3 ms·
This paper that investigates how the EM propulsion drives might generate thrust, and as a side effect, the theory explains certain phenomena that we attribute t
by officialjunk 10y ago
This paper that investigates how the EM propulsion drives might generate thrust, and as a side effect, the theory explains certain phenomena that we attribute to dark matter and dark energy. i only have undergrad physics degree, but it sounds interesting. anyone with more experience have any thoughts about this?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03449v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03449v1.pdf >McCulloch (2007) has proposed a new model for inertia (MiHsC) that assumes that the inertia of an object is due to the Unruh radiation it sees when it accelerates, radiation which is also subject to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect. In this model only Unruh wavelengths that fit exactly into twice the Hubble diameter are allowed, so that a greater proportion of the waves are disallowed for low accelerations (which see longer Unruh waves) leading to a gradual new loss of inertia as accelerations become tiny. MiHsC modifies the standard inertial mass (m) to a modified one (m_i) as follows:
m_i = m (1-(2c^2)/(|a|Θ)) = m (1 - λ/4Θ) (1) where c is the speed of light, Θ is twice the Hubble distance, ’|a|’ is the mag- nitude of the relative acceleration of the object relative to surrounding matter and λ is the peak wavelength of the Unruh radiation it sees. Eq. 1 predicts that for terrestrial accelerations (eg: 9.8m/s2) the second term in the bracket is tiny and standard inertia is recovered, but in low acceleration environments, for example at the edges of galaxies (when a is small and λ is large) the sec- ond term in the bracket becomes larger and the inertial mass decreases in a new way so that MiHsC can explain galaxy rotation without the need for dark matter (McCulloch, 2012) and cosmic acceleration without the need for dark energy (McCulloch, 2007, 2010).
- caconym_ 10y agoI mentioned this elsewhere in this thread. I'm really interested to hear some context around it from someone who knows what they're talking about; to me, it's a more appealing explanation than "conservation of momentum is wrong" or "we're using the quantum vacuum as a tractive medium which is supposed to be impossible but whatever".
- jasonwatkinspdx 10y agoIANAP, just someone with a lay understanding that's been following a lot of these topics for a while now. As I understand it McCulloch's requirement that wavelengths fit within the cosmic horizon is an assumption, not a proven logical implication. Additionally I think a lot of physicists are dismissive because they expect someone who desires to upend mainline theory to at least demonstrate fluency with the mathematics of mainline theory. McCulloch falls short of this. All that said, I think he's genuine in his pursuit and I've really enjoyed reading his blog over the years.
- photogrammetry 10y agoMcCulloch's papers aren't very well-regarded because he was originally a biologist, not a physicist, and his theories (accompanied by blog posts) are very unconventional. I'm not trying to slime him or anything, just explain why he isn't cited often - I'm not well-educated enough to understand his work.
- sethrin 10y agoMcCulloch's papers have many, many problems[1]. No credible theory has been posited to date, and the experimental evidence fails to properly address systematic errors. If this device worked, one could use it to create an over-unity generator. It would also invalidate most of known physics. The chances of it working are nonzero, but that's the best that anyone can say about it. Most likely it will waste people's time and money for a few years before the public loses interest. [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3hjmtv/my_conversation_with_dr_mcculloch_on_mihsc_some/ https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3hjmtv/my_conversa...