Mike McCulloch's MiHsC Theory - Revision history

127.0.0.1: /* Application to EmDrive */ Enlarged parentheses.

2017-03-19T11:32:30Z

Application to EmDrive: Enlarged parentheses.

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:32, 19 March 2017
Line 9:		Line 9:
	In the case of the EmDrive, the metal walls act as the event horizon for Unruh radiation created within the cavity. The wavelengths of this radiation are normally light-years across, but inside the EmDrive they are compressed to roughly the size of the EmDrive. Fewer Unruh waves will fit at the small end of the frustum, resulting in a pressure differential. Photons at the larger end therefore have higher inertial mass, and to conserve momentum in our reference frame, its frame, the cavity, must move towards the narrow end. The predicted thrust is, approximately, for a truncated cone cavity:		In the case of the EmDrive, the metal walls act as the event horizon for Unruh radiation created within the cavity. The wavelengths of this radiation are normally light-years across, but inside the EmDrive they are compressed to roughly the size of the EmDrive. Fewer Unruh waves will fit at the small end of the frustum, resulting in a pressure differential. Photons at the larger end therefore have higher inertial mass, and to conserve momentum in our reference frame, its frame, the cavity, must move towards the narrow end. The predicted thrust is, approximately, for a truncated cone cavity:

	<math>F = {P \cdot Q \cdot L\over c} \times ({1 \over Ds} - {1 \over Db})</math>		<math>F = {P \cdot Q \cdot L\over c} \times \left({1 \over Ds} - {1 \over Db}\right)</math>

	where c is the speed of light in the medium inside the cavity (m/s), P is input power (Watts), Q is the quality factor of the resonance, L is the cavity length (meters), Ds is the small end diameter (meters) and Db the big end diameter (meters).		where c is the speed of light in the medium inside the cavity (m/s), P is input power (Watts), Q is the quality factor of the resonance, L is the cavity length (meters), Ds is the small end diameter (meters) and Db the big end diameter (meters).

127.0.0.1: /* Explanation of MiHsC Theory */ effect -> affect

2016-11-26T00:54:53Z

Explanation of MiHsC Theory: effect -> affect

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:54, 25 November 2016
Line 3:		Line 3:
	== Explanation of MiHsC Theory ==		== Explanation of MiHsC Theory ==

	Modification of inertia by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect, or MiHsC, is a theory developed by Mike McCulloch, a physicist at Plymouth University in Plymouth, England. The theory attempts to explain the cause of inertia, which is not completely explained by general and special relativity. MiHsC theory relies on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle Mach's Principle], which states that distant objects can influence inertial mass. But there is a boundary as to how far away the objects influencing inertia can be. This boundary is the point at which light (and therefore any information) will never be able to reach an object because either cosmic acceleration or its own acceleration outpaces the speed of light. Anything beyond this boundary (called the Hubble or Rindler event horizons respectively) is outside the observable universe and therefore can't ~~effect~~ the object at the center of the Rindler space. The Rindler event horizon is effectively the same as a black hole's event horizon. At a black hole's event horizon, quantum virtual particle pairs are occasionally separated by gravity resulting in particle emissions known as Hawking Radiation. For a Rindler horizon, a similar radiation is suspected to exist called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect Unruh radiation]. MiHsC posits that Unruh radiation causes inertia. As a particle accelerates, the Rindler information horizon expands in the direction of acceleration, and contracts behind it. This results in a pressure differential in the Unruh radiation experienced by the accelerating object. More Unruh radiation hits the object from the direction of acceleration, resulting in the effect we observe as inertia. In addition to explaining the EmDrive's motion without violating Conservation of Momentum, MiHsC theory also notably resolves the observed discrepancies in galactic rotation and cosmological acceleration without the need for dark matter or dark energy.		Modification of inertia by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect, or MiHsC, is a theory developed by Mike McCulloch, a physicist at Plymouth University in Plymouth, England. The theory attempts to explain the cause of inertia, which is not completely explained by general and special relativity. MiHsC theory relies on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle Mach's Principle], which states that distant objects can influence inertial mass. But there is a boundary as to how far away the objects influencing inertia can be. This boundary is the point at which light (and therefore any information) will never be able to reach an object because either cosmic acceleration or its own acceleration outpaces the speed of light. Anything beyond this boundary (called the Hubble or Rindler event horizons respectively) is outside the observable universe and therefore can't affect the object at the center of the Rindler space. The Rindler event horizon is effectively the same as a black hole's event horizon. At a black hole's event horizon, quantum virtual particle pairs are occasionally separated by gravity resulting in particle emissions known as Hawking Radiation. For a Rindler horizon, a similar radiation is suspected to exist called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect Unruh radiation]. MiHsC posits that Unruh radiation causes inertia. As a particle accelerates, the Rindler information horizon expands in the direction of acceleration, and contracts behind it. This results in a pressure differential in the Unruh radiation experienced by the accelerating object. More Unruh radiation hits the object from the direction of acceleration, resulting in the effect we observe as inertia. In addition to explaining the EmDrive's motion without violating Conservation of Momentum, MiHsC theory also notably resolves the observed discrepancies in galactic rotation and cosmological acceleration without the need for dark matter or dark energy.

