5 views

Uploaded by Milan Petrik

Testing quantised inertia with extreme spins.

- Describe the Construction of a Electromagnetic Velocity Sensor and Explain Its Working (2)
- Scifair-grade8-2015
- finalprojectphysics
- Mesh-Intro 15.0 WS 07a Mixing Tank
- Cavendiah 1798 Earth's Density Historical Mistake
- Inner Game 1
- 1201.1138v1
- pump balancing.pdf
- CLASS 9 IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
- Construction Materials and Testing
- Air mass
- Ex Physics 3
- edit exp1
- conservation of mass
- files-3-Handouts_Solved_Problems_Chapter_3_Mechanical_Systems.pdf
- PHY2Chp9.ppt
- Out in Space 2013 Version
- STEEL. [NL] Basic Concept Training-Tips & Tricks 13
- Module 1-Intro to Engr Mechanics
- forces 1.docx

You are on page 1of 7

M.E. McCulloch

Abstract

A new model for inertia has been proposed that assumes that inertia

is caused by Unruh radiation subject to a Hubble-scale Casimir eect

(called MiHsC or quantised inertia). This model predicts galaxy rotation

without dark matter and cosmic acceleration without dark energy and

predicts that a rotating object and objects close to it should gain inertial

mass, and become less responsive to gravity (ie: appear to lose weight).

For the example of a disc of radius 5 cm rotating at 3k, 10k, 20k and 753k

rpm, a nearby test mass frictionally isolated from it is predicted to lose

0.0015%, 0.015%, 0.07% and 100% of its weight respectively.

1 Introduction

The Podkletnov eect (Podkletnov, 1992, 1997) is a small weight loss of 0.06%

seen in test masses suspended above superconducting discs of diameter 13.5

cm cooled below 70K and subjected to a high frequency AC magnetic eld. A

larger weight loss of 0.6-2% was observed when the discs were spun. The Tajmar

eect (Tajmar et al., 2009) is an unexplained acceleration that appears in laser

gyroscopes when discs close to them, but not in frictional contact, are rotated.

These experiments are controversial since they disagree with standard theory

and have not yet been reproduced in another lab which they must be to be ac-

cepted. However, they are similar in some ways, in that local accelerations seem

to have produced new dynamics, and it is not good scientic practice to disre-

gard observations because they disagree with existing theory: the observations

must come rst.

McCulloch (2007-2013) proposed a new model for inertia that assumes that

inertia is due to Unruh radiation which is subject to a Hubble-scale Casimir

eect. In this model only Unruh wavelengths that t exactly into twice the

Hubble diameter are allowed, so that a greater proportion of them are disallowed

for low accelerations leading to a gradual new loss of inertia as accelerations

become tiny. MiHsC modies the standard inertial mass (m) as follows:

Plymouth University, PL4 8AA, UK. mike.mcculloch@plymouth.ac.uk

1

2c2

mi = m 1 (1)

|a|

where c is the speed of light, is the Hubble diameter and '|a|' is the magnitude

of the relative acceleration of the object relative to surrounding matter. Eq. 1

predicts that for terrestrial accelerations the second term in the bracket is tiny

and standard inertia is recovered, but in low acceleration environments such as

deep space (when a is small) the second term in the bracket becomes larger and

the inertial mass decreases in a new way.

MiHsC can explain galaxy rotation without the need for dark matter (McCul-

loch, 2012) and cosmic acceleration without the need for dark energy (Mc-

Culloch, 2007, 2010), but astrophysical tests like these can be ambiguous and

laboratory tests are preferable.

MiHsC can account for half of the rotationless part of the Podkletnov experi-

ment (McCulloch, 2011b) and can explain the Tajmar experiment completely

(McCulloch, 2011a). In both cases when the disc or ring was vibrated by the

AC magnetic eld (Podkletnov) or rotated (Tajmar) this added mutual acceler-

ations and so MiHsC predicts that the test mass gains inertia. In the Podkletnov

case this means that the test mass becomes less responsive to gravity, an appar-

ent loss of weight, as observed. In the Tajmar case to conserve the momentum

of the ring-gyroscope system the gyroscope had to move slightly with the ring,

exactly as observed.

MiHsC violates the equivalence principle (but not in a way that could have

been detected in the usual torsion balance experiments) and so does not agree

with general relativity which has been well tested in the Solar system, so it is

very important to suggest an unambiguous experimental test of it. That is the

purpose of this paper.

