DARPA Is Researching Quantized Inertia, a Theory Many Think Is Pseudoscience (vice.com) 197
dmoberhaus writes: DARPA just awarded a $1.3 million contract to an international team of researchers to study quantized inertia or QI. This is a controversial theory that many physicists think is pseudoscience, but according to the physicist that created it, QI may be the foundation for light-powered space travel that could open the door for interstellar travel. Motherboard looks at the fact and fiction of QI, its relationship to the 'impossible' EmDrive being developed by NASA and how these physicists are going to create experimental light-powered engines.
Quantized inertia (QI) is an alternative theory of inertia, a property of matter that describes an object's resistance to acceleration. QI was first proposed by University of Plymouth physicist Mike McCulloch in 2007, but it is still considered a fringe theory by many, if not most, physicists today. McCulloch has used the theory to explain galactic rotation speeds without the need for dark matter, but he believes it may one day provide the foundation for launching space vehicles without fuel. The DARPA grant will allow McCulloch and a team of collaborators from Germany and Spain to undertake a series of experiments that will apply QI in a laboratory setting for the first time.
Quantized inertia (QI) is an alternative theory of inertia, a property of matter that describes an object's resistance to acceleration. QI was first proposed by University of Plymouth physicist Mike McCulloch in 2007, but it is still considered a fringe theory by many, if not most, physicists today. McCulloch has used the theory to explain galactic rotation speeds without the need for dark matter, but he believes it may one day provide the foundation for launching space vehicles without fuel. The DARPA grant will allow McCulloch and a team of collaborators from Germany and Spain to undertake a series of experiments that will apply QI in a laboratory setting for the first time.
Isn't this how science works? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think in general with this type of thing, the fear is that their attempt to explain existing unexplained phenomena by disproving existing proven physical laws will become a giant boondoggle when the money could be better spent chasing more plausible but less obvious explanations that don't defy the entire groundwork of modern science.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this how science works? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so certain. Dark matter never panned out, and the information out there seems well-reasoned [sciencetrends.com].
This looks like a new model, more like fringe science: might be bullshit, might be legitimate, but appears to be based in something that makes sense of things that don't make sense right now. It uses existing theories to suggest new behaviors within the framework of those theories.
By contrast, dark matter looks at the same problem--centrifugal forces should overcome the gravity of galaxies and hurl their stars out into space, but don't--and suggests that there's a magical, undiscovered form of matter which we can't measure, accounting for 85% of all mass and 25% of all energy in the universe. This creates new gravity (which we can't quite measure, apparently) so the universe doesn't break apart. We can't see it, we can't find it, we can't interact with it, but it's there because things happen that shouldn't happen.
Dark matter sounds a lot like the invisible ether medium that carries light. QI sounds like an insight about applying existing theories in ways that their frameworks suggest would work.
Now I am not a quantum physicist, so how am I to determine which of these is correct and which is coke-fueled magical thinking?
Re: (Score:3)
Now I am not a quantum physicist, so how am I to determine which of these is correct and which is coke-fueled magical thinking?
This is quantum question, so both cats are correct and coke-fueled at the same time when one of them opens up the box where you are inside.
That said, the pursuit of wacky theories often leads to the discovery of unintentional, very interesting other things.
So let's let them have a go with Quantum Inertia in their lab . . . as long as the Earth doesn't slip a disc in the process.
Re: (Score:3)
Coke-fueled cats with boxes are NOT an ideal universe...
I uhh, heard from a friend...
Please don't encourage this behavior..
Re: Isn't this how science works? (Score:5, Funny)
Prediction is the only valid form of science.
Re: (Score:2)
Dark matter never panned out, and the information out there seems well-reasoned [sciencetrends.com].
Dark matter never panned out?
Sort of like how "evolution never panned out"?
Dark matter has piled up over a dozen different pieces of observational evidence over the years that have been been consistent with each other. Just read the Wikipedia page, it summarizes the different types of evidence that have been uncovered, and has lots of links to the original research.
The McCulloch-written press release (yes, that is what it is) you link to may indeed "seem well-reasoned"*, but only if you aren't familiar with
Re:Isn't this how science works? (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with dark matter is that it would be preferable to have an answer that wasn't such a gross violation of Occam's Razor, which, as you probably recall, says the the correct answer is likely to be the one which makes the least assumptions (or, alternatively, requires the "least multiplication of entities").