	== Application to EmDrive ==		== Application to EmDrive ==

127.0.0.1: /* Application to EmDrive */

2016-09-14T13:12:12Z

Application to EmDrive

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:12, 14 September 2016
Line 9:		Line 9:
	In the case of the EmDrive, the metal walls act as the event horizon for Unruh radiation created within the cavity. The wavelengths of this radiation are normally light-years across, but inside the EmDrive they are compressed to roughly the size of the EmDrive. Fewer Unruh waves will fit at the small end of the frustum, resulting in a pressure differential. Photons at the larger end therefore have higher inertial mass, and to conserve momentum in our reference frame, its frame, the cavity, must move towards the narrow end. The predicted thrust is, approximately, for a truncated cone cavity:		In the case of the EmDrive, the metal walls act as the event horizon for Unruh radiation created within the cavity. The wavelengths of this radiation are normally light-years across, but inside the EmDrive they are compressed to roughly the size of the EmDrive. Fewer Unruh waves will fit at the small end of the frustum, resulting in a pressure differential. Photons at the larger end therefore have higher inertial mass, and to conserve momentum in our reference frame, its frame, the cavity, must move towards the narrow end. The predicted thrust is, approximately, for a truncated cone cavity:

	F = P Q L/c * (1/Ds - 1/Db)		<math>F = {P \cdot Q \cdot L\over c} \times ({1 \over Ds} - {1 \over Db})</math>

	where c is the speed of light in the medium inside the cavity (m/s), P is input power (Watts), Q is the quality factor of the resonance, L is the cavity length (meters), Ds is the small end diameter (meters) and Db the big end diameter (meters).		where c is the speed of light in the medium inside the cavity (m/s), P is input power (Watts), Q is the quality factor of the resonance, L is the cavity length (meters), Ds is the small end diameter (meters) and Db the big end diameter (meters).

127.0.0.1 at 23:20, 22 June 2016

2016-06-22T23:20:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:20, 22 June 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Mike McCulloch's theory is that the EmDrive thrust results from an internal pressure differential in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect Unruh Radiation.]~~<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1319944#msg1319944 Rodal on McCulloch's theory.]</ref>~~<ref>[http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-3d.html 13/2/15 post by Mike McCulloch, MiHsC vs Emdrive: 3d]</ref><ref>[http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-15.PDF McCulloch, M.E., 2015. Can the emdrive be explained by quantised inertia? Progress in Physics, 11, 1, 78-80]</ref><ref>[http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/111/60005 McCulloch, M.E., 2015. Testing quantised inertia on the emdrive EPL, 111, 60005]</ref> See also: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/		Mike McCulloch's theory is that the EmDrive thrust results from an internal pressure differential in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect Unruh Radiation.]<ref>[http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-3d.html 13/2/15 post by Mike McCulloch, MiHsC vs Emdrive: 3d]</ref><ref>[http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-15.PDF McCulloch, M.E., 2015. Can the emdrive be explained by quantised inertia? Progress in Physics, 11, 1, 78-80]</ref><ref>[http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/111/60005 McCulloch, M.E., 2015. Testing quantised inertia on the emdrive EPL, 111, 60005]</ref> See also: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/

