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

Isn't this how science works?

[Bradmont]

So this is the first time I've heard of Quantized Inertia, but isn't this how science works? Somebody proposes a theory, and then they test it to see if it's bunk or not? Has it been tested before? If not, then why label it pseudoscience? Because it disagrees with current theories? Ok, so test it and prove it wrong...

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. And particularly when QM makes little sense and doesn't fit with other necessary theories. It's not like we've figured everything out already. We might end up chucking every major current theory in the wastebin inside a hundred years. My only objection here is that they put the proponent on the task. Perhaps he's indispensable right now, but then the funding should include replication by a separate, skeptical team.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Narcocide]

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:Isn't this how science works?

[squiggleslash]

It's a shame that when DARPA pushes money towards this kind of thing, it means less money for real science, rather than less money for overpriced, unnecessary, fighter jets.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Quake1v1]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

$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:Isn't this how science works?

[bluefoxlucid]

I'm not so certain. Dark matter never panned out, and the information out there seems well-reasoned.

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:Isn't this how science works?

[taylorius]

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?

[taylorius]

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

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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: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:Isn't this how science works?

[mysidia]

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:Isn't this how science works?

[Ol Olsoc]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA, it seems Dark Matter has as much evidence backing it as does QI

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Anonymous Coward]

meh. This (QI) sounds a lot like Modified Newtonian dynamics (aka MOND). I've never heard of QI before, but I had a passing interest in MOND a while back. There are a number of problems that MOND solves. And there are a number of ways to test it, e.g. "Radial Acceleration Relation of CDM Satellite Galaxies" DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.261301 . There's a recent article in Physical Review Letters, so you know it's not entirely baloney. The problem is, it solves problems in such a way it introduces more problems, like, not accounting for general relativity in general. So, while it may have some merit, it can't really stand on it's own as a theory, so practicing physicists don't really have any reason to take it seriously, especially since there are already better, less hacky tools for the work their doing. It might have some value one day when it's cleaned up a bit, but until then it's just barely better than pseudoscience.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Falconnan]

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:Isn't this how science works?

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Nice story I suppose.

But your ideal world of every scientist needing to jump on every new hypothesis as the best thing since sliced bread is the opposite of what is needed to advance science. The skeptics are there to provide the goad to the experimenters to work the proof hard.

If everyone were to say "Hey! Quantum Inertia sounds great!. Therefore the EM engine must be great also!".

The idea of being proud of a construct or concept is more of a political thing than a science thing. Its like hanging on to the concept of Trickle down economics like a drowning man clutches at a straw, while TDE has never been shown to work at all. But those who hold that TDE is true are very happy with the idea.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[commodore64_love]

> 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: Isn't this how science works?

[jd]

Prediction is the only valid form of science.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

DARPA is not what it used to be. This is not necessarily bad science; clearly something is going on with the EM drive stuff and given DARPA's budget (over $3B), this is small potatoes to at least disprove something that, as it stands, is suggestive to be incorrect but not conclusively proven either way.

To be frank, DARPA has poured money into projects that money could be better spent on. The former Director, Regina Dugan (now head of Facebook's secret development group, Building 8), had serious controversy when her father's company was awarded a contract to develop a hand-held bomb sniffing technology that failed every test (it was about 100X worse than a trained dog at finding explosives) but they still bought the technology anyways. T

https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-03/today-good-reads-despite-repeated-failures-darpa-backed-directors-bomb-detecting-tech

I'm ok with DARPA pursuing far-out there questionable science, because you never know what might turn up with that kind of research, and it's not a lot of money given their mission is to swing for the fences technologically-speaking.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Potor]

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:Isn't this how science works?

[commodore64_love]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Science is a democracy, hence the term âoescientific consensusâ...which in truth means, we havenâ(TM)t proven anything about the subject but are faith-driven to believe we are correct.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[alvinrod]

Why is it a shame? Let's suppose, for example, that this is completely bunk and doesn't pan out. It appears that the people who are receiving the funding are using it to actually put their theories to the test. Assuming they're real scientists and not grifters, then after running their tests and finding that their theories do not work, they would devote their time to studying something else. You can't know whether or not some hypothesis is false until it has been tested. If it only takes a little over a million dollars to put this idea to rest, that's quite inexpensive compared to a lot of physics research.

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:Isn't this how science works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Max Planck: "Science advances one funeral at a time."

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Dorianny]

Quarantined Inertia contradicts the "Equivalence principle" a basic postulate of Einstein's "General theory of relativity," one of the most tested theories in physics.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Anonymous Coward]

TDE has been disproven. I don't know why you think it worked in the 90's? Maybe Reagan's reality-distortion-field got you. Even the greater Bush pointed out that it was voodoo economics. It's hard to find anyone who falls for it these days.

No one is taxing corporations to death. We have an indoctrinated far-right, that substitutes crap like Hannity for news, and imagines that taxes are far more of a burden than they are.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[mysidia]

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 larger corporations pay less: It's because
large corporations are more facile to apply strategic accounting and growth techniques to essentially reduce/eliminate much of their tax liability
--- techniques such as Offshoring HQ to a low tax jurisdiction while still servicing customers and using resources in higher tax jurisdictions,
techniques such as using IP Licensing and other arrangements to artificially transfer earnings to their branch in a country that pays little taxes,
And the wealthy due it too..... having billions in the bank and little on paper.
And the culminating result of all such trickery is that tax liability gets shifted onto smaller and less profitable taxpayers, such as small businesses and
less-wealthy individuals that can't really see that they can afford the extra teams of accountants and other costs necessary to implement tax avoidance schemes.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's observational evidence for dark matter at large scales. Its density can be estimated by observing gravitational lensing, and there are now maps of such. The Bullet Cluster is a pretty neat example of a mass concentration that is detached from the "bright" matter to such a degree that there basically has to be something there that is very massive but doesn't radiate light.

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.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Highdude702]

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?

[thomst]

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 be subjected to serious experimentation (especially by scientists other than whoever proposed it in the first place). Or that has been so tested, but only recently, or only by experiments whose resuts were inconclusive, or which have since been established to have had flaws in design or execution that cast doubt on their reported outcomes.

I recently had occasion to try to explain this to a smug millenial with a degree in philosophy. His response was that I was mean-spirited, and would I please cut it out ...

