Slashdot Mirror

Applications for mass/gravity manipulation are possible some speculate. But not necessarily due to Higgs.

Cosmologist Marcus Chown says of the "Quantum Vacuum Intertia Hypothesis" work of Calphysics.org: (From http://calphysics.org/articles/chown2007.html)

"Haisch is perfectly prepared to believe that the rest mass of a particle - its mass-energy - is "explained" by the Higgs mechanism and that the rest mass is intrinsic to the particle. However, Haisch believes that the inertial mass and gravitational mass of a particle are not explained by the Higgs mechanism and are not intrinsic. If they are not intrinsic then there is only one other option. They must be "extrinsic". "In other words, they must somehow arise from the interaction between a particle and the environment through which it moves," says Haisch. "That environment can only be the 'quantum vacuum'."

This might explain why the Higgs mass is small. Haisch's theory suggests a mechanism similar to the Higgs effect, but relies on Zero Point Field Quantum Fluctuations instead of The Higgs Boson, and the Electromagnetic Quantum Vacuum instead of the Higgs field. But their work also tantalizingly suggests that Gravity appears to be the same phenomenon, but behaving differently in the presence of warped space-time.

So if mass (inertial, gravitational, and rest), is a function of either Quantum fluctuations or Higgs bosons, then it might be possible to manipulate not only mass, but also gravity.

To extract energy from the zero-point vacuum, we must assume that it is a "false vacuum", and a lower-energy vacuum could be created.

This has already happened. It's called the Casimir Effect. There are many ongoing attempts to devise a cavity structure for a MEMS device that produces a net directional force. Some have already been found (see the paper), but detailed calculations show that the energy extracted does not overcome the energy expanded due to frictional losses for the current designs. The design in Figure 2 was published in 1983, so this isn't exactly a new concept.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/jovion-corporation-gets-patent-for-zero.html
Full patent (pdf) http://www.calphysics.org/Patent7379286.pdf

How is this supposed to work? I don't get it...

1. gas gets pushed through micro-cavities (small enough for the casimir effect to work)
2. ???
3. "free" energy from heated gas

Also, how about zero point fields? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy and http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

Sorry the link was incorrect. It should be: http://www.calphysics.org/articles/CP93.pdf

This is already known in theoretical quantum physics. In fact NASA has funded research into it with the long range goals of achieving propellant-less propulsion.

The Casimir Effect is also an experiment that is touted as ultra-precise proof of the phenomenon.

And there are a number of tantalizing theories that are built on its existence and have been published in the usual top ranking physics journals. Some suggesting that vacuum energy is responsible for the very structure (and hence stability) of the physical universe.

For example: http://www.calphysics.org/ explores the possibility that vacuum energy fluctuations account for mass (even particle mass!), inertial forces and [through an elegant corrolary] gravity. This opens up possibilities that go well beyond star trek.

Links here for related papers:

Gravitational solution to the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly
Galaxy Cluster Masses Without Non-Baryonic Dark Matter
Galaxy Rotation Curves Without Non-Baryonic Dark Matter


Other Interesting stuff:
The Calphysics Institute and my earlier post about the Calphysics research.

First patent references work by podkletnov.
You can dismiss his work out of hand if you wish.
Or you could read this: Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force.
Or you could admit that no-one knows with certainty the possibilities.

j

Einstein could clearly see there were problems in the 'interpretation' of the results of the mathematical quantum mechanical equations, especially considering that the Quantum mechanics is really just a statistical model, and tried to derive a theory based on more fundamental physics.

May be this was the correct way after all. Check out the research being done at the Calphysics Institute.

In particular:

  - Nature of Mass
  - Origin of Inertia
  - Gravitation
  - Zero Point Energy

Also some interesting papers:

  - Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis [pdf]

  - Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
  - Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
  - Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields
  - Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces [pdf]
  - Zero-point field induced mass vs. QED mass renormalization
  - Inertial Mass and Vacuum Fluctuations in Quantum Field Theory

It may be possible that Gravity is not a fundamental force after all. It may be derived from the three fundamental quantum forces: Strong, EM, and Weak.