Dark matter is an "external entity" brought in to explain the phenomenon, outside of otherwise understood physics.
Occam's Razor is not a physical principle of course. Or a universal law. It's more about falsifiability. It's pretty damned hard to falsify dark matter because at present it's pretty damned hard to devise any experiments which could. Because it's an entity that is external to our known physical framework.
And we prefer falsifiable science to unfalsifiable.
The point being: it's possible that these neutrinos point to a pathway to explain dark matter in terms of already-understood quantum physics, without having to introduce some kind of "ghost" particle.
It's also possible that McCulloch's theory could be an alternate explanation. But either of those might be "preferable", in a philosophical and falsifiability sense, to dark matter, and would likely "upset the applecart" less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does dark matter violate Occams Razor? Its a simple theory that explains existing data very well, and we're lacking alternatives that , unlike Dark matter, don't violate well established physics theory.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying it's wrong. Though there is some evidence it is.
I prefer a wait-and-see approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Theres a *lot* of evidence for Dark Matter. Physics just doesn't work without it. Its panned out in that we're 90% sure its there. The problem is finding the stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, there are alternate theories that fit the same observations approximately as well.
Not all of them have panned out; some have been pretty much disproved. But the point is: it's as much "observation evidence" of dark matter as much as it is evidence for those other theories.
Re:Isn't this how science works? (Score:5, Interesting)
This IS real science. A theory + experiments to disprove (or not) that theory.
Re:Isn't this how science works? (Score:4, Insightful)
This IS real science. A theory + experiments to disprove (or not) that theory.
Well, closer to a hypothesis than a theory. But science indeed.
Now I don't know about QI in general, but the EM drive is heading along the same path as cold fusion did.
But we don't find out unless we test.
Re:Isn't this how science works? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're acting as though you've got a perfect oracle that has given you the correct answer in advance. The theory might seem strange or unlikely, but the universe is a strange and unlikely place. Physics is rife with discovers that made no sense based on our existing understanding of the universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Isn't this how science works? (Score:2, Insightful)
$1.3M when the government spends about $7M per minute is not a lot. About twelve seconds worth. It took me longer than that to type this message on my phone. Compared to other things we spend money on, it's worth it to find out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that this could be a step forward, you know. Just because dark matter / string theory et. al. have a lot of resources behind them in 2018, it doesn't mean they are the best explanation of the universe we can ever hope to have.
Re:Isn't this how science works? (Score:5, Insightful)
their attempt to explain existing unexplained phenomena by disproving existing proven physical laws will become a giant boondoggle
That's not how any of this works; and never should we be concerned about science that will challenge laws ---
disproving or challenging physical laws are the mark of advancement in the basic science.... physical laws are very well known to work and ultimately won't be "destroyed"
making a boondoggle, but the explanation of a physical law can change, and corrections can be required
for some situations. For example, General Relativity fundamentally changed our view of what Gravity is
(Curvature of space-time, not a force), and opened up a
huge world we were missing before; technically by invalidating Newton's Laws of motion in the process.
But despite that, Newton's Laws are frequently used; work fine in the vast majority of situations, and we
understand where they don't, and which physical model to use instead when they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
(Curvature of space-time, not a force),
It is nevertheless still a force, transmitted by (hypothetical) gravitons.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow ... and how the funk do one decide which research project is more likely to succeede?
Did you actually look at the costs? That research costs peanuts. I rather fund 100 projects for a million each, and 50% or even 90% are bollocks than funding 2 projects 50 million each, and one or both are bollocks.
Your idea how science works or research is done might differ ...
Re: (Score:2)
It's exactly how science works. As soon as commonly held science fact is disproven, then it resets things and the scientific method starts all over again. That makes some comfortable people, uncomfortable.
Re:Isn't this how science works? (Score:4, Interesting)
You are correct.... pseudoscience in this case is a pejorative --- they're calling it pseudo to try and make people think of it like Astrology or Tarot Reading pseudoscience, Not because it isn't science, not because it can't be tested --- not because those theorizing it don't intend for it to be tested, but simply because they're in the group of physicists who has some groupthink, satisfied in what their theories look like so far, and they think this relatively new theory must be wrong --- the physicists are proud of this thing they've contrived that would no longer be necessary.