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real Planck length

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting observed gravitational lensing, observed cosmic background radiation and a few others that all fit the models of dark matter. Maybe QI can also explain those, maybe not. But don't let the extent of your understanding of dark matter be "centrifugal forces over coming the gravity of observable matter in galaxies."

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Ol Olsoc]

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: Isn't this how science works?

[brantondaveperson]

That's the trouble. It's probably not enough money to "find out".

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[crunchygranola]

Dark matter never panned out, and the information out there seems well-reasoned.

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 how well confirmed dark matter is. McCulloch apparently believes that the galactic rotation evidence, the first evidence that clearly revealed its existence (there were actually older observations that hinted at it) is really the only evidence there is, so that if he "explains" the rotation differently, dark matter goes away. Actually his theory would have a serious problem since it wouldn't be consistent with all the other observational evidence. He seems utterly unaware of that.

And he is flatly wrong in some of his claims. His assertion that "There is also a philosophical objection: arbitrary models like dark matter are insidious because they can be fudged to be right for the wrong reasons, and dark matter has to be adjusted arbitrarily for each galaxy separately, so it is not predictive." is bizarre. There is nothing "arbitrary: about dark matter, it has gravitational effects and mass distributions that can be measured and mapped.

*Even within the allowance I make above, it is not "well reasoned at all", it is instead a littany of boasts and unsupported claims. Little reasoning is provided.

And then there his promise to explain the "em-drive", an effect that has entirely disappeared when subjected to sufficiently rigorous test procedures.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Lanthanide]

Yeah, but that might be because 'dark matter' such as whatever is in the Bullet Cluster makes up say 5% of mass of the universe, as opposed to the current ~85% we estimate at the moment, because we don't have a better theory. In other words, dark matter can still exist and therefore explain specific observed cases, but it might be much rarer than our current theories suggest.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Jane Q. Public]

It's only "observational evidence" in the sense that it's a theory that can explain what is observed.

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?

[angel'o'sphere]

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:Isn't this how science works?

[Smidge204]

> 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:Isn't this how science works?

[Jane Q. Public]

But the recent detection of heavy neutrinos (likely "s-tau" or stau) coming from inside the earth has been suggested might lead to either an explanation of "dark matter" or perhaps to a new, alternative hypothesis.

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:Isn't this how science works?

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently had occasion to try to explain this to a smug millenial with a degree in philosophy. His response was that I was mean-spirited, and would I please cut it out ...

This definitely improved your argument.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[angel'o'sphere]

(Curvature of space-time, not a force),
It is nevertheless still a force, transmitted by (hypothetical) gravitons.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Jane Q. Public]

Correction: "tau lepton" not "tau neutrino".

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[ceoyoyo]

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 near the eclipsed sun. This hypothesis is a consequence of Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[angel'o'sphere]

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 money. You payed the taxes, yes. And now the money belongs to someone else. If you want to have influence on it, join DARPA, or any other research institute where you can decide where the money goes.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[sg_oneill]

. Dark matter never panned out

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:Isn't this how science works?

[sg_oneill]

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,

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:Isn't this how science works?

[dryeo]

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:Isn't this how science works?

[Anonymous Coward]

it does sorta make me think of phlogiston. Dark Matter that is.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Jane Q. Public]

It "multiplies entities". It brings in a heretofore unknown externality to explain something that "should be" explainable by more conventional physics.

I'm not saying it's wrong. Though there is some evidence it is.

I prefer a wait-and-see approach.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Jane Q. Public]

It has also been damnably unfalsifiable.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[jythie]

That is how science works, but that does not mean anyone who proposes a theory is doing it right. McCulloch is rather infamous, and is really more interested in expanding his cult of personality among conspiracy theorists than actually testing his ideas. QI produces the wrong answers pretty much across the board, and only produces the 'right' answers in a narrow range of situations that allow devices that do not work to magically function, if only someone would pay for more 'testing'.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[jythie]

McCulloch, unfortunately, is more grifter than scientist. He is a pretty well known figure in the conspiracy theory and pseudoscience crowd. He is really good at sounding convincing to non-domain experts, and uses suspicion and other social tools to turn people against anyone who knows better.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[jythie]

For the most part, DARPA does not even attempt to determine which projects will succeed. The mostly look at what the ask was and how well the proposal meets it. Money goes to people good at writing DARPA proposals, who know how to talk to non-domain experts and make something sound plausible to them. In short, it is easier for grifters or professional grant writers than full time scientists.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[bluefoxlucid]

So is the existence of Jehovah, Odin, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Re: Isn't this how science works?

[bluefoxlucid]

McCulloch claims his model predicts a bunch of things that don't make sense using simpler models than dark matter theory. Pay some researchers a million dollars to determine if this actually holds water.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[bluefoxlucid]

There's a lot of unexplained things going on which would be explainable if some magical stuff was everywhere but not perceivable. Maybe a wizard, mana, or the Ether.

If you can capture some mana in a flask and show how it can power magically-fueled devices, then we'll talk. Until then, you're just pointing out that water falls from the sky yet it only falls down, therefor there must be a river god at the top of the mountain making new water to bring rain and the unending flow.

Look at climate science. They put CO2 and water vapor in a box, shine a light at it, and measure temperature changes and heat retention. You can actually put the CO2 in a bottle. You can compress it into a liquid. You can measure whether it is or isn't there, and how much of it exists. You can correlate how much is there with impacts on temperature retention because you can measure both. CO2 isn't imaginary and predicted to be real because something is different between two measurably-identical things and so something must be there; dark matter is, and somebody is predicting now that there is an alternate property about how things move which would conveniently explain things without some magical sauce we can't seem to measure. Let the scientists fight it out.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[thomst]

Regarding the defintion of the term I stated:

It's a consensus label for a proposed model that seems to hold up to prolonged, intense scrutiny and testing.

Which prompted Smidge204 to inquire:

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.

Exactly so - just as is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (which, at least on the macro scale, has yet to be falsified more than a century after he first published it) is still referred to as a theory by every physicist, astronomer, cosmologist, and scientific journal on the planet. The same is true of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and there are plenty of other examples to which I could point, as well.