	== Explanation of MiHsC Theory ==		== Explanation of MiHsC Theory ==

127.0.0.1: /* Application to EmDrive */

2015-12-23T15:12:37Z

Application to EmDrive

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:12, 23 December 2015
Line 7:		Line 7:
	== Application to EmDrive ==		== Application to EmDrive ==

	In the case of the EmDrive, the metal walls act as the event horizon for Unruh radiation created within the cavity. The wavelengths of this radiation are normally light-years across, but inside the EmDrive they are compressed to roughly the size of the EmDrive. Fewer Unruh waves will fit at the small end of the frustum, resulting in a pressure differential. ~~A photons~~ at the larger end therefore ~~has a~~ higher inertial mass, and to conserve momentum in our reference frame, its frame, the cavity, must move towards the narrow end. The predicted thrust is, approximately, for a truncated cone cavity:		In the case of the EmDrive, the metal walls act as the event horizon for Unruh radiation created within the cavity. The wavelengths of this radiation are normally light-years across, but inside the EmDrive they are compressed to roughly the size of the EmDrive. Fewer Unruh waves will fit at the small end of the frustum, resulting in a pressure differential. Photons at the larger end therefore have higher inertial mass, and to conserve momentum in our reference frame, its frame, the cavity, must move towards the narrow end. The predicted thrust is, approximately, for a truncated cone cavity:

	F = P Q L/c * (1/Ds - 1/Db)		F = P Q L/c * (1/Ds - 1/Db)

127.0.0.1: Corrected typo

2015-10-01T20:08:37Z

Corrected typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:08, 1 October 2015
Line 19:		Line 19:
	== Predictions & Evidence ==		== Predictions & Evidence ==

	The derivation & comparisons with the data are given in this paper: [http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-15.PDF Can the emdrive be explained by quantised inertia?] and this one: [http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/111/60005] Testing quantised inertia on the emdrive] and in the Table below. The predictions are in rough agreement with the observed thrust of various experiments. Further testing is necessary to exclude environmental artifacts.		The derivation & comparisons with the data are given in this paper: [http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-15.PDF Can the emdrive be explained by quantised inertia?] and this one: [http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/111/60005 Testing quantised inertia on the emdrive] and in the Table below. The predictions are in rough agreement with the observed thrust of various experiments. Further testing is necessary to exclude environmental artifacts.

	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"

127.0.0.1: Added recent reference

2015-10-01T20:07:14Z

Added recent reference

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:07, 1 October 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Mike McCulloch's theory is that the EmDrive thrust results from an internal pressure differential in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect Unruh Radiation.]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1319944#msg1319944 Rodal on McCulloch's theory.]</ref><ref>[http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-3d.html 13/2/15 post by Mike McCulloch, MiHsC vs Emdrive: 3d]</ref><ref>[http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-15.PDF McCulloch, M.E., 2015. Can the emdrive be explained by quantised inertia? Progress in Physics, 11, 1, 78-80]</ref> See also: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/		Mike McCulloch's theory is that the EmDrive thrust results from an internal pressure differential in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect Unruh Radiation.]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1319944#msg1319944 Rodal on McCulloch's theory.]</ref><ref>[http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-3d.html 13/2/15 post by Mike McCulloch, MiHsC vs Emdrive: 3d]</ref><ref>[http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-15.PDF McCulloch, M.E., 2015. Can the emdrive be explained by quantised inertia? Progress in Physics, 11, 1, 78-80]</ref><ref>[http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/111/60005 McCulloch, M.E., 2015. Testing quantised inertia on the emdrive EPL, 111, 60005]</ref> See also: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/