The article [vice.com] says it all:
Re: (Score:3)
Tickle Down Economics worked just fine in the 90s. Reagan advanced the theory, put it into motion with corporate tax deductions, and it led to a gigantic boom during the Clinton Era
> like a drowning man clutches at a straw
Possibly TDE is wrong. On the flip side, taxing corporations to death has never been shown to accomplish anything (except drive corporations out of the Northern Rustbelt USA into China and India where labor & taxes are cheap).
Re:Isn't this how science works? (Score:5, Informative)
Tickle Down Economics worked just fine in the 90s. Reagan advanced the theory, put it into motion with corporate tax deductions, and it led to a gigantic boom during the Clinton Era
> like a drowning man clutches at a straw
Possibly TDE is wrong. On the flip side, taxing corporations to death has never been shown to accomplish anything (except drive corporations out of the Northern Rustbelt USA into China and India where labor & taxes are cheap).
Deficit spending was Reagan's economy stimulus.
Re: (Score:3)
TDE has been disproven. I don't know why you think it worked in the 90's?
It hasn't been disproven, but.... it's fair to say that some aspects are overoptimistic.
No one is taxing corporations to death. ... and imagines that taxes are far more of a burden than they are.
Actually... taxes are extremely burdensome on a huge segment of businesses: Small Businesses.
On the other hand, they are also unfairly applied.
Large corporations pay disproportionately less taxes --- and it isn't because the law says la
Re: (Score:3)
> should we eliminate corporate taxes
If we want to compete with other countries that charge corporations near-zero rates.
> and pay the wages that they receive in India?
Water always seeks the lowest level. Eventually India/China wages will rise, and US/EU wages will drop, until a balanced, approximately equal level is achieved worldwide.
Re:Isn't this how science works? (Score:4)
> Because it disagrees with current theories?
That's usually how it works. Current scientists have a lot of time & money & career goals invested in current theories, so they resist the new theories. In the late 1800s scientists fought long-and hard to reject the theory that space was a vacuum (and light had properties of a particle). They kept insisting that space had an "ether" like liquid that allowed light WAVES to propagate, and labeled the vacuum/particle theory to be nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, once the equipment got good enough to measure the ether and didn't find it, it went away. Sure there was a period of measuring and remeasuring when it was observed the speed of light was the same in all directions, which was unexpected, but once it was established, ether went away.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that this is quite how science works.
Theories are not proposed; hypothoses are.
Thus, in general, theories are not in question, but they can always be improved through further observation. Of course, paradigm shifts overturn theories, but such instances are rare.
Re: (Score:2)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Re:Isn't this how science works? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not labeled pseudoscience because it disagrees with current science. It's called that because it is poorly formulated and does not make precise predictions. If you actually look at the arXiv papers, the derivations are a mess and the figures are blurry. There is very little careful examination of anything in them at all.
It is also easy to derive consequences and new ideas from well-formed theories, even theoretical ones. If you actually write something that makes sense, other scientists will usually jump all over it and write more theoretical papers. This guy's papers have been cited very few times by anyone but himself. That's another sign he's a crank.
That doesn't mean everything in them is nonsense, but for pete's sakes if you're going to present a radically new theory, make sure you pay extreme care to the derivations and details. That is, make it understandable to others in similar fields.
Speaking for the public, it is a huge waste of money to invest in testing papers like this, especially at this level of funding. I have seen hundreds of them, and none of them has ever turned out to be correct.
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking for the public, it is a huge waste of money to invest in testing papers like this, especially at this level of funding. I have seen hundreds of them, and none of them has ever turned out to be correct.
Which part of "DARPA is investing 1.3 million" did you not get?
First of all: DARPA has much more credibility than you.
Secondly: 1.3 million is a lot of money for a lay man. It is peanuts if you consider that the fund 5 people for about 2 years to do the research.
Thirdly: for funk sake, it is not YOUR
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is how science ought to work, and by and large did work, up until two centuries ago or so.
Which is why science stopped advancing in 1818. It was the decline of the gentleman natural philosopher.
Re: Sadly, no. (Score:5, Funny)
It is sheer luck that Einstein's annus mirabilis was 1805 and not, what can I say... 1905.