The confusion arises mainly because, in popular usage, the two terms are, in fact, pretty much interchangeable. It's pretty rare, in fact, to see the term hypothesis at all in, say, science reporting for a general audience. And the way it's employed in TV and movies broadens the popular definition to near-meaninglessness.

That millenial dipshit with whom I crossed rhetorical blades has only an undergraduate degree, btw, so it's not like his credential is all that impressive. And his blithering (which he insisted on calling a "theory") was essentially just warmed-over Derrida, wrapped in obfuscatory language, drizzled with poorly-constructed grammar, and floating on a thick, gooey bed of pretention.

Kinda like Derrida's own bullshit, come to think of it - although the Father of Deconstructionism employed better grammar than my quasi-intellectual foil seemed capable of ...

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[painandgreed]

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.

Your knowledge seems a few decades out of date. It's not just galactic rotation, but also observed gravitational lensing around galaxies, observable effects in the cosmic background radiation from the early universe, etc that contribute and are all explained by dark matter. We can measure and find it pretty easily through gravitational lensing. We can interact with it through gravity, but gravity is a very weak force and our current level of detection does not allow for detection below very large scales currently. We have even detected when it has been dislocated from the main body of a galaxy or even removed completely from galactic collisions. Those are going to be the really hard examples of observational data that any other theory such as this one will have to explain, and if it doesn't, then there will have to be several other similarly large discoveries in other fields that will have to be made to go along with it to explain what we are currently observing.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[mysidia]

It is nevertheless still a force, transmitted by (hypothetical) gravitons.

Um. In General Relativity: Gravity is not a force that acts upon object to affect its motion,
and "gravitons" are not invoked. So long as you are working within this model: gravity is
not a force.

"Gravitons" exist in a different theoretical model that tries to provide a QM explanation for gravity,
but: QM has not been successfully integrated with other physical models that describe
properties such as the motion --- the physics of small particles exists in its own silo,
and has many concepts/terms that are different in implied meaning or don't exist in other
models - for example, in QM you can talk about a "superposition" on the state of certain particles --
but that doesn't work for physical bodies such as a rock or a planet: every planet is in exactly one place --
you wouldn't say at any given time this planet is at both point A and point B simultaneously with a 50% chance of being observed at each....
but with some small particles you could say exactly that.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[thomst]

ceoyoyo opined:

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 near the eclipsed sun. This hypothesis is a consequence of Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Merriam-Webster's usage note on the distinction argues, in general, for a definition of the two terms that's a bit closer to mine than yours.

That's not to say you're wrong, nor am I claiming that M-W's note entirely disagrees with the distinction you draw. In fact, your contention that the two terms are "ill-defined" is spot-on, and not everyone in the scientific community uses the term "hypothesis" as I defined it. But many do, and the M-W note concludes that, while theories can and do prompt proposals for experiments to test one or another ramification or effect of the theory itself - and that it is perfectly proper to call those proposals "hypotheses" - my characterization of the word "hypothesis" as meaning "a proposed model that may, over time, and with sufficient experimental confirmation, graduate to the status of a theory" is the definition the note's unidentified author considers the best-accepted one.

Again, though, that doesn't make the definition you put forward in any way wrong or misleading. Instead, the M-W note makes it clear that, as you stated, the distinction drawn between the two terms is not a clear, bright line, even among equally-qualified scientists.

OTOH, my clash with that pretentious twit was an earnest of how the jargon of philosophy discards the term "hypothesis" altogether, in favor of watering down the meaning of the word "theory" to the point where it's essentially indistinguishable from "brainfart" ...

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

This is correct. Though the way you are responding to the quote, it appears you are trying to say QM doesn't meet the level of theory, which is of course absurd since it has proven to be incredibly accurate at predicting the results of many experiments for decades and hasn't been falsified.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[thePsychologist]

Thirdly: for funk sake, it is not YOUR money. You payed the taxes, yes. And now the money belongs to someone else. If you want to have influence on it, join DARPA, or any other research institute where you can decide where the money goes.

It's not even my taxes as I'm not American. I'm just putting out an informed opinion from someone inside research. It's called an opinion, get over it. It is also the right and dare I say the duty of the public to have an opinion about these decisions so that through lobbying and letter-writing, they actually can make a small difference should they wish to.

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Smidge204]

Ah, I see. Glad it's cleared up that you didn't actually have a point to make, and were just shoehorning in an opportunity to strut your intellectual superiority.

Perhaps you should save your pedantry for when it actually makes a difference.
=Smidge=

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[Ol Olsoc]

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).

I forgot to ask - should we eliminate corporate taxes and pay the wages that they receive in India?

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[angel'o'sphere]

Nevertheless gravity is a force ... no idea what you want to explain with your QM bollocks :D

Re:Isn't this how science works?

[commodore64_love]

> 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?

[Falconnan]

Appreciated, thomst. Though in this case, the hypothesis I was referring to was indeed quantized inertia, which has yet to rise to the level of theory. My writing was lazy, however.

Philosophy is a perfectly valid, and arguably necessary field of study. So many philosophers I have known, however, get lost in the weeds when applying philosophy to science (a needful step in integrating science into society). Watch some of the discussions on philosophy, mathematics, and infinity. It's both fascinating, and at times infuriating. But it will likely make you think.

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: All theories were fringe theories at one point

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between "fringe" and blatantly contradict well known and measured facts.

Re:All theories were fringe theories at one point

[Solandri]

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.

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 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:

• 1. A theory was correct and was investigated.
• 2. A theory was incorrect, and we wasted money investigating it.

There are actually four possible outcomes here:

• 1. A theory was correct and was investigated.
• 2. A theory was incorrect, but was investigated.
• 3. A theory was correct, but was not investigated.
• 4. A theory was incorrect, and was not investigated.

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

[Fly Swatter]

What if your facts and measurements are proven to be based on well known theories that this proves to be flawed? Uh oh.

Re: All theories were fringe theories at one point

[jd]

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:All theories were fringe theories at one point

[Anonymous Coward]

The helio-centric model of the solar system was ridiculed originally - of course the sun revolved around the Earth; everyone could see that.

Re: All theories were fringe theories at one point

[zlives]

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: All theories were fringe theories at one point

[zlives]

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:All theories were fringe theories at one point

[Comrade Ogilvy]

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 we notice that?

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?

Re:All theories were fringe theories at one point

[Dorianny]

I'm guessing when you picked "relativity" as your example you didn't realize that the "general theory of relativity" is the theory which quarantined inertia contradicts.

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:All theories were fringe theories at one point

[painandgreed]

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 result, even if it does exist as the reason, it will still be best shown as a mathematical method that will treat it as a halo of matter that only interacts by gravity with other nearby matter and light.

Re:All theories were fringe theories at one point

[swell]

" 1. A theory was correct and was investigated. "

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 familiar with the details. Until then we must apply due diligence in the search for flaws.

2+2=5 (for large values of 2)

Re: All theories were fringe theories at one point

[Highdude702]

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: All theories were fringe theories at one point

[Highdude702]

Or both.

Re:All theories were fringe theories at one point

[angel'o'sphere]

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:All theories were fringe theories at one point

[angel'o'sphere]

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 ...

Re:All theories were fringe theories at one point

[dryeo]

How about explaining the couple of galaxies that don't seem to contain any dark matter and rotate the expected way, using relativity.

Re:All theories were fringe theories at one point

[angel'o'sphere]

Like to point out that "couple of galaxies" so we can research it a bit together?

Re:All theories were fringe theories at one point

[painandgreed]

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?

What does inertia have to do with that is exactly the question. Currently, the working theory of dark matter explains the experimental observations for all of these other things also. If a new theory of inertia explains one of them but not the others also, now there is a whole lot of other answers that need to be found for things that should be related.

Car analogy: We have car that turns over but won't start. It will run briefly with starter fluid applied. The gas gauge reads zero. If we open the gas tank, we smell no gas fumes. However, due to the construction of the fuel intake, we cannot put a hose or dipstick down into the tank to directly measure the level of gasoline. Current theory is that the car is out of gas. Somebody comes up with the idea that the construction of the fuel intake also is preventing us from smelling fumes from the gas. Very fine and well, but explanations for why the car won't start and why the gas gauge reads empty still must be found if it is the case there is gas in the tank but we just can't smell it.

So, like if the car does have gas, but we can't smell it which means there is some other problem with the gas feed as well as a broken gas gauge. Likewise, if this theory of inertia explains galactic rotation but not the others, then we have to come up with explanations for them also which will probably mean that not just dark matter turn out to be wrong, but also several other fields of astronomy and physics also.

Re:All theories were fringe theories at one point

[dryeo]

I guess it is this one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and it is not well established whether it has dark matter or not.

Re:All theories were fringe theories at one point

[Anonymous Coward]

All it would take would be for someone on a fast boat that isn't currently accelerating or decelerating to drop an object and notice that it drops straight down to realize that motion is relative. They knew about the relativity of motion prior to Newton's work, see Galilean relativity.

Re:All theories were fringe theories at one point

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

It has to do with it because he's trying to explain away one part of dark matter's observations without touching the others...? How you missed that is beyond me.

Re:All theories were fringe theories at one point

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Yeah, I understand all that perfectly. But the Greeks had no idea because they could not measure the doppler effect on hydrogen emission lines of various stars.

My point is the heliocentric model was ridiculed for reasons that made a significant degree of sense given the science as it existed at the time.

Re:All theories were fringe theories at one point

[angel'o'sphere]

Dark Matter does not explain anything about cosmic background radiation.
Nor does QI.

Nor has both anything to do with gravity lensing.

Re: All theories were fringe theories at one point

[jd]

I'm not prejudiced to new theories, I would have been one of those 50 years ahead of you prior to relativity, after all, and I'm still that far ahead now.

I just don't pick up the first theory I encounter. What you pick up could leave you with a rash.

I've made it clear QI is interesting and should be tested, not shunned or treated like a religion.

I've also made it clear dark matter and MOND have problems, that I'm not ok with theories only valid with a rail card, but that experiments should decide and experiments alone. Prediction and falsification are acceptable, correlation after the fact is bad science.

Re: All theories were fringe theories at one point

[jd]

The only way the next gen could be less prejudiced would be if they treated science as a religion of the week. Would that be useful to anyone?

Re: All theories were fringe theories at one point

[Highdude702]

Most likely no, considering the world we live in today.. I can't rule out that it may be come a religion soon.

Re: All theories were fringe theories at one point

[zlives]

I agree, my hope is that we continue supporting experimental science, even if it sounds out there. I feel like the whole "cold fusion" experiments fall in that category as well. What i do not like are the institutionalized zealots of organized science, the wholesale naysayers, the protectionist endowment collectors.

Wait, so there are actual experiments?

[CajunArson]

"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."

Of course this is a whack-job fringe theory! Everybody knows that *real* physics like String Theory doesn't need experiments as long as the math is really really complicated.

Re: Wait, so there are actual experiments?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you knew what you were talking about you would be aware that string theory is under heavy criticism for its lack of verifiable predictions and its terazillion variants able to fit any observation given you choose the right parameters.

Re: Wait, so there are actual experiments?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, Sheldon!

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: Wait, so there are actual experiments?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

Do you have a reference for this assertion? I assume you are referring to the cancelled SSC, which was planned to accelerate protons to 20 TeV, far lower than the bolded value from the citation below. Here is a reference that indicates it might not be as simple as you say.

The strings can become excited to higher modes, which is a prediction specific to string theory and in principle observable. The energy necessary to make these excitations depends on the radius of string theory’s extra dimensions: The smaller the radius the larger the energy necessary to excite the strings. The most natural scenario puts the radius of the extra dimensions at the string scale: on the order of 10^19 GeV, give-or-take. In this case, testing string theory is hopelessly out of reach of the LHC, which reaches ~10^4 GeV at maximum, even with the recent upgrade.

Re: Wait, so there are actual experiments?

[jd]

I'm referring to specific predictions made by string theorists in 1986 at the 300 Years of Gravity symposium, specific predictions regarding supersymmetry, specific predictions regarding leptons and specific predictions regarding supergravity.

Why should I care about string excitation when the falsification of any of the above would falsify string theory?

You're also looking at magnets at the time of the SSC. Those at the LHC are superior. Upgrade your numbers to where the supercollider would be now not then.

Re: Wait, so there are actual experiments?

[Anonymous Coward]

Supersymmetry is also predicted by other theories, so it isn't a unique prediction of String framework (they shouldn't call it String Theory because Theory is reserved for well established systems in science, such as GR, QFT, evolution, etc). Also, given the landscape problem, if supersymmetry wasn't found at the SSC they could just say that it only appears at higher energies, as some scientists are currently saying after the LHC has ruled out the more plausible SUSY theories that solve the naturalness problem already:

The first step is to backpedal from their earlier claims. This has already happened. Originally we were told that if supersymmetric particles are there, we would see them right away.

        “Discovering gluinos and squarks in the expected mass range [] seems straightforward, since the rates are large and the signals are easy to separate from Standard Model backgrounds.” Frank Paige (1998).

        “The Large Hadron Collider will either make a spectacular discovery or rule out supersymmetry entirely.” Michael Dine (2007)

Now they claim no one ever said it would be easy. By 2012, it was “Natural SUSY is difficult to see at LHC” and “"Natural supersymmetry" may be hard to find.”

Step two is arguing that the presently largest collider will just barely fail to see the new particles but that the next larger collider will be up to the task.

Hence the surprise when the supersymmetric partners of the known particles didn’t show up — first at the Large Electron-Positron Collider in the 1990s, then at the Tevatron in the 1990s and early 2000s, and now at the LHC. As the colliders have searched ever-higher energies, the gap has widened between the known particles and their hypothetical superpartners, which must be much heavier in order to have avoided detection. Ultimately, supersymmetry becomes so “broken” that the effects of the particles and their superpartners on the Higgs mass no longer cancel out, and supersymmetry fails as a solution to the naturalness problem. Some experts argue that we’ve passed that point already. Others, allowing for more freedom in how certain factors are arranged, say it is happening right now, with ATLAS and CMS excluding the stop quark — the hypothetical superpartner of the 0.173-TeV top quark — up to a mass of 1 TeV. That’s already a nearly sixfold imbalance between the top and the stop in the Higgs tug-of-war. Even if a stop heavier than 1 TeV exists, it would be pulling too hard on the Higgs to solve the problem it was invented to address.

Ah, the beauty of...

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians in science. This is why there is waste in the govt; stupid people are running things.

What's so batshit about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't everything else quantised?

Re:What's so batshit about it?

[angel'o'sphere]

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.

Many things cause inertia...

[Anonymous Coward]

If QI is real, it is a small percentage of the overall "intertial effect", a small portion is caused by the Higgs field, a large portion is caused by "inertial mass". QI makes sense but would only account for a very small amount of inertia. None of these people reference the classic idea Mach had, where distant gravitational bodies cause some inertia. If you are interested in "propellant-less propulsion" look up James F. Woodward and his mach effect thruster. Also, Mike, the guy who is promoting QI, recently tweeted an Army Research Lab paper on the subject of asymmetric capacitors, pretty interesting stuff!

I know nothing about QI

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re:I know nothing about QI

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh... "self driving" cars are essentially science fiction right now.

Re:I know nothing about QI

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh... "self driving" cars are essentially science fiction right now.

Nope, they've got the self-driving down pat.
Heck, a brick on the accelerator achieves that!
They're just trying to cut out the self-crashing.

Re:I know nothing about QI

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't begin to comment on whether it is science or pseudoscience with any authority.

Me neither, but I know someone who can.

So it seems pretty straight forward to me:
If QI agrees with observation, then it is science.
If it doesn't agree with observation, then it's not science.
(add in new observations and/or modifications to the theory, rinse and repeat).

Pseudoscience includes rejecting a theory on the basis of it not being popular, not being proposed by your favorite scientist, not agreeing with your political views or because you think occam's razor indicates something else is more promising.

DARPA is hedging

[crgrace]

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

[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 ;)

Re: DARPA is hedging

[jd]

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 scientific implications. The implications merely differ according to outcome.

It's like string theory, but with extra tulips

[WillAffleckUW]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the angels naked? I just can't get behind filthy dancing naked angels. They should at least have slips on.

Re: It's like string theory, but with extra tulips

[jd]

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.

Re: It's like string theory, but with extra tulips

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, point of order here. "String theory is falsifiable." Really?

There are plenty of people who think that String theory is not falsifiable, and that explains the lack of productivity in String research over the last 20 years. The 10^500 possible String theory variations, with no selective criteria to either rule in or out ANY of those variations, has set off alarm bells all over physics.

You are stating facts not in evidence.

Re:It's like string theory, but with extra tulips

[painandgreed]

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?

Step one: Assume for spherical angels...

Re: It's like string theory, but with extra tulips

[jd]

Opinions are not evidence.

String theory requires certain testable things to be true, so if any are false then string theory is false.

String theory makes some direct predictions regarding the nature of leptons and the effects around strings. These are also testable. If false, string theory is false.

These are matters of fact. Opinions, even by scientists, are just opinions.

my next project

[Anonymous Coward]

I am researching advanced space weaponry. I will apply for a grant to research the optimal methods for exclaiming "pew! pew! pew!"

Re:my next project

[OrangeTide]

In space no one can hear you say "pew! pew! pew!"

Occam

[Anonymous Coward]

So far no experiments have detected dark matter particles that interact only by gravity, or whatever they might be, so if another theory matches observation AND experimental results better, then the theory which does not multiply entities unnecessarily ought to be preferred per Occam.
There's some indirect evidence for dark matter, so you have to go up against that and explain all the things that could not be explained otherwise.

Sadly, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how science ought to work, and by and large did work, up until two centuries ago or so. With the establishment of "science" as a(n often state-funded) career this has eroded considerably.

How "science" does work these days is that the various disciplines do their own little thing in accepted fields, and don't rock the boat. That's "hard" sciences, the soft sciences by and large have gone down the critical theory drain and are now dens of SJWity. Some of them even openly claim to be "post-fact", meaning they're entirely and openly unscientific.

The "oh it's pseudoscience" dismissal without serious consideration is cover-your-ass don't-rock-the-boat tenure track conservatism. It's very telling they don't even consider trying any experiments first. It means that the actual science part has left the building long ago, and all that's left are the various priests and acolytes of scientism. Of course they'll dismiss anything that isn't established as "pseudoscience", for they have zero interest in new theories being established.