	== Explanation of MiHsC Theory ==		== Explanation of MiHsC Theory ==
Line 19:		Line 19:
	== Predictions & Evidence ==		== Predictions & Evidence ==

	The derivation & comparisons with the data are given in this paper: [http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-15.PDF Can the ~~Emdrive Be Explained~~ by ~~Quantised Inertia~~?] and in the Table below. The predictions are in rough agreement with the observed thrust of various experiments. Further testing is necessary to exclude environmental artifacts.		The derivation & comparisons with the data are given in this paper: [http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-15.PDF Can the emdrive be explained by quantised inertia?] and this one: [http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/111/60005] Testing quantised inertia on the emdrive] and in the Table below. The predictions are in rough agreement with the observed thrust of various experiments. Further testing is necessary to exclude environmental artifacts.

	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"

127.0.0.1: Updated Table

2015-09-09T20:06:32Z

Updated Table

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:06, 9 September 2015
Line 27:		Line 27:
	! Predicted Thrust (mN)		! Predicted Thrust (mN)
	\|-		\|-
	\| ~~Shawyer1~~		\| Shawyer 1
	\| 16		\| 16
	\| 4.2		\| 4.2
	\|-		\|-
	\| ~~Shawyer2~~		\| Shawyer 2
	\| 80-214		\| 80-214
	\| 216		\| 216
	\|-		\|-
	\| ~~NASA1~~		\| Cannae
			\| 9
			\| 5.3
			\|-
			\| NASA 1
	\| 0.091		\| 0.091
	\| 0.22		\| 0.22
	\|-		\|-
	\| ~~NASA2~~		\| NASA 2
	\| 0.05		\| 0.05
	\| 0.53		\| 0.53
	\|-		\|-
	\| ~~NASA3~~		\| NASA 3
	\| 0.05		\| 0.05
	\| 0.1		\| 0.1
			\|-
			\| NASA vac'm
			\| 0.03
			\| 0.7
			\|-
			\| Tajmar1
			\| 0.02
			\| 0.02
	\|}		\|}

127.0.0.1: Added results table

2015-09-09T11:17:22Z

Added results table

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 == Predictions & Evidence ==
-The derivation & comparisons with the data are given in this paper: [http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-15.PDF Can the Emdrive Be Explained by Quantised Inertia?]  The predictions are in rough agreement with the observed thrust of various experiments.  Further testing is necessary to exclude environmental artifacts.
+The derivation & comparisons with the data are given in this paper: [http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-15.PDF Can the Emdrive Be Explained by Quantised Inertia?] and in the Table below. The predictions are in rough agreement with the observed thrust of various experiments.  Further testing is necessary to exclude environmental artifacts.
 MiHsC predicts that thrust can be increased by increasing either the input power, Q factor, taper of the cone, or use of a dielectric. In addition, by changing the cavity's aspect ratio (and the input Rf frequency to maintain resonance) it should be possible to cause the Unruh radiation to better fit in the small end than the large.  This would result in thrust in the opposite direction.

127.0.0.1: Some clarification of the Rindler horizon

2015-08-12T20:51:08Z

Some clarification of the Rindler horizon

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:51, 12 August 2015
Line 3:		Line 3:
	== Explanation of MiHsC Theory ==		== Explanation of MiHsC Theory ==

	Modification of inertia by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect, or MiHsC, is a theory developed by Mike McCulloch, a physicist at Plymouth University in Plymouth, England. The theory attempts to explain the cause of inertia, which is not completely explained by general and special relativity. MiHsC theory relies on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle Mach's Principle], which states that distant objects can influence inertial mass. But there is a boundary as to how far away the objects influencing inertia can be. This boundary is the point at which light (and therefore any information) will never be able to reach an object because either cosmic acceleration or its own acceleration outpaces the speed of light. Anything beyond this boundary (called the Hubble or Rindler event horizons respectively) is outside the observable universe and therefore can't effect the object at the center of the Rindler space. ~~MiHsC further posits that the~~ Rindler event horizon is effectively the same as a black hole's event horizon. At a black hole's event horizon, quantum virtual particle pairs are occasionally separated by gravity resulting in particle emissions known as Hawking Radiation. For a Rindler horizon, a similar radiation is suspected to exist called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect Unruh radiation]. MiHsC posits that Unruh radiation causes inertia. As a particle accelerates, the Rindler information horizon expands in the direction of acceleration, and contracts behind it. This results in a pressure differential in the Unruh radiation experienced by the accelerating object. More Unruh radiation hits the object from the direction of acceleration, resulting in the effect we observe as inertia. In addition to explaining the EmDrive's motion without violating Conservation of Momentum, MiHsC theory also notably resolves the observed discrepancies in galactic rotation and cosmological acceleration without the need for dark matter or dark energy.		Modification of inertia by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect, or MiHsC, is a theory developed by Mike McCulloch, a physicist at Plymouth University in Plymouth, England. The theory attempts to explain the cause of inertia, which is not completely explained by general and special relativity. MiHsC theory relies on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle Mach's Principle], which states that distant objects can influence inertial mass. But there is a boundary as to how far away the objects influencing inertia can be. This boundary is the point at which light (and therefore any information) will never be able to reach an object because either cosmic acceleration or its own acceleration outpaces the speed of light. Anything beyond this boundary (called the Hubble or Rindler event horizons respectively) is outside the observable universe and therefore can't effect the object at the center of the Rindler space. The Rindler event horizon is effectively the same as a black hole's event horizon. At a black hole's event horizon, quantum virtual particle pairs are occasionally separated by gravity resulting in particle emissions known as Hawking Radiation. For a Rindler horizon, a similar radiation is suspected to exist called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect Unruh radiation]. MiHsC posits that Unruh radiation causes inertia. As a particle accelerates, the Rindler information horizon expands in the direction of acceleration, and contracts behind it. This results in a pressure differential in the Unruh radiation experienced by the accelerating object. More Unruh radiation hits the object from the direction of acceleration, resulting in the effect we observe as inertia. In addition to explaining the EmDrive's motion without violating Conservation of Momentum, MiHsC theory also notably resolves the observed discrepancies in galactic rotation and cosmological acceleration without the need for dark matter or dark energy.

	== Application to EmDrive ==		== Application to EmDrive ==

	In the case of the EmDrive, the metal walls act as the event horizon for Unruh radiation created within the cavity. The wavelengths of this radiation are normally light-years across, but inside the EmDrive they are compressed to roughly the size of the EmDrive. Fewer Unruh waves will fit at the small end of the frustum, resulting in a pressure differential. ~~Photons~~ at the larger end therefore ~~have~~ a higher inertial mass, and to conserve momentum in our reference frame, its frame, the cavity, must move towards the narrow end. The predicted thrust is, approximately, for a truncated cone cavity:		In the case of the EmDrive, the metal walls act as the event horizon for Unruh radiation created within the cavity. The wavelengths of this radiation are normally light-years across, but inside the EmDrive they are compressed to roughly the size of the EmDrive. Fewer Unruh waves will fit at the small end of the frustum, resulting in a pressure differential. A photons at the larger end therefore has a higher inertial mass, and to conserve momentum in our reference frame, its frame, the cavity, must move towards the narrow end. The predicted thrust is, approximately, for a truncated cone cavity:

	F = P Q L/c * (1/Ds - 1/Db)		F = P Q L/c * (1/Ds - 1/Db)