Robert Shuler NASA Johnson Space Center robert.l.shuler@nasa.gov April-May 2013

1. InertiaFirst Robert Shuler NASA Johnson Space Center robert.l.shuler@nasa.gov • April-May 2013

2. How BIG and Important is Inertia? Question 1 . . . • Gravity of the SUN has already been overcome by rocketry • But the inertia of a much smaller spacecraft (Pioneer 10) is too great for it to achieve significant interstellar speed • A perspective: • Here on Earth, it is easy to be preoccupied with gravity • But only a short way off, it is less important than inertia • Is inertia stronger in aquantum mechanical sense? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_10

3. Are Gravity & Inertia the Same? Question 2 . . . • Known as the Equivalence Principle • Verified by Galileo and many others • Puzzled Newton • Action by a force is implausible • Must act on all types of matter & energy http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/18may_equivalenceprinciple/ http://www.mpg.de/512907/pressRelease20041217

4. No-Bootstrap Principle: • Inertia is equivalent to energy •  A particle, field orprocess which has energy cannot be theprimal cause of inertia • Must look beyond “energy field” http://liarandscribe.com/2011/10/page/2/

5. Attempts to Explain Inertia Robert Shuler NASA Johnson Space Center robert.l.shuler@nasa.gov • April-May 2013

6. Inertia from Gravity… • Electromagnetic analogy theories of gravity • Maxwell disliked negative potential & lack of field modelseehttp://mathpages.com/home/kmath613/kmath613.htm • Heaviside, Poincare, et. al. did publish such theories • Einstein argued General Relativity explained inertia • Induction “analogy” 1912 sum of gravitational potentials • de Sitter 1917 “missing matter” (Universe ≈ Milky Way) http://www.universetoday.com/65601/where-is-earth-in-the-milky-way/

7. Fixing one Problem Creates Another • Sciama 1953 again used electromagnetic induction • Derived similar potential formula, did not cite Einstein 1912 • Predicted more mass would be found • Limited to visible horizon, eliminating boundary problems • Suspicion arose such inertia would be anisotropic • Experiments showed inertia is isotropic • Physicists divided over whether inertia arises from matter* • Mach’s Principle • But in GR even an empty universe has inertia * like gravity

8. A Way to Resolve Classical Issues • Ghosh 2000, enough mass has now been found http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Inertia-Principle-Cosmological-Consequences/dp/096836893X • Shuler 2010, “Isotropy, Equivalence and the Laws of Inertia”http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/1.3637365 or http://mc1soft.com/papers/2010_Laws_2col.pdf • Using a free falling mass clock in an accelerated frame,shows inertia is both dependent ongravitational potential and isotropic • Due to time dilation, an observer neverdetects his or her own mass increase in limit approaching empty universeinertia appears to remain

9. H H H The Higgs Boson H H Whew! H H H H • Has energy and mass, which it shares with others • What it is . . . (from what I can gather) • Most fields do not exist without sources [e.g. electrons or protons] • Higgs field settles to non-zero, allowing un-sourced virtual bosons • These are attracted to W and Z bosons and certain other particles, giving them higher masses than otherwise predicted, thus“saving” the Standard Model of particle physics • Does not satisfy the No-Bootstrap principle • Is widely misunderstood by non-physicists • Questions like “does the Higgs cause gravity” on blogs(occasionally with replies of denial from physicists) • Websites/Papers/Theses devoted to Higgs gravityon ARXIV - M.S. thesis – website – numerous others . . . “But the Higgs field is not actually creating mass miraculously out of nothing (which would violate the law of conservation of energy).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson For a discussion of the mass of an atom and the Higgs boson contribution see: http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/1.3637365

