these extremes.

15. The tiny minimum acceleration of MiHsC occurs because at very low accelerations Unruh waves are disallowed because they are bigger than the Hubble scale. If we can manufacture a small ‘informationally closed area’, we could boost this acceleration.

16. Collapsing sonoluminescent bubbles, atoms suddenly confined, or core-collapsing supernovae will see their Rindler horizons shrink and this will release new heat energy. Like water from a squeezed wet towel, whenever you shrink a Rindler horizon by accelerating an object, the horizon releases energy (which usually turns up as inertial mass). Manufactured ‘squeezed horizons’ are therefore a potential new source of energy.

SOURCE – Predictions from the Edge by Mike McColloch

2 thoughts on “16 Predictions of quantized inertia where experiments could validate the predictions and the theory”

  1. So numbers:
    3. Ancient galaxies do rotate slower.
    4. oumuamua comet acted in a similar way i believe.
    5. Magnetism acts in a similar way at the poles.
    6. Micro meteorites act in a similar way and have been compared to van der waals as well.
    9. No the acceleration needs to be mutual with all the atoms, so a material like graphene could do it or a metamaterial with similar properties
    10. Allais effect.
    11. Becker and bhatt capacitor device takes advantage of electrons relative acceleration in confined space.
    16. I think this could be related to neutrons feeling a squeeze in a beam compared to a jar and that’s why they age different, quarks move slower in bigger atoms

  2. 16 Predictions of quantized inertia where experiments could validate the predictions and the theory – NextBigFuture.com

    […]Less than four episodes into #Supernatural, I get the appeal of the Impala. (Maybe it’s the guy who drives it…) #SPN #SPNFamily hPZGRqWIJG[…]

Comments are closed.