Re:Isn't this how science works? (Score:5, Insightful)
That QM makes little sense or doesn't fit other theories is irrelevant. That it makes predictions that are verifiable makes it a scientific theory. That those predictions are as close to perfect as they are (barring the Vacuum Catastrophe) makes it a pretty solid theory, though yes, incomplete. Further, it is no more likely to be discarded than Newton's laws of gravity in that it is a pretty good approximation for most purposes. So, unless a more accurate theory later arises which is easier to work with, it won't go away.
Your thoughts about replication are utterly irrefutable, however. As for pseudoscience allegations, if it's testable it's real science, even if the hypothesis is eventually excluded.
Re: (Score:3)
That QM makes little sense or doesn't fit other theories is irrelevant. That it makes predictions that are verifiable makes it a scientific HYPOTHESIS.
FTFY, Falconnan.
Actual scientists don't use "hypothesis" and "theory" as interchangable terms.
A theory has been experimentally tested via a procession of repeatable, well-controlled experiments, and has not been falsified in the process. It's a consensus label for a proposed model that seems to hold up to prolonged, intense scrutiny and testing.
A hypothesis, by contrast, is an idea that might or might not have been preliminarily tested before it's presented to its natural constituency, but that has yet to b
Re: (Score:2)
> It's a consensus label for a proposed model that seems to hold up to prolonged, intense scrutiny and testing.
So Quantum Mechanics is a theory, then? Because we've moved a step beyond "intense scrutiny and testing" and we're well into practical real-world applications.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
It's not really that simple. Hypothesis and theory are a bit ill defined.
The best definition, closest to what is generally used in practice, is that a theory is some kind of logical and/or mathematical framework that provides some explanatory power. A hypothesis is a specific prediction, that can, at least in principle, be tested by experiment.
A good theory should make predictions (generate hypotheses) that can be tested.
Eddington's eclipse expedition tested the hypothesis that starlight would be deflected
Re:This ISN'T how POLITICAL science works (Score:5, Insightful)
It's ridiculous that climate change has become political.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change affects economics, which affects resources. Politics is how humans allocate resources.
All theories were fringe theories at one point (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:All theories were fringe theories at one point (Score:5, Insightful)
The situation in cosmology is similar to pre-Relativity right now - we're seeing something which doesn't make sense using the laws of physics we know of. Instead of making the mistake of ignoring opportunity cost [investopedia.com] and assuming the most popular theory is correct, think of it this way. We know galaxies can't rotate as we see them rotating using classical celestial mechanics and observed mass. So we've got two competing theories to explain the deviation. Dark Matter, where 85% of the mass in the known universe is stuff we've never seen nor detected and have no idea what it is - basically adding a fudge factor to make our observations fit our understanding of physics. Or this guy's quantized inertia theory. Denying him the funding simply because his theory is fringe is nothing more than blind faith in the dark matter theory being correct.
Even if he turns out to be wrong, $1.3 million is not much in the grand scheme of these things. The DoD and DARPA threw a lot more money at psychic phenomenon during the Cold War simply because the Soviets were also researching it, and they couldn't take the chance that there might actually be something to it which the Soviets might discover first Because we learn from history books which only outline what was investigated, most people wrongly assume there are only two possible outcomes here:
There are actually four possible outcomes here:
Like throwing darts, the vast majority of research will fall into the second outcome - investigated and turns out to be wrong. The few shining gems of science (first outcome) are the wheat sifted out of all the chaff via this process. In addition, outcomes two and three and inextricably linked - the less you have of the second, the more you'll get of the third, and vice versa. So decreasing funding for theories which will probably turn out to be incorrect, will increase the number of correct theories we never learn because they were never investigated (throwing the baby out with the bathwater). And trying prevent missing correct theories because we never investigated them, will inevitably lead to more incorrect theories being investigated (casting a wider net will result in catching more trash fish).
Re: All theories were fringe theories at one point (Score:2)
Relativity had been predicted by maths for 50 years at that point.
Nobody thought it fringe because it brought physics in line with maths. You no longer needed some strange exceptionalism.
Re: (Score:2)
so in 50 years you will be perfectly fine with this science...
or just that you will be dead and the next gen would be just less prejudiced to new theories.
Re: (Score:3)
Or both.