Mass may be derived from these forces. Hadrons (comprised of quarks) which feel the Strong force (and also the Weak and EM forces) have a stronger opposing force from the Zero Point Field (ZPF) and therefore have a high induced mass (i.e. have a higher measured mass). Electrons don't feel the Strong force - only the EM and Weak force - and so feel a lesser force from the ZPF and thus have a smaller induced mass. And finally, neutrinos only feel the Weak force and so have a tiny induced mass.

Furthermore, as Gravity is not a fundamental force, but is a derived force along with its equivalent derived force - inertia, then the ZPF can be real, without producing infinite curvature of space. The gravitational force actually comes from an anisotropic ZPF caused by the scattering of the ZPF off local matter. In flat space though far from any masses, the ZPF is on average isotropic causing only microscopic jiggling of Strong, EM, and Weakly charged particles leading to the normal quantum uncertainty and heisenburg uncertaintu principal.

Of course this is only a rough overview, there is a lot more in the links above. Check them out for a fuller understanding!

Einstein could clearly see there were problems in the 'interpretation' of the results of the mathematical quantum mechanical equations, especially considering that the Quantum mechanics is really just a statistical model, and tried to derive a theory based on more fundamental physics.

May be this was the correct way after all. Check out the research being done at the Calphysics Institute.

In particular:

  - Nature of Mass
  - Origin of Inertia
  - Gravitation
  - Zero Point Energy

Also some interesting papers:

  - Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis [pdf]

  - Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
  - Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
  - Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields
  - Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces [pdf]
  - Zero-point field induced mass vs. QED mass renormalization
  - Inertial Mass and Vacuum Fluctuations in Quantum Field Theory

It may be possible that Gravity is not a fundamental force after all. It may be derived from the three fundamental quantum forces: Strong, EM, and Weak.

Mass may be derived from these forces. Hadrons (comprised of quarks) which feel the Strong force (and also the Weak and EM forces) have a stronger opposing force from the Zero Point Field (ZPF) and therefore have a high induced mass (i.e. have a higher measured mass). Electrons don't feel the Strong force - only the EM and Weak force - and so feel a lesser force from the ZPF and thus have a smaller induced mass. And finally, neutrinos only feel the Weak force and so have a tiny induced mass.

Furthermore, as Gravity is not a fundamental force, but is a derived force along with its equivalent derived force - inertia, then the ZPF can be real, without producing infinite curvature of space. The gravitational force actually comes from an anisotropic ZPF caused by the scattering of the ZPF off local matter. In flat space though far from any masses, the ZPF is on average isotropic causing only microscopic jiggling of Strong, EM, and Weakly charged particles leading to the normal quantum uncertainty and heisenburg uncertaintu principal.

Of course this is only a rough overview, there is a lot more in the links above. Check them out for a fuller understanding!

Einstein could clearly see there were problems in the 'interpretation' of the results of the mathematical quantum mechanical equations, especially considering that the Quantum mechanics is really just a statistical model, and tried to derive a theory based on more fundamental physics.

May be this was the correct way after all. Check out the research being done at the Calphysics Institute.

In particular:

  - Nature of Mass
  - Origin of Inertia
  - Gravitation
  - Zero Point Energy

Also some interesting papers:

  - Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis [pdf]

  - Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
  - Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
  - Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields
  - Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces [pdf]
  - Zero-point field induced mass vs. QED mass renormalization
  - Inertial Mass and Vacuum Fluctuations in Quantum Field Theory

It may be possible that Gravity is not a fundamental force after all. It may be derived from the three fundamental quantum forces: Strong, EM, and Weak.