The heretic isn't persecuted because he's wrong, but because he could be right. The religious allusion is deliberate.

Re:Sadly, no.

[hey!]

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.

[turbidostato]

It is sheer luck that Einstein's annus mirabilis was 1805 and not, what can I say... 1905.

It is real

[Anonymous Coward]

I use a quantized inertia engine in my DeLorean. It goes from 0 to 60 in negative 34 seconds. I can literally win a quarter mile race before it even starts. The only bad thing about it is that it is fueled by plutonium, and I can only get this stuff from Libyan terrorists. Trump has been trying to steal this technology from me during his entire time in office, but I'm always able to escape because I can travel backwards through time and escape with my backwards time traveling car that allows me to escape.

My name is John Titor.

depending on your definition of working

[OrangeTide]

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

[balbeir]

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:depending on your definition of working

[OrangeTide]

Nope, I've run out of them.

Re:depending on your definition of working

[angel'o'sphere]

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!!

Re:depending on your definition of working

[OrangeTide]

Double blind studies don't work like this.

Blindfold both grandparents.

Thank you Mr. Feynman

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Thank you Mr. Feynman

[mysidia]

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...

[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:First, I found QI interesting...

[PopeRatzo]

I do not believe dark matter exists, but it won't be QI which solves these kind of problems.

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:First, I found QI interesting...

[burtosis]

arpa/darpa has wasted so much money 1.3 million is a rounding error.

Re:First, I found QI interesting...

[PopeRatzo]

arpa/darpa has wasted so much money 1.3 million is a rounding error.

Can you convince them to send one of those rounding errors my way?

Re:First, I found QI interesting...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

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:First, I found QI interesting...

[burtosis]

As an undergrad I worked on a darpa project where it paid 1m USD for a custom distributed network radio architecture that involved repurposing a failed thermometer radio chip with barely any modifications outside of some custom firmware on a pic microcontroller. Considering it never even worked right, it was something a decent grad student could have done in about four weeks for 1k. I'm not sure how to board the gravy train myself, but it's definitely possible with the right connections.

Re:First, I found QI interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's just a very, very small effect. Dump the entire output of the sun into a single point a hundred times smaller than a proton and theoretically you might create a "kugelblitz", a tiny black hole formed from light, not matter.

Re:First, I found QI interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unruh radiation is light and light cannot "bend" light.

Kugelblitz?

Re:First, I found QI interesting...

[DRJlaw]

Unruh radiation is light and light cannot "bend" light.

Physicists studing geons say otherwise.

Actually, our current understanding is that nothing can "bend" light this way, only space-time curvature.

You assume that photons cannot cause space-time curvature. You know what they say about when you assume...

Re:First, I found QI interesting...

[NicknameUnavailable]

Energy has the same space-distorting effects as mass, that study is bunk.

Re:First, I found QI interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Space time curvature is gravity. They are the same thing. Also let me google that for you, this ignroance is getting too old for me to even be snarky. http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

Re:First, I found QI interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Energy is energy and a particle has mass.

FTFY

You might be too creative for the current discussion - I wonder if they can associate gravity with light or any other EM radiation, or any wave-particle duality. But most light sources are effectively point sources - does your lightbulb exert more gravity when turned on? - and falls off with the exponential of distance...

But when I think about it, I'm still stumped as to why light ONLY/ALWAYS travels the shortest distance, so I'm no use!

captcha: nulled

Re:First, I found QI interesting...

[strikethree]

Nobody hears me, and I can understand why their minds are closed, so I am not upset about it. It is now your turn. My apologies beforehand.

Gravity is NOT one of the fundamental forces as has been believed forever. What is the effect that we call gravity if it is not a fundamental force?

Gravity is the acceleration felt by an object when time is moving faster on different sides of the object. In other words, gravity is merely the result of a time gradient.

The funny thing about the time gradient is that it falls off (speeds up) with distance from mass in the exact same curve that an objects gains mass as it gets closer to the speed of light.

This fully explains galactic rotation curves without the need to invoke Dark Matter. It also leads to some very interesting thoughts about the nature of spacetime and electromagnetism.

Re: First, I found QI interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

But what about Time Cube ??

Re:First, I found QI interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unruh radiation is light and light cannot "bend" light

So light gets to disobey the laws of physics now? (or QM at least)
I'm assuming you've made an almost (if not) perfect mirror out of modern metamaterials and created an EM blackhole to trap as much light as possible in one space to see what happens?
As far as I know, nobody has bothered trying this because nobody has really thought to try it.
It'd need to be made of expensive heat-resistant materials and liquid cooling to have any hope of working because even with an almost perfect metamirror, there will be an absolutely tiny amount of energy that gets stuck in the material, leading to temperature increase. And, of course, the metamirror itself.
It won't be cheap.
But it is at least testable and insanely cheaper to test than Dark Matter has been thus far!
So that is why it isn't a fruitless effort.

The supposed reactionless drives that have been built are nowhere near the energy densities required to verify anything of significance, and those quickly fail because of overheating issues. (which would make their use in space extremely limited since it is even harder to cool up there due to lack of cooling media)
Even if they are out-ruled as being some unknown effect of being in orbit of Earth or the Sun, they could still be used in space at some point because the engines still work, albeit at tiny thrusts. Maintaining stationary orbits are all about tiny thrusts.

Re:First, I found QI interesting...

[thoughtlover]

...but it won't be QI which solves these kind of problems.

That's what the Third-stage Guild navigator is for.

Needs more women

[Anonymous Coward]

Physics is sexist. You can't trust it.

Is it really a theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

why label it pseudoscience? ... test it and prove it wrong...

Maybe it can't be tested, and that's why it's called pseudoscience.

Re:Is it really a theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between (a) untestable in any theoretical situation and (b) untestable with current technology. (A) is not science, while (B) is simply ahead of its time.

Re:Is it really a theory?

[jythie]

In this case, it has already been proven wrong, and mostly survives due to the proponent being good at sounding convincing to people suspicious of domain experts.

Physicists said the EM Drive was impossible too.

[BrookHarty]

Physicists said the Em Drive was "Impossible" then NASA tested it and it worked.

https://www.cnet.com/news/theo...

https://www.space.com/40682-em...