Re: (Score:3)
However its major weaknesses is that the transition point where Newtonian dynamics breaks down has to be “tuned” to fit observational data without giving a proper explanation of the adjustment. A good mathematician can tweak almost any theory to match observational data
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Relativity would've been a fringe theory to anyone who believed in classic Newtonian physics at the turn of the 20th century. Relativity was given consideration because it provided an explanation for some of the observed weirdness which Newtonian physics didn't (Michelson-Morley, orbit of Mercury). If this was just some guy advocating a theory out of the blue, then I'd be suspect of DARPA funding him. But if his theory can explain galactic rotation without using dark matter, then I think it's definitely worth investigating.
Sure. Let's investigate it. However, don't get any hopes up. Besides galactic rotation, this also needs to explain observed gravitational lensing (and lack of it in certain cases), observed cosmic background radiation, and several other directions that have come to point to dark matter. 70 years ago, this would have been a really intriguing experiment, and it was since this is just a modified MOND theory. However, now it's up against 70 years of testing and experiments which it will have to explain. End res
Re: (Score:2)
this also needs to explain observed gravitational lensing (and lack of it in certain cases), observed cosmic background radiation, and several other directions that have come to point to dark matter.
No it has not.
Why should it?
It has nothing to do with it ...
What is next? It should predict global warming? Nuclear decay?
Which part of quantified inertia did yo not get? What has inertia to do with cosmic background radiation? Hae? Or gravity lensing?
Re: (Score:2)
How about explaining the couple of galaxies that don't seem to contain any dark matter and rotate the expected way, using relativity.
Re: (Score:2)
When is a theory correct?
We have tested relativity for a long time. Can we say now that it is correct? We have major consensus that we are in a period of man-made global warming. Can we say that theory is correct? At what point can we sit back, light a cigar, and agree that a theory is correct?
There may be exceptions, but generally speaking, only God can say whether a theory is correct. The best we can do is say that a theory is 'generally accepted' by those
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i would just call that science. I wish the current atmosphere of divisive science wasn't so hateful to ideas that contradict their funding source.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately it almost seems as if that is what "science" is all about these days. Money. I think we have gotten lost in our ways.
Re: (Score:3)
There was actually more subtle and powerful argument. The Greeks eventually had a pretty good handle on the size of the Earth. So if the Earth goes around the Sun, that implies that we who think we are standing still are moving about a thousand miles an hour. Wouldn't we notice?
Until inertia is formalized as per Newton, the intuitive answer of "oh, I feel like I am still" has a strong emotional pull.
Worse still, how fast are we moving around the sun? It turns out be a much greater speed. So why don't w
Re: (Score:2)
And how come there is no apparent parallax detected when looking at the stars? Unless the stars were "ridiculously" far away, why don't we notice certain stars seem closer/brighter at different times of the year?
We actually do that. Closer/brighter not, for that the earth orbit is to small. Heck the traveling of the solar system through the galaxy is faster and makes differences an order of magnitude higher than the orbit of earth.
Know what a parsec is? Look it up ...
What's so batshit about it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, when you think about it, it should be.
But many options of stuff that is quantisized, e.g. gravity, is not proven yet.
The last thing I remember that was proven quantisized was the hall effect, which lead to the acceptance that magnetic fields are quantisized.
I know nothing about QI (Score:3)
I couldn't begin to comment on whether it is science or pseudoscience with any authority. However, I can only hope that if it is pseudoscience that they might discover something useful by accident whilst studying it.
I'm sure the ideas of computers and self driving cars were considered pseudoscience or science fiction once upon a time.
depending on your definition of working (Score:2)
Self driving cars work today. But they aren't necessarily less likely to drive off a pier than your average senior driver.
Re:depending on your definition of working (Score:4, Funny)
Self driving cars work today. But they aren't necessarily less likely to drive off a pier than your average senior driver.
I think we need a double blind study to confirm that hypothesis.
Can you spare a couple of grandparents?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I've run out of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you spare a couple of grandparents?
Double blind studies don't work like this.
You also have to include middle aged, young aged, white, negros, asians, escimos, and toddlers!!
DARPA is hedging (Score:5, Insightful)
DARPA is well known for its high-risk, high-reward approach to innovation. I'm sure the program manager involved knows full well that QI probably doesn't exist, but he or she has enough esteem for the investigators it was determined a good investment, just in case it turns out to be real.
