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

Saturday, 18 January 2014

A New Natural Motion.

As Smolin says (in Time Reborn) "Revolutions in physics can be marked by changes in what is considered natural motion", motion without forces applied. The Greeks thought that natural motion was a dead stop (but this was friction). Galileo showed instead that natural motion was a constant velocity. This enabled him to argue that the Earth was moving around the Sun as Copernicus had said, and explain how this could be so without the Earth leaving a trail of debris behind it in its orbit.

MiHsC might offer a new such revolution since it changes the natural state of motion from Galileo's constant speed to a tiny minimum acceleration of 2c^2/Theta, where c is the speed of light, and Theta is the Hubble distance. This occurs because in MiHsC inertia is caused by Unruh waves and their length increases as accelerations reduce. When accelerations are as low as 2c^2/Theta the Unruh waves exceed the size of the observable universe and this cannot be allowed, since, if it was, the waves would allow us to determine what lies outside the observable universe, which is a paradox. So this information censorship makes the Unruh waves, and inertial mass, dissapear at low accelerations, causing the object to accelerate more with the same outside force - hence the minimum allowed acceleration.

This minimum acceleration is close to the recently-observed cosmic acceleration. It is also likely to change in time, since the size of the observable universe (Theta) increases in time, and the speed of light may vary too. Does this have far reaching consequences, as Galileo's inertia had for the heliocentric theory? At the moment I'm in the process of publishing a paper that shows it produces a cosmology similar to the old Steady State Theory of Fred Hoyle, in which the gravitational mass of the universe increases in time, but MiHsC also predicts a hot early universe, that Steady State didn't. I am just working to publish this, so hopefully I can get it past peer review.

Smolin, L., 2013. Time reborn. Penguin Books Ltd.

McCulloch, M.E., 2010. Minimum accelerations from quantised inertia. EPL, 90, 29001.

McCulloch, M.E., 2014. A toy cosmology from a Hubble-scale Casimir effect, Galaxies, Special Issue.


Kimmo Rouvari said...

Hi Mike,

What is your hypothesis how kinetic energy is hold by particles? I think we should ponder that mechanism. It most certainly should reveal the mechanism of inertia, don't you think?

Mike McCulloch said...

Hi Kimmo. Useful question. I don't think KE is a 'thing' that can be held by particles: that is an old way of thinking. I have proposed instead that an object moving at constant speed sees a (near) balance in the ZPF which is disturbed upon any acceleration or deceleration by an asymmetric Casimir effect, countering the change in speed.

Kimmo Rouvari said...

ZPF = Zero Point Field? What's the relationship between gravitational interaction, inertia and ZPF?

Mike McCulloch said...

Yes, ZPF = Zero Point Field. Your gravity question is the crucial one for me too. My short answer is I don't know. My long answer is I just published a paper on just this subject, deriving gravity from the uncertainty principle, but although the maths seems to work, the physical model it implies for gravity is still unclear/incomplete.

george shiber said...

Excellent, should pass review: however, as Witten has shown a while back, there are models of M-Theory which imply the universe is not expanding and recently I have examined C. Wetterich's cosmological model, and solved it's main set of equations: he is correct...the 'observable' universe is not expanding and thus the inflationary phase of the 'early' universe axiom of the Standard Model is highly flawed: but as to its consequence to your main thesis, non-expansion may imply constant 'complex' entropy (a real problem) and since there are equations consistent with the Standard Model that allow us to define 'time' entropically, then given T-symmetry, the paradox you mention may be avoided, and if, as recently proposed, the Big Bang did not really 'happen' but is one of an infinite number of quasi-bangs, your Steady-State claim may be in jeopardy. But please give me more time to reflect and comment more: all due respects, G.

Andrew Palfreyman said...

Have you been brave enough to get a take from the abrasive Lubos Motl on this theory?

Andrew Palfreyman said...

Your "Newtonian gravitation from the uncertainty principle" is very creative, but cannot possibly be right. Sitting next to me here is a Mettler mechanical balance that weighs down to half a Planck mass (10 ug).

Mike McCulloch said...

You're right. I have had second thoughts about that paper. There's also some circular reasoning in it after eq 8. However, I still think the idea is sound (gravity from uncertainty) and I can now do a better job of the derivation.