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?

[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]

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

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?

[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?

[jd]

Prediction is the only valid form of science.

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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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).

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.

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: Sadly, no.

[turbidostato]

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

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:This ISN'T how POLITICAL science works

[Darinbob]

It's ridiculous that climate change has become political.