10. Esoteric Ideas for Inertia & Space Travelwhich have or once had NASA funding • Rueda-Haisch Inertia from Vacuum Energy • 1994 Lorentz force on oscillators (with Puthoff)http://www.scribd.com/doc/134934843/Bernard-Haisch-Rueda-Puthoff-Inertia-as-Zero-Point-Field-Lorentz-Force-1994 • Rebutted in Feb 1998, non-relativistic approximations & errors, no force on oscillator http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802031 • Feb 1998 re-formulation, does not use plank oscillators, fully relativistic http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802031 • July 1998 NASA funded study publicationhttp://www.slideshare.net/zerofieldenergy/bernard-haisch-rueda-puthoff-advances-in-the-proposed-electromagnetic-zeropoint-field-theory-of-inertia-1998 • 2001 asymmetric ZPF force in gravitational field same as acceleration (i.e. equivalence) – but does not unify GR & inertia exactly http://www.slideshare.net/zerofieldenergy/bernard-haisch-rueda-geometrodynamics-inertia-and-the-quantum-vacuum-2001 • Rueda told me in an email they can do for non-EM fields • Observations • Without a simple conceptual underpinning? (no images available) • Goal is practical space travel & vacuum energy utilization (?) • NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Websitehttp://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/index.html • JSC’s Harold (Sonny) Whitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Sonny_White_(NASA_Scientist) • Vacuum propulsion based on Casimir effect • Alcubierre metric “warp field”

11. accept inertia from proximity as empirical • find a QM basis for inertia from proximity • derive relativistic gravity effects from inertia Inertia First Conjecture: Robert Shuler NASA Johnson Space Center robert.l.shuler@nasa.gov • April-May 2013

12. Time & Inertia • In SR time and mass transforms follow Lorentz g factor • In GR proper (in-frame) time & mass are invariant • But cross-frame we see and speak of time dilation • Solar spectral shifts – Pound-Rebka experiments – GPS compensation • GR predicts infinite dilation at event horizon of a black hole • If momentum is conserved then cross-frame inertia increases • By equivalence to falling velocity clock • If untrue we could easily remove objects from near an event horizon • Narrow conclusions: • Masses M & m (illustration above) are moved together with inertia M + m • Object m resists motion relative to M with larger inertia m’ (inertia dilation)

13. Laws of Inertia • Broad conclusion: • Inertia could be conferred by other masses much as described in Einstein’s 1912 paper – isotropic and based on sum of potential • No one has made this argument probably because of • Intractability of cross-frame measurements of mass • Preference for computation in “proper frame” of the object • Applies anywhere that time dilation applies in any theory • Cross-frame relations that follow using G as dilation factor: * new for large Dh depends on metric hard to find implies nothing about length well known new *If Dv use Gg

14. “Proximity” in Quantum Mechanics • Momentum-position uncertainty: DrDx > h/4pwhere r = mv • Non-localityDouble slit interference works withONE particle at a time in device . . . But not if it is possible to know the path taken!Demonstrated with Buckyballs [C60] particle knows configuration of path it doesn’t take • Remote correlation (entanglement)Alice observes more correlations with Bob’spolarizer setting than explainable by statistics(Bell Theorem) . . .  results at B affect A • Apparent causality violationThe above can be done in either order and the ordermay be different for relativistically moving observers! http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/double%20slit%20experiment http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=687294

15. Position Field Hypothesis • Based on momentum-position (instead of time-energy) • Assume measurements are optimal: DrDx h/4p • Factor mass as the unknown: (mDv)Dx h/4p m  h/4pDvDx • Eliminate Dv • Velocity and position are redundant, as velocity yields future position and is essentially a reference frame transformation • Dv is factored from a quantum conjugate of position uncertainty and will be randomized if we try to measure Dx precisely • Let it be randomized and take the average value Dvavg • Treat Dvavg as a constant • Group all constant terms into k=h/4pDvavg • => m  k/Dx =>Dx  k/m

16. Position Field Mechanism1st method – Measurement-Like Interaction • Object m interacts with a group of objects Mi • Assume m has no inertia (mass) without interaction • Initially m has unlimited scope of interaction Dx -> • Interactions convey information about m’s position, restricting Dx and increasing m • Similar to a particle knowing configuration of a path not taken • Particle only knows about paths within the Dr of the particle • When Dr is restricted so a path is known, the particle loses knowledge of the path not taken • Restricting Dx reduces interactions until no more increase m m  k/Dx m m m m m m M1 M2 m M3 m m m m m M4 M5 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m Dx No implication interactions occur in time, because “time” does not exist without mass & position

