Quantized Inertia, Dark matter, etc.

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

Quantized Inertia, Dark matter, etc.

Postby BurtJordaan on September 29th, 2017, 12:53 pm 

The most important "etc." in the title is the recent claim by the lastest "inertia mover and shaker", prof. Mike McCulloch, in Galaxy rotations from quantized inertia and visible matter only. Another recent paper is: Low-acceleration dwarf galaxies as tests of quantised inertia

In this paper he attempts to explain 'anomalous' galaxy and cluster orbital speeds (at the outer ranges) by means of a modification to classical inertia. He says that when the gravitational acceleration is small, inertial mass also reduces and the tendency for galaxies to 'fly apart' can be avoided. This could remove the need for dark matter halos around galaxies.

The universe sports an event horizon just outside the Hubble radius, from where no information emitted today can ever reach us. The cosmic horizon is due to the present accelerating expansion. McCulloch postulates that this cosmic horizon irradiates us with Unruh waves[a] with the same intensity from all directions, so that any effects cancel out. That is, until we accelerate. The moment you accelerate, Unruh radiation is no longer the same from all directions and this causes a cosmic scale Casimir force[b] that works against the conventional force (F=ma) that causes the acceleration. This looks just like classical inertia, according to McCulloch.

On top of that, it is well known that a Rindler event horizon is formed behind any accelerating observer that can 'feel' the acceleration (proper acceleration). This could also have an influence on the inertia, if McCulloch is right.

Image

The dotted line represents the Rindler event horizon, while the wordline of the accelerating object is a segment of a hyperbola. No signals can reach the accelerating observer from the left-side of the horizon. Due to the inverse function, the Rindler distance (1/a) increases for smaller accelerations and tends to infinity when acceleration becomes zero - the parabola gets straighter and farther to the right.

It is postulated that the Rindler horizon contributes a tiny bit to the Unruh pressure from the rear and hence reduces the imbalance in the Casimir forces. This reduces the apparent inertia of the accelerated object for small accelerations. When acceleration is extremely small, the Rindler horizon can exceed the cosmic horizon and and the effect disappears. Then there is again total cancellation - even if the acceleration is non-zero, but tiny. This is where "quantized inertia" slips in. Acceleration must exceed the value that makes the Rindler horizon equal or smaller than the cosmic horizon, before inertia 'kicks in'. And not smaller by any old amount - Unruh wavelengths must fit an integer umber of times into the diameter of the cosmic horizon. Hence, a form of quantized acceleration.

This is the effect that McCulloch offers as a possible explanation for the high orbital speed of stars at the outer regions of galaxies. Because of the size of galaxies, the gravitational acceleration is very low there, but still way too low for keeping the stars in orbit. That is unless we modify gravity, or add dark matter, or if the inertia of the outer stars are reduced according to McCulloch's modified inertia theory.

Newton and Einstein's gravity both assume that the the gravitational mass and inertial mass of an object are the same. McCulloch says they are not the same when the acceleration is tiny, for the reasons briefly discussed above. So the outer stars need less gravitational force to keep them in orbit, because they have less inertial mass. This is still relatively new and quite controversial. And it probably does not conform to all astro/cosmo observations. But, since it agrees with some observations for which we don't have clear answers, it is intriguing, to say the least.

Add to that that McCulloch used the same theory to offer explanations for the "Pioneer anomaly", the "Flyby anomaly"[c] and the EmDrive's anomalous propulsive force (apparently without throwing out any reaction mass). Needless to say, the scientific community is skeptical, but not to the point of ignoring McCulloch completely. There is some smoke, but nobody really understands what or where the fire is.

-=0=-

[a]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect. The effect is not disputed, but Unruh radiation is still controversial, although it is not ruled out. The problem is that it is extraordinarily tiny and McCulloch offers no explanation for how it could result in the large inertia that we observe. He essentially says: "If Unruh radiation is (somehow) responsible for inertia, then my modification, using the Cosmic and the Rindler horizons together, can account for a number of unexplained effects".

[b] http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html

[c] I think the Pioneer and Flyby 'anomalies' have both been solved by NASA scientists, but I have not checked up on the latest status.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Quantized Inertia, Dark matter, etc.

Postby hyksos on September 30th, 2017, 1:46 am 

[a]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect. The effect is not disputed, but Unruh radiation is still controversial, although it is not ruled out. The problem is that it is extraordinarily tiny and McCulloch offers no explanation for how it could result in the large inertia that we observe. He essentially says: "If Unruh radiation is (somehow) responsible for inertia, then my modification, using the Cosmic and the Rindler horizons together, can account for a number of unexplained effects".

Look at the form of Unruh temperature. You take the acceleration `a`, multiply it time Planck's constant. (this makes it tiny tiny). But wait, we're not done. Divide that by the speed of light , making it even tinier, and then divide it again by 2*pi. The Unruh effect is thus extremely small, and only to be observed by matter undergoing extreme forms of acceleration. Those kinds of accelerations are out-of-reach of any man-made 'vehicle'.

What role does McCulloch thinks Unruh effect plays on stars in the outer bands of galaxies -- I have no idea.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Quantized Inertia, Dark matter, etc.

Postby BurtJordaan on October 1st, 2017, 4:48 pm 

hyksos » 30 Sep 2017, 07:46 wrote:What role does McCulloch thinks Unruh effect plays on stars in the outer bands of galaxies -- I have no idea.

I think the idea that Unruh radiation can "somehow" be connected to inertia originally came from prof. "Motti" Milgrom's "Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND)" hypothesis (~1983) and papers that he published later on. McCulloch is credited with the postulate that essentially says that if Milgrom is right, then the idea of quantized inertia follows logically from that. He also claims that it explains a number of observation that MOND does not explain. This seems credible to me.

Like you, I am also skeptical about a 'Hubble scale Casimir effect', but I am open to the idea that the global spacetime curvature (gravitational field) could interact locally with a mass under acceleration. How, remains mysterious to me.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Quantized Inertia, Dark matter, etc.

Postby BurtJordaan on October 3rd, 2017, 5:59 am 

One of the more interesting ideas coming from Milgrom's MOND, as modified by McCulloch's modified (quantized) inertia, is that it could possibly do away with dark matter and dark energy in one fell swoop! If this turns out to be valid (which is still doubtful in the light of some astronomical observations), it could potentially turn cosmology on its head.

In the early days of expansion, matter density was much higher, so gravitational deceleration of expansion was large. In such a case, McCulloch's modification of inertia has negligible effect and the expansion will evolve as standard cosmology says. As the universe expands, matter density decreases and hence deceleration becomes less and less. This is where a decrease in standard inertia (or inertial mass) becomes more prominent. It predicts a further decrease in deceleration, until there is no further declaration of the expansion factor (da/dt), i.e. d2a/dt2 is constant.

I do not think McCulloch's proposition actually predicts accelerated expansion, just that the deceleration is less than what the standard cosmology (using standard physics) says it should be. What I think he says is that present observations are also compatible with his modified inertia proposal. And if he is right, it would explain phenomena all the way from cosmological scale down to our solar system scale, all without needing dark matter or dark energy. Wow!

But I think more time is needed for his proposal to be scrutinized and eventually confirmed (or not) as conforming to observation.

Ref: Scale Invariance at low accelerations (aka MOND) and the dynamical anomalies in the Universe
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)
dandelion liked this post



Return to Physics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests