Test of controversial new quantum propulsion didn't go as planned (Patreon)

[This is a transcript of the video.]

The Quantum Drive, a controversial new propulsion system based on the idea of “Quantized Inertia”  was launched into space for a test in November. Testing was supposed to start early February, but it didn’t quite go as planned. Let’s have a look.

 On November 11, a prototype of the quantum drive was shot into space as one of 80 small satellite missions aboard a SpaceX rocket.  The device was produced by the company IVO limited, and the satellite, called Barry 1,  was built by Rogue Space Systems.

Before I say anything more, I have to admit that I find it amazing how far private space flight has come.  Basically, anyone with sufficient enthusiasm and finances can now put their stuff into earth’s orbit.

However, for this particular mission, trouble began pretty much as soon as the thing was launched into space.  According to Rogue Space Systems, the satellite had power supply issues  from the moment it got into orbit and by February 9th the company had entirely lost contact  to its satellite.

This happened just before the Quantum Drive  was supposed to boost the satellite to test the propulsion capacity of the revolutionary new device, so we still don’t know if it works. Also, one more piece of space junk up there.

Here's the background story.  The Quantum Drive was thought up by Richard Mansell based on the idea of “Quantized Inertia.”  Catchy name, but unfortunately every physicist I know who ever looked at the papers about quantized inertia has said it’s pseudoscientific nonsense.  I looked at the papers myself and I agree.

I’m sure this video would do much better if I said I think it’s correct and quantum something  will propel us to the stars, but the truth is often boring, and I’m afraid the truth is that the quantum drive is nonsense, though the reason it’s nonsense is interesting in itself.

 As far as I can tell, the origin of the supposed new propulsion is Unruh radiation. Unruh radiation is named after Bill Unruh  who calculated what an eternally accelerated observer would experience in vacuum.

Naively you’d think vacuum is vacuum is vacuum  what’s there to ask. But Unruh found that an accelerated observer wouldn’t see a vacuum.  He’d instead measure radiation with a temperature that is proportional to the acceleration.  So, higher acceleration, higher temperature.

You see, what physicists mean by vacuum is the absence of particles.  That’s how it’s defined,  just mathematically. Unruh now says that the notion of particle depends on the acceleration.  This means that what’s vacuum for someone who sits still is not vacuum for someone who accelerates. Hence, the accelerated observer sees particles.

We’ve heard that in Einstein’s theory the passage of time depends on how much you accelerate, and little Albert is comfortable with that

But Unruh says it’s the same for particles, how many you see depends on how much you accelerate and Albert isn’t really sure what to make of this.

Where does the energy  of those particles come from that the accelerated observer sees? They come from whatever causes the acceleration.  You can’t have an accelerated observer without a force, and for that force you need energy. You know, a propulsion system. The Unruh radiation is basically something like a universal friction, it’s a response to that acceleration.

That already tells you that you can’t use Unruh radiation to increase acceleration, that doesn’t make any sense. It’d be creating energy out of nothing. And that’s leaving aside that the Unruh effect is ridiculously small,  which is why it’s never been measured.

 Okay but to get back to the quantized inertia. The theory of quantized inertia was first proposed in 2007 by Mike McCulloch, a lecturer at the University of Plymouth.  He wanted it to explain the pioneer anomaly and be an alternative to dark matter.

 The pioneer anomaly was an unexpected acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft  on their way out of the Solar System. In 2012 NASA found the acceleration was due to an uneven emission of heat. So much about that.

 Regarding dark matter, McCulloch’s thinking seems to have been basically that the effect of dark matter looks like there is acceleration missing.  For example, because stars in the outermost regions of galaxies seem to be going around too fast. So I guess he thought if something is causing this extra acceleration, maybe we can use this to accelerate something else.

This sounds superficially plausible, but if you think about it a bit longer it doesn’t make sense.  The effect we observe in galaxies gets stronger the farther away you are from the centre of the galaxy. And while there should still be a small effect where we are, we know what it does. It keeps our solar system on its path around the centre of the galaxy. It doesn’t accelerate rockets.

So I find this so called quantum drive  unpromising to put it mildly, but I do find it fascinating that something that’s so obviously nonsense got so far.  Most interestingly, it’s received financial support by DARPA, that’s the American Defence Advance Research Projects Agency. Reportedly they put 1 point 3 million dollars into the idea.

Now on the one hand, 1 point 3 million isn’t all that much.  If you think it isn’t all that much, please get in touch I have a research proposal for you. On the other hand, money is money and they could have used it to, say, pay the electricity bill  for their new AI that I’m sure they’re cooking up, so why didn’t they.
 
I think what is going on there is a total lack of respect for theory development.  The people who hand out these grants probably think that theories are all nonsense anyway, and just don’t discriminate between them.  This isn’t the only example of this type, there was also the “Holometer”,  .a proposal by Craig Horgan that Fermilab pumped 2 million into  because he said it’d show that the universe is a hologram.

Horgan didn’t have a theory to back up his claim,  I’m not saying this to be annoying it’s what he said himself.  And you know what, he didn’t find any evidence that the universe is a hologram.

 Making robust predictions for experiments requires serious theoretical work. Unfortunately, I have to admit that physicists haven’t inspired much confidence in the past decades by producing loads of theories about stuff that doesn’t exist  that also doesn’t get found. I can’t even blame DARPA and Fermilab for concluding that it doesn’t really matter if physicists say the theory is sound because physicists have totally ruined trust in their entire discipline.

But speaking of sound theories. Just among you and I, I don’t think the Unruh effect is a real effect,  though I’ve given up fighting this fight with physicists. Most physicists seem to believe it’s a real effect. I think they are using a meaningless definition of particle. You know, this makes me think now that maybe I should write a paper about this.