Live data from Hacker News

Testing quantised inertia on Proxima Centauri

academic.oup.com

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Testing quantised inertia on Proxima Centauri

#31
post #23
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason, as far as I'm aware, is because McCulloch then went on to claim to invent several thrusters (EmDrive, most notably) derived from the effect that break normal conservation of momentum.

In what sense does McCulloch claim to have invented the EmDrive? The only citation about him on the EmDrive wikipedia article isn't even talking about anything relevant to the purported mechanism of action of the drive.

The theory behind EmDrive is based on his quantized inertia theory. I was under the impression he was the original proposer of the idea. It looks like it was instead proposed by someone else in 2006; however McCulloch submitted a paper in 2013 supporting it (https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2775) and publically advertises about how his theory allows for "an electric rocket" on his twitter https://twitter.com/memcculloch

Re: Testing quantised inertia on Proxima Centauri

#32
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're going to get technical, then the source of confusion here is that the term "dark matter" is considered a theory by lay people. Whereas scientists view dark matter as a set of outstanding problems in cosmology. There are many dark matter theories that address these problems, and we can talk specifics about each one and how it addresses each of the dark matter problems.

On the one hand, I mostly agree with you. On the other hand, squint at pretty much any theory, and you can see a series of related theories. That are each the basic theory, plus another assumption or two about another thing that might be observed. Leading to a cascade of differences that result in distinct theories. Therefore dark matter can be a theory, and there can also be many theories of dark matter. Just like e…

It's a simple thing to check. If there is a theory of evolution, what's the theory of evolution? Likewise, if there is a theory of dark matter, what is the theory of dark matter?

Re: Testing quantised inertia on Proxima Centauri

#33
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't see the mocking tone of the comment we're talking about, and you don't see the conspiratorial tone of the anti-dark-matter crowd in general, then yeah, you won't see why they're worthy of downvotes. But then we live in different worlds, so I guess there's not much to discuss.

You are dismissing criticism lightly by accusing others of being conspiracy theorists, mocking you, and so on. These are classic ways of creating cognitive dissonance and shutting off alternate ideas. Which is the exact OPPOSITE of what Feynman tells you to do in https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm . The truth is this. Dark matter is observationally the best theory that we've got. However it is d…

I'm very open to dark matter alternatives. It sucks, everyone hates it. But there are a vocal segment of people who are unable to accept that it might possibly be true anyway, who believe it's some kind of mass delusion by physicists rather than, as it actually is, the current simplest explanation of a whole lot of observations that look just like matter which is dark. Have you really not seen these people on every thread where dark matter comes up?

Re: Testing quantised inertia on Proxima Centauri

#34
post #27

So, not a physicist, but the claims in the PDF about how GR has "never predicted a single galaxy rotation curve" are overblown, right? Aren't there a handful of galaxies where the rotation curve lines up pretty close with the predictions from the visible mass? Any new physics has to explain those, too. Anyway, I think I can see why QI is so appealing. The paper contains a very short and sweet explanation.

> The paper contains a very short and sweet explanation. As the saying goes, all complex questions have simple, easy to understand wrong answers. This is an example. See my response to georgeburdell upthread. As for galaxy rotation curves, yes, the paper's claim is overblown.

Haha, yes, I remain skeptical at best of QI. I know just enough physics that I probably should have thought of the issue you mentioned up there, too. Still, the idea remains pretty enough that it's tempting to try to salvage it, like even if it's not technically Unruh radiation, maybe there's a reference frame or other perspective where the math works anyway... But that only makes sense if the real life numbers work out, and I'm not going to take this guy's word for it.

Re: Testing quantised inertia on Proxima Centauri

#35
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the one hand, I mostly agree with you. On the other hand, squint at pretty much any theory, and you can see a series of related theories. That are each the basic theory, plus another assumption or two about another thing that might be observed. Leading to a cascade of differences that result in distinct theories. Therefore dark matter can be a theory, and there can also be many theories of dark matter. Just like e…

It's a simple thing to check. If there is a theory of evolution, what's the theory of evolution? Likewise, if there is a theory of dark matter, what is the theory of dark matter?

Darwin's theory of evolution is descent with modification. It requires a method of inheritance, a method of random variation, and the observation that a variation which results in more descendants will grow exponentially relative to the rest of the population, until it dominates.

Examples of specific theories include the Modern Synthesis and Punctuated Equilibrium. But there are more specific theories as well. For example https://www.amazon.com/Ontogeny-Phylogeny-Stephen-Jay-Gould/... lays out evidence that one of the major drivers of evolution is that it is easier to change the relative timing of maturation, but almost impossible to change the sequencing. And we have specific examples of evolution where the method of modification is not mutation. For example the placenta is believed to be the result of viruses transfering a parasite genome into the mammal genoume.

The theory of dark matter is the theory that a large fraction of the matter that makes up galaxies is not visible.