Mass may be derived from these forces. Hadrons (comprised of quarks) which feel the Strong force (and also the Weak and EM forces) have a stronger opposing force from the Zero Point Field (ZPF) and therefore have a high induced mass (i.e. have a higher measured mass). Electrons don't feel the Strong force - only the EM and Weak force - and so feel a lesser force from the ZPF and thus have a smaller induced mass. And finally, neutrinos only feel the Weak force and so have a tiny induced mass.

Furthermore, as Gravity is not a fundamental force, but is a derived force along with its equivalent derived force - inertia, then the ZPF can be real, without producing infinite curvature of space. The gravitational force actually comes from an anisotropic ZPF caused by the scattering of the ZPF off local matter. In flat space though far from any masses, the ZPF is on average isotropic causing only microscopic jiggling of Strong, EM, and Weakly charged particles leading to the normal quantum uncertainty and heisenburg uncertaintu principal.

Of course this is only a rough overview, there is a lot more in the links above. Check them out for a fuller understanding!

Einstein could clearly see there were problems in the 'interpretation' of the results of the mathematical quantum mechanical equations, especially considering that the Quantum mechanics is really just a statistical model, and tried to derive a theory based on more fundamental physics.

May be this was the correct way after all. Check out the research being done at the Calphysics Institute.

In particular:

  - Nature of Mass
  - Origin of Inertia
  - Gravitation
  - Zero Point Energy

Also some interesting papers:

  - Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis [pdf]

  - Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
  - Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
  - Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields
  - Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces [pdf]
  - Zero-point field induced mass vs. QED mass renormalization
  - Inertial Mass and Vacuum Fluctuations in Quantum Field Theory

It may be possible that Gravity is not a fundamental force after all. It may be derived from the three fundamental quantum forces: Strong, EM, and Weak.

Mass may be derived from these forces. Hadrons (comprised of quarks) which feel the Strong force (and also the Weak and EM forces) have a stronger opposing force from the Zero Point Field (ZPF) and therefore have a high induced mass (i.e. have a higher measured mass). Electrons don't feel the Strong force - only the EM and Weak force - and so feel a lesser force from the ZPF and thus have a smaller induced mass. And finally, neutrinos only feel the Weak force and so have a tiny induced mass.

Furthermore, as Gravity is not a fundamental force, but is a derived force along with its equivalent derived force - inertia, then the ZPF can be real, without producing infinite curvature of space. The gravitational force actually comes from an anisotropic ZPF caused by the scattering of the ZPF off local matter. In flat space though far from any masses, the ZPF is on average isotropic causing only microscopic jiggling of Strong, EM, and Weakly charged particles leading to the normal quantum uncertainty and heisenburg uncertaintu principal.

Of course this is only a rough overview, there is a lot more in the links above. Check them out for a fuller understanding!

Einstein could clearly see there were problems in the 'interpretation' of the results of the mathematical quantum mechanical equations, especially considering that the Quantum mechanics is really just a statistical model, and tried to derive a theory based on more fundamental physics.

May be this was the correct way after all. Check out the research being done at the Calphysics Institute.

In particular:

  - Nature of Mass
  - Origin of Inertia
  - Gravitation
  - Zero Point Energy

Also some interesting papers:

  - Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis [pdf]

  - Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
  - Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
  - Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields
  - Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces [pdf]
  - Zero-point field induced mass vs. QED mass renormalization
  - Inertial Mass and Vacuum Fluctuations in Quantum Field Theory

It may be possible that Gravity is not a fundamental force after all. It may be derived from the three fundamental quantum forces: Strong, EM, and Weak.

Mass may be derived from these forces. Hadrons (comprised of quarks) which feel the Strong force (and also the Weak and EM forces) have a stronger opposing force from the Zero Point Field (ZPF) and therefore have a high induced mass (i.e. have a higher measured mass). Electrons don't feel the Strong force - only the EM and Weak force - and so feel a lesser force from the ZPF and thus have a smaller induced mass. And finally, neutrinos only feel the Weak force and so have a tiny induced mass.

