DARPA Is Researching Quantized Inertia, a Theory Many Think Is Pseudoscience (vice.com)

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.

Comments

All theories were fringe theories at one point

[plague911]

This is not to say we would be dropping loads of money on it, but $1.3 million is hardly that. DARPA is known for spending money on some wild ideas, but it is not known for just tossing money away. There is a key difference. If DARPA thinks there is a worth while shot that this research can lead to something value then good on them for taking a risk.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[taylorius]

This IS real science. A theory + experiments to disprove (or not) that theory.

Re:DARPA is hedging

[oldgraybeard]

yep! didn't DARPA invest money in to that crazy interwebs thingy that Al Gore invented! We all know how that turned out.

Just my 2 cents ;)

First, I found QI interesting...

[little1973]

...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/...

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:Isn't this how science works?

[mysidia]

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 says it all:

Against claims that he is theorizing about pseudoscience, McCulloch argues that it is the physicists invoking dark matter who “have been on the slide into pseudoscience for decades” and that “the only reason the dark matterist haven’t noticed is they are all happily going down together, so self-correction has become impossible.” He points to 17 papers in which he uses QI to make accurate predictions without the need for constant adjustment that are often found in theories of dark matter.

Re:Physicists said the EM Drive was impossible too

[Anonymous Coward]

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: Wait, so there are actual experiments?

[jd]

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 testing string theory is the crowd believing without evidence that it cannot be done. Scientists worth a damn should stop listening to them. Science isn't a democracy.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[thePsychologist]

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.