The suggested experiment is based on the Tajmar and Podkletnov experiments,

but is simpler and more conclusive. In the Podkletnov case, superconductors

were needed and the accelerations induced in the disc by the AC magnetic

eld were unknown. In the Tajmar experiment, although the accelerations were

known, being rotations, they were small and so the anomalous eect was dicult

to detect. Here, an experiment is suggested that does not require superconduc-

tors, and produces a known, large acceleration that can be input into MiHsC to

make testable predictions.

2 Method

The proposed experiment is as follows. A test mass is suspended from a cross

bar and balanced by another mass resting on a scale balance. The rst mass is

placed over a rotatable disc within a cryostat (to reduce local thermal acceler-

ations). The mass is suspended over the edge of the disc to maximise mutual

accelerations due to disc rotation and to maximise the eects of MiHsC. The

2

disc is then rotated. Following McCulloch (2011a) for the Tajmar eect, and

McCulloch (2011b) for the Podkletnov eect the vertical acceleration predicted

by MiHsC when the mutual acceleration seen by the test mass changes, is

2c2 arm

da = (2)

as

where as is the initial accelerations relative to the xed stars, arm is the later

acceleration due to the nearby sudden rotation of the ring, c is the speed of

light, and is the Hubble scale. This formula exactly reproduced the Tajmar

eect, including the observed parity violation (McCulloch, 2011). An intuitive

explanation is as follows. Initially the test mass only has a small mutual accel-

eration with respect to the xed stars (as ) so the Unruh waves it sees are long,

a large proportion of them are disallowed by the Hubble-scale Casimir eect

of MiHsC and the inertial mass of the test mass is slightly less than would be

expected. When a high acceleration is added to the system (arm ), the test mass

sees shorter Unruh waves, fewer are disallowed by MiHsC, and so the inertial

mass of the test mass increases so that is becomes less responsive to gravity and

appears to lose weight.

The initial acceleration (as ) is the mutual acceleration of the test mass and the

xed stars since it is on the rotating Earth. At the latitude of, for example,

Plymouth this is would be as = v 2 /r, where r is the distance from the spin

axis (r = r0 cos where r0 is the earth's radius: 6367500m and is the latitude

of 50.33o ). The velocity v = 2r/86400. Therefore as = 4 2 r0 cos/864002 =

0.021m/s2 .

The later acceleration caused by the rotating disc, at a radius r is

4 2 R2 r

ar = (3)

3600

where R is the rotation in revolutions per minute. Substituting Eq. 3 in Eq. 2

the anomalous vertical acceleration for the test mass in the proposed experiment

is

2c2 4 2 R2 r R2 r

da = 7.24 1012 (4)

3600as as

3 Results Predicted

Table 1 shows the vertical acceleration predicted by MiHsC (Eq. 4) for a test

mass suspended 5cm over the edge of a disc of radius 0.1m. Column 1 shows

the spin rate of the disc in rpm (revolutions per minute). The acceleration of

the disc's edge (arm ) in shown in column 2. This is the mutual acceleration

between material in the rotating disc and the test mass (Eq. 2). The upwards

acceleration of the test mass when the disc is spun as predicted by MiHsC (Eq.

3

4) is shown in columns 3 and 4 as an acceleration and as a percentage of g

(9.8m/s2 ).

Spin rate Acceleration of disc rim da da

rpm m/s2 m/s2 % of g

3000 4935 0.00015 0.0015%

10,000 54,800 0.0015 0.015%

20,000 219,324 0.007 0.07%

30,000 493,480 0.016 0.16%

753,994 311,541,808 9.8 100%

The results show that the anomalous acceleration expected from a rotation rate

of 3000 rpm (0.0015% of g) is smaller than that seen by Podkletnov (0.03% of

g), because in their case they were accelerating the disc far more by using AC

magnetic elds (the acceleration was 95921m/s2 , see McCulloch, 2011b). To

get the same high acceleration from a rotation the disc would have to be spun

at more than 10,000 rpm, as shown in column 2.

Nevertheless these results do show that, without the need for superconductors,

the predictions of MiHsC should be detectable. For a rotation rate of 3000 rpm

for a 5 cm radius disc the eect should be 0.0015% of g and therefore 0.0015% of

its expected weight. This change of weight should be detectable using a simple

balance. For example Podkletnov (1997) could detect changes in weight of a

few micrograms for test masses of 10-50g. In this case, MiHsC predicts that for

a 100g mass and a rotation of 3000 rpm the loss of weight would be 1.5mg.