Furthermore, as Gravity is not a fundamental force, but is a derived force along with its equivalent derived force - inertia, then the ZPF can be real, without producing infinite curvature of space. The gravitational force actually comes from an anisotropic ZPF caused by the scattering of the ZPF off local matter. In flat space though far from any masses, the ZPF is on average isotropic causing only microscopic jiggling of Strong, EM, and Weakly charged particles leading to the normal quantum uncertainty and heisenburg uncertaintu principal.

Of course this is only a rough overview, there is a lot more in the links above. Check them out for a fuller understanding!

Einstein could clearly see there were problems in the 'interpretation' of the results of the mathematical quantum mechanical equations, especially considering that the Quantum mechanics is really just a statistical model, and tried to derive a theory based on more fundamental physics.

May be this was the correct way after all. Check out the research being done at the Calphysics Institute.

In particular:

  - Nature of Mass
  - Origin of Inertia
  - Gravitation
  - Zero Point Energy

Also some interesting papers:

  - Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis [pdf]

  - Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
  - Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
  - Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields
  - Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces [pdf]
  - Zero-point field induced mass vs. QED mass renormalization
  - Inertial Mass and Vacuum Fluctuations in Quantum Field Theory

It may be possible that Gravity is not a fundamental force after all. It may be derived from the three fundamental quantum forces: Strong, EM, and Weak.

Mass may be derived from these forces. Hadrons (comprised of quarks) which feel the Strong force (and also the Weak and EM forces) have a stronger opposing force from the Zero Point Field (ZPF) and therefore have a high induced mass (i.e. have a higher measured mass). Electrons don't feel the Strong force - only the EM and Weak force - and so feel a lesser force from the ZPF and thus have a smaller induced mass. And finally, neutrinos only feel the Weak force and so have a tiny induced mass.

Furthermore, as Gravity is not a fundamental force, but is a derived force along with its equivalent derived force - inertia, then the ZPF can be real, without producing infinite curvature of space. The gravitational force actually comes from an anisotropic ZPF caused by the scattering of the ZPF off local matter. In flat space though far from any masses, the ZPF is on average isotropic causing only microscopic jiggling of Strong, EM, and Weakly charged particles leading to the normal quantum uncertainty and heisenburg uncertaintu principal.

Of course this is only a rough overview, there is a lot more in the links above. Check them out for a fuller understanding!

Einstein could clearly see there were problems in the 'interpretation' of the results of the mathematical quantum mechanical equations, especially considering that the Quantum mechanics is really just a statistical model, and tried to derive a theory based on more fundamental physics.

May be this was the correct way after all. Check out the research being done at the Calphysics Institute.

In particular:

  - Nature of Mass
  - Origin of Inertia
  - Gravitation
  - Zero Point Energy

Also some interesting papers:

  - Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis [pdf]

  - Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
  - Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
  - Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields
  - Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces [pdf]
  - Zero-point field induced mass vs. QED mass renormalization
  - Inertial Mass and Vacuum Fluctuations in Quantum Field Theory

It may be possible that Gravity is not a fundamental force after all. It may be derived from the three fundamental quantum forces: Strong, EM, and Weak.

Mass may be derived from these forces. Hadrons (comprised of quarks) which feel the Strong force (and also the Weak and EM forces) have a stronger opposing force from the Zero Point Field (ZPF) and therefore have a high induced mass (i.e. have a higher measured mass). Electrons don't feel the Strong force - only the EM and Weak force - and so feel a lesser force from the ZPF and thus have a smaller induced mass. And finally, neutrinos only feel the Weak force and so have a tiny induced mass.

Furthermore, as Gravity is not a fundamental force, but is a derived force along with its equivalent derived force - inertia, then the ZPF can be real, without producing infinite curvature of space. The gravitational force actually comes from an anisotropic ZPF caused by the scattering of the ZPF off local matter. In flat space though far from any masses, the ZPF is on average isotropic causing only microscopic jiggling of Strong, EM, and Weakly charged particles leading to the normal quantum uncertainty and heisenburg uncertaintu principal.