They could also be offering some life support to a research group they want to keep together, but doesn't have a clear project. This is done all the time.
Re:DARPA is hedging (Score:4, Interesting)
Just my 2 cents
Re: DARPA is hedging (Score:2)
Knowing the result beforehand tends to devalue the experiment.
If you want results, you base your theories on observation, not your observations on theory.
DARPA understands this, at least as well as any militarist agency can. They don't want confirmation bias, they want results. Only way to get them is by looking.
Are they looking for positive results? They shouldn't be looking for anything, they should be comparing observation with prediction. All results, whether there's a match or not, have major scientifi
It's like string theory, but with extra tulips (Score:3)
Because who doesn't like a pseudoscience theory that can quantify the compression ratio of angels dancing on the head of a tulip as it accelerates towards light speed?
Re: It's like string theory, but with extra tulips (Score:2)
String theory is falsifiable. It is important that it be tested.
QI is falsifiable and now will be tested.
Skepticism is vital in the process of falsification.
Cynicism is a major impediment and humanity would prosper if the useless third of the population was sent in a B Ark to Mars.
Thank you Mr. Feynman (Score:2, Insightful)
When I read the comments for this story, the fortune cookie at the bottom of the page was:
"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- Richard P. Feynman
Re: (Score:2)
The fortune cookie I got was: "The clothes have no emperor. -- C.A.R. Hoare, commenting on ADA."
The Dark Matter adherents are afraid of being left with no clothes; the idea that there is all this invisible unseeable matter taking up most of the universe cannot be tested, but QI and this light engine concept will either work or it won't, making it testable.
First, I found QI interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
...not anymore. The problem with QI is that it is based on Unruh radiation. This Unruh radiation is supposed to replace dark matter and responsible for the peculiar velocities of stars in spiral galaxies.
Now, here's a problem:
A precise extragalactic test of General Relativity
http://science.sciencemag.org/... [sciencemag.org]
According to this study the rotational velocities of the stars are consistent with the bending of light around the galaxy. That means space-time is curved with the right amount which causes the velocities of the stars.
So, Unruh radiation cannot be responsible for these velocities since Unruh radiation is light and light cannot "bend" light. Actually, our current understanding is that nothing can "bend" light this way, only space-time curvature. This means there is something there which causes this "extra" space-time curvature (eg. dark matter).
I do not believe dark matter exists, but it won't be QI which solves these kind of problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Why did you want until now to tell us this? If you'd mentioned it to DARPA before they spent the $1.3 million, you could have saved taxpayers a lot of money.
Next time, please speak up before the money gets spent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you convince them to send one of those rounding errors my way?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am confused. Space-time curvature is related to gravity. Why can't a whole big big bunch of "light" exert a gravitational effect the same way a little bit of the slow usual matter does? Energy is energy and has mass.
Is there something I am missing?
Re: (Score:2)
Physicists studing geons say otherwise.
You assume that photons cannot cause space-time curvature. You know what they say about when you assume...
Physicists said the EM Drive was impossible too. (Score:2)
Physicists said the Em Drive was "Impossible" then NASA tested it and it worked.
https://www.cnet.com/news/theo... [cnet.com]
https://www.space.com/40682-em... [space.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then they tested it again and found it didn't.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/
Re: (Score:2)
Um, actually we developed EM drives back in the 1950s. I know they don't teach real science history in backwards areas, but they even had entire SF series published about it in Germany and the UK, not just in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
As I stated, they did SF series back in the 1950s where they had "advanced EM drives" with no propellant, and they were set in 2040 and 2050. Which makes the timeline correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Physicists said the Em Drive was "Impossible" then NASA tested it and it worked.
https://www.cnet.com/news/theo... [cnet.com]
https://www.space.com/40682-em... [space.com]
You are using old data. Here: https://www.sciencealert.com/i... [sciencealert.com]
You can read thrust in any direction you want, perhaps in two opposite directions at the same time. And the amount of energy it takes to get that omnidirectional "thrust" is pretty impressive. Personally, I think it is heating effects, and perhaps the magnetic field of the earth interfering. And that's as good a guess as QI. The EM drive will now live on as youtube videos for the perpetual motion crowd, and the people who believe that you ca
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that there are unseen - or at least, so-far-unnoticed - effects at work that might be the result of being so deep in the Earth's, or the Sun's, gravity well. Can we be CERTAIN that things might not work just a little differently at a distance of, say, 1000AU? I think we need to keep at least an open mind about the POSSIBILITY that the warped space we're living in so near the Sun might have at least a slight effect.