17. Position Field Mechanism2nd method – Mutual Position Entanglement • Original EPR paper on entanglement: (spooky action at a distance) • Momentum was the entangled quantum variable • Later work used spin or polarization for simplicity • Position can also be entangled •  Two particles have position only with respect to each other • Moving one would move the other – compare to frame dragging • Measuring the position of one determines the position of the other – instantly at a distance • Compare to Mach’s hypothesis that position & mass only defined relative to other matter • Does entanglement provide the bookkeeping for conservation laws? • Position entanglement = Newton’s First Law? (known as the law of inertia) • “Law of conservation of position” – centers of mass of interacting systems cannot move • Momentum entanglement = Newton’s Second Law? (force as momentum impulses) position entanglement M2 M4 v v M1 momentum entanglement M3 M5

18. Star positions shift near suntwice what Newtonian gravity expects 20% faster than expected for Mercury Solar System Non-linear Dynamicsvia Quantum Position Fields “On dynamics in a quasi-measurement field” – J. of Mod. Phys. – Jan 2013http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=27250 Image credit: http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_picture.asp?id=1096

19. Position Field Classical Reduction • Note the similarity of m  k/Dx to the classical expression for inertia used by Einstein, Sciama et. al.: • mi is the observed mass of particle im is some kind of mass-causing property of the particleG is the gravitational coupling constantMx’s are other particles’ mass causing propertiesc is the local velocity of light constantRx’s play the role of Dx • The quantum constant k is replaced by measureable classical parameters of the universe’s matter distribution • Note this is neither an energy field nor retarded potential Note – this formulation obscures the object-to-object relative nature of inertia!

20. Precession • Trajectory Theorem: Classical inertia does not change the SHAPE of orbits or trajectories, only the TIMING • If a quantity (e.g. acceleration ‘a’) does NOT classically transform  shape must change • “Laws of Inertia” showed a untransformed => Mercury precession • But ‘a’ is a property of gravity, and we don’t have gravity yet • In quantum inertia, proximity decreases position uncertainty:

21. Gravity • Assume “discovery” due to quantum inertia interactions at a successive positions • Discard lateral components (a-b) as inertia does not change • Dh is the average expected “unrecovered” height • Assume a discovered displacement is “conserved” as momentum • Rate of discovery is a free parameter – a purely imaginary velocity vE used to “time” the discoveries • Solving for acceleration: (h, Dt & G’s cancel out) • Assume all the acceleration of gravity is produced this way (a=g) • Solving for the parameter: (note: ) • The particle’s mass was not needed to deduce acceleration • Equivalence is upheld • Acceleration is untransformed by inertia – relativistic precession follows!

22. Light Bending • Inertial velocity reduction => speed gradient refraction •  • This is additional “acceleration” which must be added • For light v=c therefore a=g, which when added gives 2g

23. Cosmological Aspects of Quantum Inertia A drop in Mach’s (Newton’s) bucket ponders which way it should go From “Mach vs. Newton: A Fresh Spin on the Bucket” – in review Image credit: Crystal Wolfe – artist@crystalwolfe.com

24. Distance in Quantum Inertia • In a two-body problem, motion is ambiguous • Doubling separation doubles velocities, travel time is constant • Addition of test particles required for measurement • Distance might be measured with orbits via trajectory theorem?

25. Frame Dragging in Quantum Inertia • In a multi-body problem, it does not matter who accelerates • Surprise result forNewton-Mach bucket: a a a a m F m F a a Frame dragging seems to be different in QI. Possible experimental test?