Of course this is only a rough overview, there is a lot more in the links above. Check them out for a fuller understanding!

Actually, last I heard, the founder of Wikipedia is closely involved in this project. So let's not waste bandwidth on why Wikipedia is better.

Also, the people behind this Foundation have been working on other, possibly revolutionary (in a REALLY BIG way) physics research. Check it out: http://www.calphysics.org/ .

Finally, but most importantly, they released a paper this year showing that gravity may be explanable as the exact same phenomenon---due to the spacetime curvature caused by planetary objects, fixed objects on a planet experience quantum fluctuations accelerating passed them. This creates an ambient downward force (AKA gravity).

The trick they argue, would be to control vacuum coherence (similar to the "vacuum pressure"). Suggestions by others have been made that this could be done using supercond. disks. NASA was preparing an experiment with a large superconducting disk to see if it had an effect on gravity...based on the work of Podkletnov. But funding was cut months before it was to be executed.

Antigrav is a bit early at this stage, but it still may ultimately be possible. In the sense that the 'vacuum' energy state may be able to be adjusted to provide gravitation, and uni-directional forces.

For a start, so far, conservation of momentum is just an observation of normal matter on average, and the equations of physics is taken from there. If conservation of momentum was really understood then it could be found if it always holds or just holds under certain conditions. This is just a piece of the work being done by the Calphysics Institute:

http://www.calphysics.org/

There are a number of papers now available on http://arxiv.org/ which indicate that the infinite vacuum energy may be real and not 'virtual' merely to satisfy Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).

Researchers include:

Alfonso Rueda
Bernard Haisch
Daniel Cole
Yi Zou
L. Nickisch
Jules Mollere
York Dobyns

What about this? These people seem to think gravity might be described as a side effect of electromagnetism.

Until the conspiracy between the US gov't and other world powers that prevents usage of zero point energy to give unlimited free energy for things like charging my cell phone, I won't be happy. That is, why use air when you can use "110 orders of magnitude greater than the radiant energy at the center of the Sun" to charge a battery?!

Unless, of course, it were cubium powered. Ignoring cubium indicts you evil!

Until the conspiracy between the US gov't and other world powers that prevents usage of zero point energy to give unlimited free energy for things like charging my cell phone, I won't be happy. That is, why use air when you can use "110 orders of magnitude greater than the radiant energy at the center of the Sun" to charge a battery?!

Unless, of course, it were cubium powered. Ignoring cubium indicts you evil!

I think it's a simple variation of the gravitational pull of the Sun due to there being more quantum fluctuations of the polarizable vacuum in the void between interplanetary systems. In more classical models you could think of it as either a gravitational ripple, or a sort of leakage of inertia.

I predict the following:
- this variation will grow with distance to the Sun
- light speed gets a tiny bit slower in this area
- this effect should be even more noticeable in the void between galaxies

It's no surprise Bernard Haisch jumped on this. It could help him push his theory forward.

Given a couple millenia, I'm pretty confident mankind will find a way back to Bronze Age.

That, or we'll figure out the last missing tidbits in the stochastic electrodynamics theory, build faster-than-light fuelless spaceships and spread around the galaxy.

It's the result of scientists ignoring Zero Point Energy for so long. Now it is rearing it's ugly head.

