1
$\begingroup$

I hope this question is appropriate for this site. The question refers to the link: https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2775 where it proposes that:

Abstract:

The property of inertia has never been fully explained. A model for inertia (MiHsC or quantised inertia) has been suggested that assumes that 1) inertia is due to Unruh radiation and 2) this radiation is subject to a Hubble-scale Casimir eect. This model has no adjustable parameters and predicts the cosmic acceleration, and galaxy rotation without dark matter, suggesting that Unruh radiation indeed causes inertia, but the exact mechanism by which it does this has not been specied. The mechanism suggested here is that when an object accelerates, for example to the right, a dynamical (Rindler) event horizon forms to its left, reducing the Unruh radiation on that side by a Rindler-scale Casimir eect whereas the radiation on the other side is only slightly reduced by a Hubble-scale Casimir eect. This produces an imbalance in the radiation pressure on the object, and a net force that always opposes acceleration, like inertia. A formula for inertia is derived, and an experimental test is suggested.

The question is how probable the assumption that inertia is due to Unruh radiation?

In the later years author has even tried to show ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03449) the possibility of EM drive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster) , which is still very controversial as momentum conservation law is seems to be violated.

It appears that the author is making a very big claim but not much is known how valid the claims are.

I am not a physicist but I am interested to know what is the possibility of those claims to be true. Mainly, why does claim or assumptions may be wrong? Any comments would be highly appreciate.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Pure ignorance v's need to know curiosity on my part....my suggestion is that you add in the "experimental" test details. If the author is making reference to quantised inertia, could that not lead, indirectly, to quantum gravity, through the equivalence principle? You asked for comments, so (although this will not be an informed one), this paper seems to lead off in many non mainstream directions. This comment is speculative, but possibly just as much the paper itself. In his blog, the author does not hide his distaste for dark matter theories, and possibly his support for emdrives. $\endgroup$
    – user163104
    Aug 2, 2017 at 0:59

1 Answer 1

-1
$\begingroup$

This is as far as I know currently being researched via darpa funding..unruh radiation is a fact it has been confirmed its just unsure if it is the source of inertia. If it was it would crush at least a 100 years of physics so phycisists won't like it and it could end up not released due to sensitivity. This is how science works..

Unruth effect is basically asymmetrical Casimir effect due to acceleration.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.