Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the getting-to-the-bottom-of-things dept.

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.

46 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Isn't this how science works? by Bradmont · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Isn't this how science works? by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      I think in general with this type of thing, the fear is that their attempt to explain existing unexplained phenomena by disproving existing proven physical laws will become a giant boondoggle when the money could be better spent chasing more plausible but less obvious explanations that don't defy the entire groundwork of modern science.

    2. Re:Isn't this how science works? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Isn't this how science works? by Quake1v1 · · Score: 2

      It's exactly how science works. As soon as commonly held science fact is disproven, then it resets things and the scientific method starts all over again. That makes some comfortable people, uncomfortable.

    4. Re: Isn't this how science works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $1.3M when the government spends about $7M per minute is not a lot. About twelve seconds worth. It took me longer than that to type this message on my phone. Compared to other things we spend money on, it's worth it to find out.

    5. Re:Isn't this how science works? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    6. Re:Isn't this how science works? by taylorius · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    7. Re:Isn't this how science works? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:Isn't this how science works? by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are correct.... pseudoscience in this case is a pejorative --- they're calling it pseudo to try and make people think of it like Astrology or Tarot Reading pseudoscience, Not because it isn't science, not because it can't be tested --- not because those theorizing it don't intend for it to be tested, but simply because they're in the group of physicists who has some groupthink, satisfied in what their theories look like so far, and they think this relatively new theory must be wrong --- the physicists are proud of this thing they've contrived that would no longer be necessary.

      The article 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.

    9. Re:Isn't this how science works? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      their attempt to explain existing unexplained phenomena by disproving existing proven physical laws will become a giant boondoggle

      That's not how any of this works; and never should we be concerned about science that will challenge laws ---
      disproving or challenging physical laws are the mark of advancement in the basic science.... physical laws are very well known to work and ultimately won't be "destroyed"
      making a boondoggle, but the explanation of a physical law can change, and corrections can be required
      for some situations. For example, General Relativity fundamentally changed our view of what Gravity is
      (Curvature of space-time, not a force), and opened up a
      huge world we were missing before; technically by invalidating Newton's Laws of motion in the process.

      But despite that, Newton's Laws are frequently used; work fine in the vast majority of situations, and we
      understand where they don't, and which physical model to use instead when they don't.

    10. Re:Isn't this how science works? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      Well, closer to a hypothesis than a theory. But science indeed.

      Now I don't know about QI in general, but the EM drive is heading along the same path as cold fusion did.

      But we don't find out unless we test.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:Isn't this how science works? by Falconnan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That QM makes little sense or doesn't fit other theories is irrelevant. That it makes predictions that are verifiable makes it a scientific theory. That those predictions are as close to perfect as they are (barring the Vacuum Catastrophe) makes it a pretty solid theory, though yes, incomplete. Further, it is no more likely to be discarded than Newton's laws of gravity in that it is a pretty good approximation for most purposes. So, unless a more accurate theory later arises which is easier to work with, it won't go away.

      Your thoughts about replication are utterly irrefutable, however. As for pseudoscience allegations, if it's testable it's real science, even if the hypothesis is eventually excluded.

    12. Re:Isn't this how science works? by commodore64_love · · Score: 3

      > 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.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    13. Re: Isn't this how science works? by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Prediction is the only valid form of science.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    14. Re:Isn't this how science works? by Potor · · Score: 2

      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.

    15. Re:Isn't this how science works? by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      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 disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    16. Re:Isn't this how science works? by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    17. Re:Isn't this how science works? by mysidia · · Score: 2

      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.

    18. Re:Isn't this how science works? by thePsychologist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not labeled pseudoscience because it disagrees with current science. It's called that because it is poorly formulated and does not make precise predictions. If you actually look at the arXiv papers, the derivations are a mess and the figures are blurry. There is very little careful examination of anything in them at all.

      It is also easy to derive consequences and new ideas from well-formed theories, even theoretical ones. If you actually write something that makes sense, other scientists will usually jump all over it and write more theoretical papers. This guy's papers have been cited very few times by anyone but himself. That's another sign he's a crank.

      That doesn't mean everything in them is nonsense, but for pete's sakes if you're going to present a radically new theory, make sure you pay extreme care to the derivations and details. That is, make it understandable to others in similar fields.

      Speaking for the public, it is a huge waste of money to invest in testing papers like this, especially at this level of funding. I have seen hundreds of them, and none of them has ever turned out to be correct.

