Quantised Inertia

[L.A.T.1961]

Mike McCulloch's theory of modified inertia by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect (MiHsC), also known as quantized inertia.

The basic idea of MiHsC is that inertia is caused by Unruh radiation. Unruh radiation has never been observed, but it appears in quantum physics.  McCulloch argues that when an object accelerates it interacts with Unruh radiation, which causes the object to resist a change of motion. Thus inertia is an effect of acceleration rather than an inherent property of matter ? 

 

 

[danydandan]

1 hour ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Mike McCulloch's theory of modified inertia by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect (MiHsC), also known as quantized inertia.

The basic idea of MiHsC is that inertia is caused by Unruh radiation. Unruh radiation has never been observed, but it appears in quantum physics.  McCulloch argues that when an object accelerates it interacts with Unruh radiation, which causes the object to resist a change of motion. Thus inertia is an effect of acceleration rather than an inherent property of matter ? 

 

 

It's interesting, but I don't think it's testable. I remember hearing about it in college but it was just a passing thought really. Isn't it basically a description of how to achieve a negative temperature below absolute zero? Or am I thinking of something else?

Apologies I have not hear of this in ages and have not had time to look at the video.

But saying inertia isn't a property of mass is incorrect. 

[L.A.T.1961]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

It's interesting, but I don't think it's testable. I remember hearing about it in college but it was just a passing thought really. Isn't it basically a description of how to achieve a negative temperature below absolute zero? Or am I thinking of something else?

Apologies I have not hear of this in ages and have not had time to look at the video.

But saying inertia isn't a property of mass is incorrect. 

There are some problems that arise from his idea. 

It would imply that the effect only acted on the surface of an object, when this is not what's observed and that information about the surrounding environment would need to be known instantly. Requiring a faster than light transfer.

Without instantaneous knowledge (Entangled Particle effect) you would expect inertia, on the object, to build up slowly over time?

A test experiment might include a dense soft object like lead being accelerated and see if the surface moves under force of pressure more than would be expected if force was distributed throughout the object. 

 

 

[danydandan]

19 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

There are some problems that arise from his idea. 

It would imply that the effect only acted on the surface of an object, when this is not what's observed and that information about the surrounding environment would need to be known instantly. Requiring a faster than light transfer.

Without instantaneous knowledge (Entangled Particle effect) you would expect inertia, on the object, to build up slowly over time?

A test experiment might include a dense soft object like lead being accelerated and see if the surface moves under force of pressure more than would be expected if force was distributed throughout the object. 

 

 

But at what resolution? 

That question is the reason why it's untestable. I think.

[sepulchrave]

13 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

There are some problems that arise from his idea. 

It would imply that the effect only acted on the surface of an object, when this is not what's observed and that information about the surrounding environment would need to be known instantly. Requiring a faster than light transfer.

Without instantaneous knowledge (Entangled Particle effect) you would expect inertia, on the object, to build up slowly over time?

A test experiment might include a dense soft object like lead being accelerated and see if the surface moves under force of pressure more than would be expected if force was distributed throughout the object. 

 

 

I could be misunderstanding the situation, but I don't really see how any of this is relevant or an issue.

Distributed objects (like a piece of lead) are made up of subatomic particles. Subatomic particles are governed by quantum mechanics and only experience classical concepts like ``inertia'' or ``force'' via expectation values (Ehrenfest's theorem).

A distributed object (like a piece of lead) then experiences inertia and force through the collective motion of the subatomic particles.

So in my mind, the question about surface or bulk experiencing inertia is a pointless question; at the most fundamental level particles (quarks, electrons, etc.) have no structure (classically you can think of them as points) so have no interior/exterior.

A distributed object clearly experiences stresses from external forces both on the surface and bulk, this is known from materials engineering, mechanical engineering, and other related fields, and in fact these stresses manifest in unique ways for every object because they are to some extent dependent on the unique arrangement of defects, impurities, vacancies, etc. in the atomic structure of the object.

As far as I understand it, MiHsC's theory would only be relevant if we had some macroscopic, finite-sized, fundamental particle. Such a thing does not exist.