Experiment is the correct approach

[jd]

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.

Re:Experiment is the correct approach

[NicknameUnavailable]

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.

Couldn't agree with this more. Most of the stalling in science outside of biology and computing over the last century is likely the result of the refusal to seriously test outside of the standard model.

This ISN'T how POLITICAL science works

[Anonymous Coward]

In political Science, a few people hold the purse strings. These few people usually have a posse around them and that is what constitutes their group think. Go against the Group Think and you don't get funded.

Example: Research aimed at falsifying AGW rarely if at all gets funding.

Re:This ISN'T how POLITICAL science works

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, as if fossil fuel companies don't throw $Billions at their researchers to attempt to do exactly that

Re: This ISN'T how POLITICAL science works

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. Big oil is not interested in falsifying agw and has no money...

Re:This ISN'T how POLITICAL science works

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're overlooking the fact that every theory put forth to falsify all the AGW studies done to date is just a variation on the same crackpot theories that have already been debunked repeatedly.

I'll bet you're upset that nobody is pouring money into trying to find a link between vaccines and autism, too.

Re:This ISN'T how POLITICAL science works

[IVomitFatCashews]

"a Theory Many Think Is Pseudoscience"

Weasel words, Miss Mash. Who picked this chick to be an "editor"?

Re:This ISN'T how POLITICAL science works

[Anonymous Coward]

>_ In political Science, a few people hold the purse strings.

"Seth Brundle (The Fly): You have to leave now, and never come back here. Have you ever heard of insect politics? Neither have I. Insects... don't have politics. They're very... brutal. No compassion, no compromise. " Link: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091064/quotes

You know, neologisms are OK, even useful at times. Agendas do exist.

But science ultimately is undeniable fact.

In your example, climate change either exists or not. If the data show it to exist, no amount of pro or con- political activism will make it stronger or disappear.

People wanted the Earth as the center of the universe, or flat etc. But the facts said otherwise. If some people engage into political thinking against facts, that means they are making themselves the target of ridicule. It's not skepticism, which is doubting unproven things -- this is doubting already tested and re-tested things, with results reproduced more than once... this is doubting not the theory, that's doubting the results of a documented, independently reproduced and reproducible result.

It is merely being stubborn and deserves the respect which we reserve for fools.

BTW, there's a lot of folks here with weak grasp of logic, as of late, unfortunately.

Re:This ISN'T how POLITICAL science works

[Darinbob]

It's ridiculous that climate change has become political.

Re: This ISN'T how POLITICAL science works

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the progression of science, managing to falsify theories, poke holes in them, or find more models to explain things current ones do not.

Re:This ISN'T how POLITICAL science works

[sysrammer]

Climate change affects economics, which affects resources. Politics is how humans allocate resources.

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:Physicists said the EM Drive was impossible too

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

Everything is pseudoscience ... until...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything is pseudoscience ... until... results turn it into science...

Re:Physicists said the EM Drive was impossible too

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so fast:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/
https://www.space.com/40682-em-drive-impossible-space-thruster-test.html

Re:Physicists said the EM Drive was impossible too

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you drop the snark, it's annoying and frankly childish.
The "EmDrive" the poster is talking about was proposed in 2001 and claims to work by emitting no propellant.

Re:Physicists said the EM Drive was impossible too

[Ol Olsoc]

Physicists said the Em Drive was "Impossible" then NASA tested it and it worked.

https://www.cnet.com/news/theo...

https://www.space.com/40682-em...

You are using old data. Here: https://www.sciencealert.com/i...

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 can heat your entire house with a tea candle and a clay pot.

"quantized inertia"

[Black Parrot]

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.

Re:Physicists said the EM Drive was impossible too

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

The money is for theory and two experiments

[ath1901]

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....
search for flux_capacitors post about 1/3 down.

The information seem to be from McCulloughs twitter and the money is for him and a post doc "developing the theory" and two experiments by other people.

The first experiment is this one
http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.p...
which is supposed to replicate the em drive effect with lasers instead of em radiation.

The second will test a LEM drive (whatever that is).

In short, this is all related to the EM drive which explains why DARPA might think it is worth a small investment. It's not that DARPA suddenly thought QI sounded interesting but rather practical experiments to figure out what is going with the EM drive.

I am still surprised McCullough gets money for doing theory but the experiments sound like reasonable high-risk high-reward investments.

The First Men in the Moon

[AlwinBarni]

H. G. Wells "The First Men in the Moon" comes to mind with gravity field dumpers :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Red Dwarf

[Anonymous Coward]

So, we can now build mining ships like the Red Dwarf, nice!

No good gravity theory

[manu0601]

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

[AlwinBarni]

I found an article about ways to verify QI: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/... An interesting paragraph is:

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

[techdolphin]

Quantized Inertia is a hypothesis, not a theory. While in general usage, a theory can be a guess or educated guess, in science, a hypothesis is the educated guess. It only becomes a theory after it has been verified repeatedly by experiment, and there is virtually no doubt that the hypothesis is true. Science articles should be careful to use the terms properly.

No, humanity would die

[Anonymous Coward]

By a virulent disease transmitted by a dirty telephone.

You're a fucking dick

[Anonymous Coward]

I've argued with you on here multiple times. That millennial wasn't the smug-ass in the story. YOU ARE. Simply put, you don't know how to not be right even when your argument is. Mean-spirited is the nicest thing that kid could have called you.

Moon Shot Concept

[kenwd0elq]

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.

Re:Moon Shot Concept

[Anonymous Coward]

Same argument is made for the bigfoot studies by the U of Idaho anthropologist Jeff Meldrum. In a country as wealthy as the USA, it costs society almost nothing to pay for one anthropologist to devote a career to studying bigfoot. If nothing is ever found, meh, we wasted a few bucks. But if convincing evidence is found, it would be quite exiting science.

Fringe Science

Re:Moon Shot Concept

[kenwd0elq]

You need to balance risk with expected reward. We can afford to waste a few million on a crackpot idea for space travel, because on the remote chance it works, we'd have something really valuable.

