I've suggested (& published in 15 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, 30 December 2012

Minority Report


I've been trying to put some information about MiHsC onto the wikipedia pages for "Dark Matter" and "Galaxy Rotation Curves" and have been deleted by anonymous editors because of "undue weight". I don't see five lines about MiHsC among several pages about dark matter as being undue weight. MiHsC is a far better theory than dark matter. Both hypotheses fit the data but dark matter has infinite adjustability: you can add dark matter where you like to make general relativity fit the galaxy rotation data, so it is not surprising it fits, whereas MiHsC has no adjustable parameters so it is surprising that it fits.

Another complaint of the anonymous was that MiHsC is the view of a tiny minority (ie: me). I'd like to point out that scientific progress does not work by democracy, and certainly not by committee, but I have been through the peer-review process. At least let peer-reviewed new ideas be discussed, otherwise what is the point of it?

Anyway, I here reproduce the text I wrote for the dark matter and galaxy rotation curve pages, in the sections on: alternative explanations for the galaxy rotation problem:

Another possible explanation is Modified inertia due to a Hubble scale Casimir effect (called MiHsC, or quantised inertia). This model assumes that inertia is due to Unruh radiation and that the waves of this radiation have to fit exactly within the Hubble scale, like the waves between the plates in the Casimir effect. MiHsC predicts a new loss of inertial mass for very low accelerations, since the Unruh waves become long and a smaller proportion fit within the Hubble scale. The predicted loss of inertia for stars at the edges of galaxies means that they can be pulled into a bound orbit even by the visible matter of the galaxy, and MiHsC predicts the observed rotation curves correctly (within error bars) without dark matter, and has no adjustable parameters.

References:

McCulloch, M.E., 2012. Testing quantised inertia on galactic scales. A&SS, 342, 2, 575. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10509-012-1197-0
http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7007

Wednesday, 19 December 2012

Comments to NASA

A few months ago, NASA asked for comments from the general public. One of their questions was: What is your understanding and opinion of NASA's current vision, mission and strategic direction? If you think NASA's vision, mission and strategic direction should be different from the above, please state what they should be and why. Part of the answer I sent in, slightly edited, was this:

I think the NASA vision ("Improve life here, extend life to there, and find life beyond") should have the 'extend life to there' first, and 'improve life here' second, not because the latter is unimportant, but because NASA's unique goal should be the outwards push. This push will improve life here eventually since science and technology are always spurred to develop by people coping with new environments, but other government bodies exist primarily to look inwards. NASA alone is pushing out, and that shouldn't be diluted in my view.

NASA is developing a system to take humans to target an asteroid by 2025 and Mars by the 2030s. I think the target should be more immediate (within ten years), bold but achievable, and most important: permanent. By permanent I mean the infrastructure that is set up should be permanent and can grow with time, rather than being doomed to destruction like the ISS or the shuttles (great achievements, but they fade rather than growing). There are limits to growth on an asteroid. The easiest target that fits these criteria is a permanent base on the Moon. Of course, NASA has been to the Moon before, but I'd like to point out the difference between the abortive Viking visits to America and the Pilgrim fathers who settled and 'grew' into something new that contributed to human culture and science (and unfortunately displaced the native Americans, but happily there's no one to displace on the Moon). So I'd suggest a permanent base on the Moon: and Mars later on, since it is little better in terms of livability and too far away for easy travel and interaction. These goals would be more achievable if NASA utilised companies like SpaceX who have proven their efficiency.
 
Also, I think NASA needs to start thinking more about game changing technologies for Earth-Moon-Mars travel and fund people to look into it (ahem). Further, making NASA independent of political control with a fixed budget would enable it to follow a steadier course. Decisions are sometimes not being made logically by scientists, but emotionally by politicians to please states or groups, and this decreases efficiency.