Further, the last row shows that with a spin rate of 753,994 rpm (dicult

to attain, but see below) a disc 5 cm in radius should be able to resist the

downwards pull of gravity, and at greater spin rates it should take o. If a

payload could be added to this system it would be a way to launch satellites

without rockets.

4 Other Comparisons

Hayasaka et al. (1997) enclosed a spinning gyroscope in a capsule in freefall.

They found that a gyro of radius 2.9 cm spinning at 18,000 rpm showed an

decrease in its downwards acceleration of 0.00014g 0.00007g (1 part in 7000).

This is consistent with an increase in its inertia mass, which slows down its

acceleration given the same applied force. Using Eq. 4, MiHsC predicts a loss

of weight of 0.000266g 0.0000266g (assuming a 10% error in ). These values

are close but do not quite agree given the error bars. Also, the experimental

result only showed an anomaly for right-spinning gyroscopes (a clockwise spin

when looking from above).

In a recent experiment Arita et al. (2013) span a microscopic sphere of radius

r = 4 106 m using circularily polarised light to suspend and rotate it in vacuo

up to R = 6 108 rpm and at this acceleration the rotated sphere was reported

4

to have 'vanished' (pers. comm. K. Dholakia). It probably disintegrated due

to centrifugal forces, but this may be a way to test MiHsC. Rearranging Eq.4

it is possible to predict using MiHsC that the anomalous upwards acceleration

of the sphere should be greater than g when the rotation rate is greater than

about 7.9 107 rpm.

MiHsC implies that the anomalous eect should increase towards the equator,

since at the equator the acceleration with respect to the xed stars (as ) is

lower so the denominator of Eq. 4 is smaller and the result is a larger upwards

acceleration. MiHsC also predicts that the eect should increase with higher

accelerations (of whatever source) and with the radius of the disc (r). This may

explain why the eorts to reproduce the Podkletnov eect using smaller discs

and without a strong AC magnetic eld to induce large accelerations have failed

(Woods, 2001 and Li et al., 1997).

5 Discussion

One puzzling observation of Podkletnov (1997) was that the anomalous loss of

weight they saw was also present in an extended column above their spinning

disc. There is another way to think about this, and that is recognising that

when an object accelerates, a Rindler horizon forms at a distance of dR = c2 /a

away, we can then rewrite Eq. 2 in terms of Rindler distances

2c2 dold

da = (5)

dnew

McCulloch (2013) showed that Rindler horizons can suppress Unruh waves just

as the Hubble horizon does, and produce an asymmetric Casimir eect that

acts on Unruh radiation producing a force that opposes their acceleration and

looks just like inertia. In the Podkletnov case the contraction of the Rindler

horizon from the distant one caused by the small initial acceleration with the

respect to the xed stars to the closer one when the disc is accelerated predicts

an increase in the suppression of Unruh waves since those longer than the new

Rindler distance are suddenly disallowed. This model (Eq. 5) predicts the same

acceleration as Eq. 2. This way of thinking in terms of horizons is interesting

because the horizon (for accelerations close to 1011 m/s2 is within the Earth and

so may block some of the Earth's mass from the point of view of the test mass.

6 Conclusion

A new model for inertia has been proposed (MiHsC) that assumes that inertia is

due to Unruh radiation which is subject to a Hubble-scale Casimir eect. It has

successfully explained some astrophysical anomalies, but a more unambiguous

test is needed.

5

MiHsC predicts that if a test mass is placed above the edge of a cryostat contain-

ing a disc and the disc is spun then the mass should show detectable reductions

in its weight (see Table 1). For a test mass suspended above the edge of a

disc which is 10 cm in radius the reduction in weight predicted by MiHsC for

rotations of 3k, 10k, 20k and 753k rpm are 0.0015%, 0.015%, 0.07% and 100%

of the original test mass.

References

Arita, Y., M. Mazilu and K. Dholakia, 2013. Laser-induced rotation and cool-

ing of a trapped microgyroscope in vacuum. Nature Communications. DOI:

10.1038/ncomms3374

Hayasaka, H. H. Tanaka and T. Hashida, 1997. Possibility for the existence of

anti-gravity: evidence from a free-fall experiment using a spinning gyro. Spec-

ulations in Science and Technology, 20, 173-181.