26. Quantum Inertia & General Relativity • It is possible to argue for the “potential” function of GR • More likely QI follows classical potential • At 2 million miles from the sun, predicted time dilations differ in the 13th decimal place, significant differences near gravitational radius R0 • We have only observed black holes at resolutions of 1000x their R0 • Co-variant formulation of QI possible • QI accounts for undetected “gravity waves” • Difficult to detect inertia, but frame drag transfers energy • Orbital decay from neutron star pairs • But no detection yet • Detectors have enough sensitivity • Entanglement propagation speed  l • Earth-based detectors way too small, see next slide • Period ideally is longer than wait for detection signal http://hermes.aei.mpg.de

27. Detection of Inertia Changes Useful work can only be done by differences in potential & mass creates potential over a broad area – detection must come from outside that area. • Near electrical balance in universe – a few charges create observed fields • Radiation occurs from the acceleration of the few unbalanced charges • High Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) – radiated energy is easily detected • Severe limitations on acceleration of inertial masses • Acceleration of a few masses might radiate energy throughframe dragging, but… • Inertia is all positive mass . . . the most important mass is very distant • The center of mass of accelerating objects cannot move! • Since inertia affects everything, detection awaits a signal from outside affected area New un-deflected ray   + A Observer + B Old dragged light ray Area of B’s noticeable effect

28. Quantum Inertia & Cosmology • Dark matter may not be a gravity issue • ISS providing preliminary indications of detecting WIMPs • Space is always “flat” in QI • careful tuning of cosmological constants is not necessary • As matter spreads out, R’s increase and inertia decreases • All clocks run faster • “Old” light emitted fromslow clocks is red shifted • If “escape velocity” isachieved, expansionaccelerates • CMB [2nd page following] Six element solar mass cosmology:

29. Inertia Cosmology Animation4 masses which barely achieve escape velocity

30. Shape of Space in QI CosmologyHow to get symmetry . . . This needs a lot of work • Post-scattering photons have random velocity vectors • Boundary photons bent back, motion paths distorted • Boundary gets smeared out by high velocities from low inertia • Apparent edge may be narrow and behind the CMB • How does this work in GR with cosmological constant tuned for flat space ? – physicists assume the universe is not old enough for us to see it

31. Question Summary – What Next? • How big & important is inertia (relative to gravity)? • Are inertia and gravity the same? • Which quantum approach is more promising? • How to formalize it? • Is an experimental test of frame dragging feasible? • How to analyze possibility of radiation and detection? • What to do with cosmological issues? • Best collaboration & publication strategy? [next page] InertiaFirst

32. Publication Experience – Options? • Summary of experiences: • PRD reviewer put me on track for quantum inertia, firm policy not to publish any new gravity theory • Physics Essays produces one correspondent who motivated me to finish 2nd paper • Most authors in PE will not budge from pet theories • JMP article does not seem to have been noticed • One reviewer from another publication did not even click on a link to view it and admitted that • Foundations of Physics said only that it didn’t seem to relate to on-going conversations • Might be fixed by a knowledgeable collaborator? • The Physics Teacher gave a trivialized and hostile-without-rationale review • Submission was a short paper on Newton’s Bucket and Mach’s Principle • ARXIV does not accept papers in physics areas except from authors who publish very frequently • Will delete a paper when a sponsored upload is obtained unless it is also published in a major journal • Nature prefers articles with experimental confirmation • Many others said they publish very few submissions (often < 20%), or simply made no comment • A collaborator is very helpful, even on a limited basis • Started with long time friend, not his specialty • Finished 2nd paper with encouragement from correspondent • Difficult to go further without more expertise than I or the above friends have • Would like to write a book for popular audience • Maybe publish in a popular magazine? Popular Science? • (Discover & Scientific American will only take re-spins of leading journal articles) InertiaFirst

33. Backup Charts

34. Trajectory Theorem

35. Derivation of Gravity from Inertia (free parameter derivation)

36. Orbital predictions page 1 of 2

37. Orbital predictions page 2 of 2

38. Light path derivation

39. Overview of Quantum Fields • Fields act through the uncertainty principle • All fields in common usage are energy fields • DEDt > h/4p • In a small timeinterval, energyuncertainty is large • Virtual particles(bosons) ariseand do the workof the field • Interactions aremomentum based http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/expar.html

40. Higgs Feynman Diagrams [samples]

41. InertiaFirst