• California Institute for Physics zero-point articles.
• Rueda, A. & Haisch, B. & Puthoff, H., "Advances in electromagnetic Zero Point Field theory and inertia". 34th AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference. Los Alamos preprint: physics/9807023 (1998). PDF
• Rueda, A. & Haisch, B., "Inertia as Reaction of the Vacuum to Accelerated Motion". Physics Letters A, 240, pp. 115-126, Los Alamos preprint: physics/9802031 (1998).
• Puthoff, H., "Ground state of hydrogen as a zero point fluctuation". Physical Review D. V35 N10. pp. 3266-3269. PDF (290Kb)
• Rueda, A. & Haisch, B. & Puthoff, H., "Physics of the Zero Point Field". Speculations in Science & Tecnology V20 pp. 99-114 (1997). PDF(267Kb)
• Rueda, A. & Haisch, B., "The Zero point field and NASA's Challenge to Create the Space Drive". NASA Breakthrough Physics Workshop, Aug 12-14, (1997).PDF (211Kb)
• Robert L. Forward, "Extracting energy from the vacuum by cohesion of charged foliated conductors". Physical Review B, Volume 30, Number 4 pp. 1700-1702 (1984). PDF (700Kb)

"The term mass was introduced by Newton in Principia, 1687."

Okay, let's take a look at Principia. Oh look! He was talking about Inertial mass, which is exactly what the rest of us are talking about!

Oh, wait a second, i missed a little bit, the page you showed us is titled "Mass In Special Relativity."

That's great news! I hadn't heard that they'd put new Space Shuttles in service that traveled a significant fraction of c! When did that heppen?

Oh wait, it didn't.

I doubt that there's a single physics professor on the planet that would claim that special relativity needs to be applied to a Space Shuttle and a one pound chunk of foam traveling only 1000 or 2000 mph over the space of a few seconds, especially given what we're trying to calculate. The only conceivable case in which relativity might be usefully applied involving the space shuttle is if you were trying to calculate the fraction of a thousandth (or millionth?) of a second that is "lost" after a week or so of orbiting the earth. Guess what, that's not what we're trying to do.

And not only is that the only source on the web that i can find that claims "mass is not a measure of inertia," it itself specifies, "From the point of view of relativity[...]" which as previously shown, we're not using in this discussion and have no reason to use.

And if you think the best way for your kids to be taught in school is to skip clasical physics and go straight to special relativity, your kids are going to be in a world of pain, and probably not very well educated to boot.

I'm not so sure what I think about this. I'm all for increased spending in advanced propulsion research, but it should be done with caution.

"Anti-matter is several years out," Rodgers said

HAHA several YEARS out? yeah right! Currently, it would cost more than the GNP of the United States to merely light a 75 watt light bulb with current Antimatter Power Techniques. (This is what I have heard, maybe this is no longer true, but I don't think anti-matter production techniques have improved that much in the last six months since I heard this).I would say it's more than just a few years out.

The work on anti-matter will be at the level of the atom, so there will be little safety threat in case of an accident, said Harry Gerrish, a chief research engineer at the lab.

Although Anti-matter power techniques may not leave a risk of nuclear fallout which is a major concern with Nuclear Fission, it still involves harnessing a ridiculously large amount of energy. We should be more concerned about a technology like this falling into people with malicious intent in mind, or those who simply don't know what they are doing. I'm sure that once anti-matter technology progresses to a certain level, it will be possible to annihalate the planet with relative ease. Perhaps technologies like anti-matter should be developed only after our society becomes mature enough that it can use and harness technologies such as anti-matter without the risk of destroying itself in the process.

The ultimate form of propulsion technology may not lie in making faster and better propulsion systems, such as antimatter, but the ability to control the mass and inertia of an object moving through space.A relativly new theory of inertia, in which the electromagnetic energy in the Zero-Point Field interacts with the electromagnetic and strong forces of atomswould provide a reason for inertia to happen. Until now we have known that inertia occurs, but beyond the fact that it is directly related with the mass of an object, scientists haven't been able to find the mechanism for it to occur. If these interactions could be controlled, those between the zero-point field and the electromagnetic bonds of atoms, an object's mass could be deminished to zero, and the object could travel at very close to the speed of light with almost no energy propeling it.

See Inertia as a Zero-Point Lorenz Force by B. Haischfor further information.