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.