Experiment is the correct approach (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of the scientists are skeptical, they want evidence. This, too, is the correct approach. Cynicism, which also arises, is not. The difference is that a cynic doesn't care about evidence or models, they're convinced of the outcome in advance.
Cynicism is the enemy of science. It's actually the enemy of many things, but in this case it is the enemy of science.
Skepticism is how we distinguish sounding good from being useful. It is essential.
QI sounds excellent, doesn't involve hyper-invisible particles and offers a simple explanation. But none of those mean it is right. As Fred Hoyle loved to point out, the only valid thing in science is prediction. You must predict and test with an eye to falsifying. Nothing else matters.
And it must continue to do so. So all of the indirect attempts to study dark matter via hot filaments of regular matter must produce results QI can explain as well or better. If dark matter produces more testable predictions that turn out correct, it is the more useful even if it is actually wrong.
I am not keen on MOND because, as with dark matter, there are galaxies which don't fit the model. Theories which only apply selectively or at weekends are probably wrong. However, QI has some interesting aspects and should be tested properly rather than cynically dismissed.
"quantized inertia" (Score:2)
Don't know how much you can learn about the QI hypothesis from it's name, but it's clear that mass is quantized, and it is sometimes suspected that space is quantized, so if so, you get the "quantized inertia" for free.
Whether the rest would follow from that is another questions.
The money is for theory and two experiments (Score:2)
I was very surprised by this since I've read about the Oceanographer McCullogh before and wasn't impressed.
I can't find any official source confirming this except perhaps Univ of Plymouth which is where McCullogh works. Is there an official DARPA announcement out there somewhere?
The only information I can find is from Motherboard (an interview) and forums/McCulloughs twitter. There is some more info here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.... [nasaspaceflight.com]
search for flux_capacitors post about 1/3 down.
The information seem to
The First Men in the Moon (Score:2)
No good gravity theory (Score:2)
When it comes to gravity, it is odd to call a new theory a pseudo-science, since the main theory has so many shortcomings.
As summary notes, it does not even manage to explain how galaxies can exist: according to main theory their rotation should expel the matter and dislocate them. Dark matter and dark energy, which has never been observed, is required to keep galaxies confined in the standard model
Verification of QI (Score:2)
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).
It's interesting because just recently I read about detected anomaly in Oumuamua trajectory, which for now was attributed to not observed out-gassing, i.e. out-gassing, which was not seen, but had to happen - not sure though whether the effect would match the one predicted by QI (article didn't provide details about the anomaly).
It is a hypothesis, not a theory (Score:2)
Moon Shot Concept (Score:3)
Science fiction author Jerry Pournelle used to advocate that NASA and DARPA should spend 90% of their budgets on routine research following established theories - and spend 10% on "crackpot" theories that might either be utter nonsense or groundbreaking. The "Dean Drive", for example, or the ElectroMagnetic Drive - which NASA _is_ looking at, just because it would be such an enormous leap forward in the unlikely event that it works.
I think "Quantized Inertia" would fall into that same category; likely nonsense, but it's remotely possibly an enormous leap forward. Or perhaps "Quantized Intertia" is how the EM drive (supposedly) works? It's certainly worth trying. One needs to keep an open mind, conduct thorough experiments with detailed descriptions and HONEST results. Pournelle suggested that 19 our of 20 times, the result would be the expected nonsense, but if even one time out of 20 was successful, it would pay for itself a hundredfold.
Not looking great for Q.E and EMDRIVE right now. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In space no one can hear you say "pew! pew! pew!"
Re: Wait, so there are actual experiments? (Score:3, Interesting)
String theory is falsifiable and could easily be tested by experiments.
If you want to blame anyone, blame the Americans for not building the supercollider in the right place and then not building it at all.
After which, blame a few string theorists for ignoring supergravity and abusing its proponents.
But nothing stops you from testing some predictions of string theory today and building the supercollider in an appropriate location so that you can test the remainder down the road.
The main impediment to testin