Li, N., D. Noever, T. Robertson, R. Koczor and W. Brantley, 1997. Static test

for a gravitational force coupled to type II YBCO superconductors, Physica C,

281, 260-267.

McCulloch, M.E., 2007. Modelling the Pioneer anomaly as modied inertia.

MNRAS, 376, 338.

McCulloch, M.E., 2008. Modelling the yby anomalies using a modication of

inertia. Mon. Not. Royal. Astro. Soc., Letters, 389 (1), L57-60.

McCulloch, M.E., 2010. Minimum accelerations from quantised inertia. EPL,

90, 29001.

McCulloch, M.E., 2011a. The Tajmar eect from quantised inertia. EPL, 95,

39002.

McCulloch, M.E., 2011b. Can the Podkletnov eect be explained by quantised

inertia? Physics Procedia, 20, 134-139.

McCulloch, M.E., 2012. Testing quantised inertia on galactic scales. Astro. &

Space Sci., 342, 575.

McCulloch, M.E., 2013. Inertia from an asymmetric Casimir eect. EPL, 101,

59001.

Podkletnov, E.E. and R. Nieminen, 1992. A possibility of gravitational shielding

by bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x superconductor. Physica C, 203, 441-444.

Podkletnov, E.E., 1997. Weak gravitational shielding properties of composite

bulk YBa2Cu307-x superconductor below 70K under e.m. eld. Arxiv: cond-

mat/9701074v3.

Tajmar, M., F. Plesescu, B. Seifert, 2009. J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 150, 032101.

Woods, C., S. Cooke, J. Helme and C. Caldwell, 2001. Gravity modication

by high-temperature superconductors. 37th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint

Propulsion Conference and Exhibition. 8-11 July 2001. Salt Lake City, Utah.

6

Appendix A

An alternative way to understand Eq. 10 is to recognise that if you impose a

mutual acceleration on a test mass (arm ) as is done here, and the test mass

also gains inertial mass by MiHsC, this needs an extra force on the test mass

of dF = dm arm , where dm is the change in inertial mass. Now the ratio

between the initial and nal inertial mass due to MiHsC is

2

2c

mnew 1 anew 1 6.6 1015

= 2

= = 1.000000031 (6)

mold 2c

1 aold

1 3.1 108

so dm/m = 3.1 108 . This mass change is very small so how does it cause the

larger apparent change in weight? The way to understand this is that the new

internal force due to MiHsC must be balanced by a force outside the system

which has the same size so the acceleration caused on the system as a whole aV

must be

dF arm dm

aV = = = 105 3 108 = 0.003 (7)

m m

and so a tiny change of inertial mass (dm) can lead to a larger apparent change

in vertical acceleration, or weight.

- Describe the Construction of a Electromagnetic Velocity Sensor and Explain Its Working (2)Uploaded byJiten Thakur
- Scifair-grade8-2015Uploaded byPamela Jean C. Salubayba
- finalprojectphysicsUploaded byapi-334640760
- Mesh-Intro 15.0 WS 07a Mixing TankUploaded byhaziq
- Cavendiah 1798 Earth's Density Historical MistakeUploaded byJoe Nahhas
- Inner Game 1Uploaded bylandofs
- 1201.1138v1Uploaded bystanlee321
- pump balancing.pdfUploaded bysushant_jhawer
- CLASS 9 IMPORTANT QUESTIONSUploaded byptv7105
- Construction Materials and TestingUploaded byRaymund Pacaña Ortiz
- Air massUploaded bypedro
- Ex Physics 3Uploaded byPatricio Najeal
- edit exp1Uploaded byAhmad Afiq
- conservation of massUploaded byapi-32133818
- files-3-Handouts_Solved_Problems_Chapter_3_Mechanical_Systems.pdfUploaded byHemanta Dikshit
- PHY2Chp9.pptUploaded byAbdun Nafay Qureshi
- Out in Space 2013 VersionUploaded byS TANCRED
- STEEL. [NL] Basic Concept Training-Tips & Tricks 13Uploaded byHENGKIMHACH
- Module 1-Intro to Engr MechanicsUploaded bydilipbangaru
- forces 1.docxUploaded byDhanBahadur
- Honors Force ReviewUploaded byLissa Hannah
- media_3b4_3b438f4a-1417-4ea8-b5d4-adcec576e5e9_phpfKNWPm.pdf.docxUploaded byAyush rawal
- Force and MotionUploaded byClaude Geoffrey escanilla
- INVESTIGATIONS - PHYSICAL SCIENCE.pdfUploaded byvoiddoor
- Test No-1 Time-1hr.30 Min.Uploaded byRyan Harper
- Atwood Lab 3Uploaded bySandiyo
- Acceleration of GravityUploaded byJimenaCalvo
- igcselessonplanrotationsUploaded byapi-281570149
- physics vocabularyUploaded byapi-309597212
- DOM QPUploaded byShaik Himam Saheb