You can get different theories based on how much of it we think that there is, and what we think that it is made of. There isn't a ton of room for how much of it there is - Newton plus gravity curves gives us that. But the what is fascinating. For example you might think that it is mostly things like wandering planets and stars that did not ignite. This gives us the theory of MACHOs. But we've been able to establish that most of it can't be that. We've also managed to establish that not a single thing in our known particle zoo will work. And so it has to be something of a kind we've yet to discover.

And that's where we have the challenge. We start with the idea that there's a lot of stuff that isn't shining stars. That's very reasonable. Then we wind up with the conclusion that our galaxy is mostly stuff of a kind that physics knows absolutely nothing about. That's...substantially more surprising.

Re: Testing quantised inertia on Proxima Centauri

#36
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are dismissing criticism lightly by accusing others of being conspiracy theorists, mocking you, and so on. These are classic ways of creating cognitive dissonance and shutting off alternate ideas. Which is the exact OPPOSITE of what Feynman tells you to do in https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm . The truth is this. Dark matter is observationally the best theory that we've got. However it is d…

I'm very open to dark matter alternatives. It sucks, everyone hates it. But there are a vocal segment of people who are unable to accept that it might possibly be true anyway, who believe it's some kind of mass delusion by physicists rather than, as it actually is, the current simplest explanation of a whole lot of observations that look just like matter which is dark . Have you really not seen these people on every…

Well I'm glad that you acknowledge that it sucks.

I see the people who can't accept that it is plausible as being the mirror image of people who object to calling it a fudge factor that makes our numbers work out.

It really isn't currently an explanation. It is a statement about what the explanation will look like. But the actual explanation at this point requires new physics.

Re: Testing quantised inertia on Proxima Centauri

#37
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The paper contains a very short and sweet explanation. As the saying goes, all complex questions have simple, easy to understand wrong answers. This is an example. See my response to georgeburdell upthread. As for galaxy rotation curves, yes, the paper's claim is overblown.

Haha, yes, I remain skeptical at best of QI. I know just enough physics that I probably should have thought of the issue you mentioned up there, too. Still, the idea remains pretty enough that it's tempting to try to salvage it, like even if it's not technically Unruh radiation, maybe there's a reference frame or other perspective where the math works anyway... But that only makes sense if the real life numbers work…

> even if it's not technically Unruh radiation, maybe there's a reference frame or other perspective where the math works anyway

There can't be, by Lorentz invariance. If a free-falling observer sees zero radiation in one frame, they must see zero radiation in any frame.

Re: Testing quantised inertia on Proxima Centauri

#38
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very open to dark matter alternatives. It sucks, everyone hates it. But there are a vocal segment of people who are unable to accept that it might possibly be true anyway, who believe it's some kind of mass delusion by physicists rather than, as it actually is, the current simplest explanation of a whole lot of observations that look just like matter which is dark . Have you really not seen these people on every…

Well I'm glad that you acknowledge that it sucks. I see the people who can't accept that it is plausible as being the mirror image of people who object to calling it a fudge factor that makes our numbers work out. It really isn't currently an explanation. It is a statement about what the explanation will look like. But the actual explanation at this point requires new physics.

> I see the people who can't accept that it is plausible as being the mirror image of people who object to calling it a fudge factor that makes our numbers work out.

Then do you at least see, now, why that other guy got downvoted?

Re: Testing quantised inertia on Proxima Centauri

#39
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a simple thing to check. If there is a theory of evolution, what's the theory of evolution? Likewise, if there is a theory of dark matter, what is the theory of dark matter?

Darwin's theory of evolution is descent with modification. It requires a method of inheritance, a method of random variation, and the observation that a variation which results in more descendants will grow exponentially relative to the rest of the population, until it dominates. Examples of specific theories include the Modern Synthesis and Punctuated Equilibrium. But there are more specific theories as well. For ex…

The problem of dark matter is, "why does lambda-cdm fail in all these ways that makes it look as if there is a bunch of non-interacting stuff in the universe?" There are specific theories that address the problem, but none is the theory of dark matter.

Likewise, Darwin started off with the problem, "what is the origin of species?" answered by natural selection, and its progeny as you mentioned. Again, I'm being nitpicky specifically because this is a good example of metonymy. It's the metonymy itself that causes this confusion.

Re: Testing quantised inertia on Proxima Centauri

#40
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I'm glad that you acknowledge that it sucks. I see the people who can't accept that it is plausible as being the mirror image of people who object to calling it a fudge factor that makes our numbers work out. It really isn't currently an explanation. It is a statement about what the explanation will look like. But the actual explanation at this point requires new physics.

> I see the people who can't accept that it is plausible as being the mirror image of people who object to calling it a fudge factor that makes our numbers work out. Then do you at least see, now, why that other guy got downvoted?

I see why some people would downvote him.

However my expectations of HN are that, total, he shouldn't be downvoted for that comment. And indeed, he currently isn't.

I'm glad his downvoting was temporary.

Post reply on HN