Researching bigfoot.... A trail camera costs under a hundred dollars; I have one in my backyard to take pictures of the skunks, stray cats, racoons and possums that are rustling in the leaves and grass out there. Anybody who wants to research bigfoot can deploy a dozen of these in a day, then retrieve them a month later. No dedicated researcher required, and it can be done for pocket change. And if you find one, what have you got? A bigfoot. Big deal.

Re:Moon Shot Concept

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Sadly his ideas don't hold up well in the Pharma industry where a potential breakthrough for rare diseases would be used by less than a thousand people total, making the price of a single dosage in the 5-7 digit ranges.

The costs of drugs are soaring through the roof with all these tests needing done to ensure they don't explode someone up if they happen to take [insert generic off-the-shelf drug] from their local drug store.
The sooner virtual DNA modelling gets here, the better.
We've barely scratched the surface with things like OpenWorm.

Re:Moon Shot Concept

[kenwd0elq]

Physics is, we believe, pretty much the same all over. In biology, that's not the case. In general, a drug works well for SOME people, which is why we need three different drugs for any disease. One will work for about 50% of the population, another may work for 25% of the population, and another for 20%. For some diseases, there are people who won't be helped by ANY of these.

Your point about needing custom-DNA-specific drugs is an excellent one, but as you say, we've barely begun down that road. So far, I've read of only a couple of success stories for custom DNA-developed anti-cancer drugs.

Re:Physicists said the EM Drive was impossible too

[kenwd0elq]

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.

Trickle down economics

[Anonymous Coward]

During the Reagan administration there was a poster that 'explained' it better than all the words written about it. The picture:
a man wearing pin-stripe suit who looked like a Wall Street Banker, pissing on a bum lying on a sidewalk.

Darpa, Hafnium bombs, isomers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some years ago I read a book probably Imaginary Weapons: A Journey Through the Pentagon's Scientific Underworld, Sharon Weinberger (2007). It was kinda about Darpa funding of nuclear isomer bombs and energy research. Also partly about visiting dust covered and junk filled "labs" that received funding.
Yes, it talked about DARPA's strategy to fund some far out research hoping to get one success that leap frogs current tech and science.
My quick thought was that this could be a great front to show something on the books, while the money actually goes to 'dark' projects no one knows anything about.
Just stop showing people the non-functional "lab."

Not looking great for Q.E and EMDRIVE right now.

[ihaveamo]

I follow a fairly heated subforum of nasaspaceflight and a bunch of boffins attempting to prove EMDrive (and Quantized Inertia as an explanation). Some of their garage experiments are jaw-dropping in quality (Such as Monomorphic's) . Unfortunately, recent results are mostly negative, or close to "noise level". When you're looking for sub-newton force with high wattage, it's easy to mistake heat / magnetism, flexing of cables as an unknown "force".

Spin-Off

[Anonymous Coward]

The theorist behind QI, Mike McCullouch, has a practical bent. Should check out his energy-collection rotor device, which is proposed here:
http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-08.PDF
He worked with an engineering student on a demonstration on the principle:
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/999278823932907520

Speaking as a physicist...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly the sort of thread that drives me away from Slashdot. It's like nobody here has ever heard of peer review. And the ignorance about dark matter (primordial nucleosynthesis anyone? Hello?) makes creationists look well informed.

Re:Speaking as a physicist...

[RockDoctor]

And the ignorance about dark matter [...] makes creationists look well informed.

Ohhh, cruel! And as a geologist, I've been using barbed spikes and pain-enhancing medications on creationists for decades. With malice aforethought.

I'm perfectly happy to admit that I know nothing about the subject. I've never heard of "quantized inertia" before now. It doesn't look good when all that Wikipedia can come up with on the subject is a link to (this?) Motherboard article (on principle, I don't follow links to Motherboard, since they're invariably unviewable without enabling 438 (or more) advert-servers in No-Script. And then the content is crap when I get there), and a You-Tube video (not worth the bandwidth - see the "if a picture paints a thousand words - it should be smaller than about 30kb" argument).

Sigh. What is on Arxiv? Search for "Quantized inertia" (including quotes) : nothing. Without the quotes : 35 results ... not one of which uses the actual phrase (about as expected), and none look particularly likely. What about the guy's name? 15 results, all single-author papers (not good), but he's been getting published ("Journal ref: McCulloch, M.E. Astrophys Space Sci (2017) 362: 149" ; "Journal ref: Astrophys Space Sci (2017) 362: 57" ; "Accepted for publication in EPL, 13/10/2016" ; "Journal ref: EPL, 111, 60005, 2015" ; "Accepted by EPL (Europhysics Letters) on the 11th February, 2013" ; "Accepted for publication in Astrophysics and Space Science on 27/7/2012" ; "To appear in the SPESIF-2011 conference proceedings, in Physics Procedia" ; "Accepted by EPL on the 16th June, 2011" ; "Accepted by EPL (Europhysics Letters) on the 19th April, 2010." ; "Journal ref: Europhys.Lett.89:19001,2010" ; "Journal ref: MNRAS-letters, 389(1), L57-60, 2008." ; "Journal ref: J.Br.Interplanet.Soc. 61: 373-378, 2008" ; "Journal ref: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.376:338-342,2007" Now, they're perfectly respectable journals (well, most of them. Conference proceedings can be a bit loose.), and they're still getting published every couple of years. Which is not the sound of someone having the doors of the ivory tower slammed in his face. However, there's not a cascade of follow-up there.

Sigh. Got some reading to do, I guess.

It's actually an interesting argument

[Weaselmancer]

Little reasoning is provided.

This shows you haven't dug very deeply into his work. And I get it - at a surface glance it does appear to fly in the face of some things that are widely accepted now. But don't forget the luminiferous aether was widely accepted.

I think I can give you the gist of his argument, or at least maybe some food for thought.

The Casimir force has been experimentally verified fairly well at this point. Would you agree with that statement? If so I have another related thought.

The Casimir force arises from virtual particle pairs not being allowed to form in a small space in between two metal plates, making a sort of vacuum. The particle pairs on the outside are more numerous resulting in a net pressure.

Here's the important bit. At what range does this effect stop?

In other words, if the plates are a micron apart we have Casimir forces. Do we have them at a range of an inch? A foot? A light year? And if so what would the consequences be?

That's really all Dr. McCulloch's work is. What if Casimir forces are summed up over a Hubble scale?