- 402Uploaded byMilan Petrik
- MizunoTnucleartra.pdfUploaded byMilan Petrik
- 10.1021@acs.chemmater.7b03978Uploaded byMilan Petrik
- Bp 2007 Tomicova JelenaUploaded byMilan Petrik
- Calculation of Deuteron InteractionUploaded byMilan Petrik
- MizunoTnucleartra.pdfUploaded byMilan Petrik
- Mach-Effect thruster modelUploaded byMilan Petrik
- Mach-Effect thruster modelUploaded byMilan Petrik
- Editorial i e 51Uploaded byMilan Petrik
- Anomalous Diffusion(1)Uploaded byMilan Petrik
- On the Theory of Quanta Louis-Victor DeUploaded bymirandare
- Mizu Not Pre Print ObUploaded byMilan Petrik
- 10.1038@nmat5025Uploaded byMilan Petrik
- 10.13182@FST93-A30227Uploaded byMilan Petrik
- Fluid Mech IIUploaded byMilan Petrik
- Vzl5_10Uploaded byMilan Petrik
- 0608229(2)Uploaded byMilan Petrik
- Hlinikove FolieUploaded byMilan Petrik
- AbstractsUploaded byMilan Petrik
- b Iberian Jp j Condensed tUploaded byMilan Petrik
- 00759842Uploaded byMilan Petrik
- 0206051Uploaded byMilan Petrik
- 6912159_0Uploaded byMilan Petrik
- 1007.4377v75Uploaded byMilan Petrik
- Burning Salt WaterUploaded bydavidrimington
- DAMIDSOL-180Uploaded byMilan Petrik
- bhgrowUploaded byMilan Petrik
- nn7b00866_si_001Uploaded byMilan Petrik
- Fedi Superfluid ToE v2Uploaded byMilan Petrik

- The Eight Elements of TQMUploaded byatanda_shadrack
- HARVEY, David. Down TownsUploaded byarturrenzo
- mpc401Uploaded byFAQMD2
- 7.Siemens Wireless Evolution in Core and Radio FinalUploaded byphamducnhon
- TestingUploaded bynalinsenadeera
- The Landlady - Roald DahlUploaded byBelenLacam
- 2013 Chapter 4-6 قصة سجين زنداUploaded byMohammed Hassan Moussa
- Carl JungUploaded byIván Perez
- Karthik- Saileaf Plate IndustryUploaded byananthakumar
- Genetic CounselingUploaded byprasadbheem
- Some Examples of Time-DelayUploaded byhardem
- Lenovo p50 4 Ram 16gb Total 64gb 1 Sata 2 m2 Ssd Max 3 OsUploaded byChua Hian Koon
- Unit Plan for Electricity and MagnetismUploaded bydela2
- Speech 552Uploaded byRitwik Priya
- Oracle Unified MethodUploaded byJyothiM
- Use Case Realization DocumentUploaded byLuis Andrés Villavicencio Pérez
- The Best Regime Recognition Algorithm for HUMSUploaded byEric Bechhoefer
- GHG Inventory and Mitigation Analysis in MongoliaUploaded byTA7465
- ADV1594BU_FORMATTED_FINAL_1507829874065001ITMvUploaded byscribd!!
- A. Waterman - The Triple O Guide to Female OrgasmsUploaded byJill Camacho
- 14 CelebiUploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- Preliminary Examination in Reading 1Uploaded byJennifer Garcia Erese
- GVI Kenya Expedition 062 Report FinalUploaded byGVI Kenya - Conservation and community development
- Dietitians of Canada - Functions and Food Sources of Common VitaminsUploaded bydorathi
- Matthew Roche DissertationUploaded bymjroche
- LPGUploaded byAhmed Amiir Omer
- 1Uploaded byAnonymous huaIYe1
- Big Band Bass John Clayton 1Uploaded byAdonay C. Ubaldo Ramos
- Citation in LaTeXUploaded byPravin Bhole
- Manual 2005 SantafeUploaded bycaen