      --
      "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
    19. Re:Isn't this how science works? by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

      Coke-fueled cats with boxes are NOT an ideal universe...
      I uhh, heard from a friend...

      Please don't encourage this behavior..

    20. Re:Isn't this how science works? by thomst · · Score: 2

      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 ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
    21. Re:Isn't this how science works? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Tickle Down Economics worked just fine in the 90s. Reagan advanced the theory, put it into motion with corporate tax deductions, and it led to a gigantic boom during the Clinton Era

      > like a drowning man clutches at a straw

      Possibly TDE is wrong. On the flip side, taxing corporations to death has never been shown to accomplish anything (except drive corporations out of the Northern Rustbelt USA into China and India where labor & taxes are cheap).

      Deficit spending was Reagan's economy stimulus.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    22. Re:Isn't this how science works? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    23. Re:Isn't this how science works? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      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.

    24. Re:Isn't this how science works? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    25. Re:Isn't this how science works? by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      > 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.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  2. All theories were fringe theories at one point by plague911 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:All theories were fringe theories at one point by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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).

    2. Re:All theories were fringe theories at one point by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 2

      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?

    3. Re:All theories were fringe theories at one point by Dorianny · · Score: 2
      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

    4. Re: All theories were fringe theories at one point by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

      Or both.

  3. What's so batshit about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't everything else quantised?

  4. I know nothing about QI by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  5. DARPA is hedging by crgrace · · Score: 4, Insightful

    DARPA is well known for its high-risk, high-reward approach to innovation. I'm sure the program manager involved knows full well that QI probably doesn't exist, but he or she has enough esteem for the investigators it was determined a good investment, just in case it turns out to be real.

    They could also be offering some life support to a research group they want to keep together, but doesn't have a clear project. This is done all the time.

    1. Re:DARPA is hedging by oldgraybeard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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 ;)

  6. It's like string theory, but with extra tulips by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    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?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  7. Thank you Mr. Feynman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When I read the comments for this story, the fortune cookie at the bottom of the page was:
            "The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- Richard P. Feynman

  8. Re:Sadly, no. by hey! · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  9. First, I found QI interesting... by little1973 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...not anymore. The problem with QI is that it is based on Unruh radiation. This Unruh radiation is supposed to replace dark matter and responsible for the peculiar velocities of stars in spiral galaxies.

    Now, here's a problem:
    A precise extragalactic test of General Relativity
    http://science.sciencemag.org/...

    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.

    --
    Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
  10. Re: Sadly, no. by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  11. Experiment is the correct approach by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some of the scientists are skeptical, they want evidence. This, too, is the correct approach. Cynicism, which also arises, is not. The difference is that a cynic doesn't care about evidence or models, they're convinced of the outcome in advance.

    Cynicism is the enemy of science. It's actually the enemy of many things, but in this case it is the enemy of science.

    Skepticism is how we distinguish sounding good from being useful. It is essential.

    QI sounds excellent, doesn't involve hyper-invisible particles and offers a simple explanation. But none of those mean it is right. As Fred Hoyle loved to point out, the only valid thing in science is prediction. You must predict and test with an eye to falsifying. Nothing else matters.

    And it must continue to do so. So all of the indirect attempts to study dark matter via hot filaments of regular matter must produce results QI can explain as well or better. If dark matter produces more testable predictions that turn out correct, it is the more useful even if it is actually wrong.

    I am not keen on MOND because, as with dark matter, there are galaxies which don't fit the model. Theories which only apply selectively or at weekends are probably wrong. However, QI has some interesting aspects and should be tested properly rather than cynically dismissed.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  12. Re:Physicists said the EM Drive was impossible too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Then they tested it again and found it didn't.
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/

  13. Re: Wait, so there are actual experiments? by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    String theory is falsifiable and could easily be tested by experiments.

    If you want to blame anyone, blame the Americans for not building the supercollider in the right place and then not building it at all.

    After which, blame a few string theorists for ignoring supergravity and abusing its proponents.

    But nothing stops you from testing some predictions of string theory today and building the supercollider in an appropriate location so that you can test the remainder down the road.

    The main impediment to 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.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  14. Re:depending on your definition of working by balbeir · · Score: 3, Funny

    Self driving cars work today. But they aren't necessarily less likely to drive off a pier than your average senior driver.

    I think we need a double blind study to confirm that hypothesis.

    Can you spare a couple of grandparents?

  15. Re:This ISN'T how POLITICAL science works by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's ridiculous that climate change has become political.

  16. Moon Shot Concept by kenwd0elq · · Score: 2

    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.