Quantized Inertia (QI), also known as the theory of "Modified Inertia" or "MiHsC" (Modified inertia due to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect), is a hypothesis proposed by physicist Mike McCulloch in 2007. QI suggests that inertia, the resistance of an object to changes in motion, arises due to the interaction of an object's acceleration with the Unruh radiation, which is a concept from quantum field theory.
The reason why quantized inertia is considered fringe science and does not receive the same treatment as Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) is primarily due to the level of acceptance, empirical evidence, and mainstream scientific consensus. Let's explore some key factors:
- Empirical evidence: MOND, proposed by physicist Mordehai Milgrom in the 1980s, was developed to explain the observed discrepancies between the predictions of Newtonian gravity and the observed dynamics of galaxies. MOND has been successful in explaining a wide range of galactic rotation curves and other astronomical phenomena, although it faces challenges in explaining cosmological observations. The empirical successes of MOND have led to its consideration as a valid alternative to dark matter in some scientific circles.
On the other hand, quantized inertia lacks significant empirical evidence supporting its claims. QI has not yet made predictions that have been confirmed through experimental or observational tests. The absence of compelling empirical support makes it more challenging for a hypothesis to gain mainstream acceptance.
Theoretical coherence: Scientific theories are expected to be internally consistent and in line with established scientific principles. While quantized inertia offers a new perspective on inertia and incorporates concepts from quantum field theory, it has not gained widespread acceptance or validation from the scientific community. The theoretical framework of quantized inertia still requires further development and verification to be considered a robust and coherent theory.
Peer review and scientific consensus: Scientific progress relies on the rigorous process of peer review and consensus-building within the scientific community. Ideas and theories are subjected to critical evaluation by experts in the field, with their findings published in reputable scientific journals. The level of scrutiny and acceptance that a theory receives within the scientific community plays a crucial role in determining its status.
Quantized inertia, at present, has not garnered substantial support from the scientific community through the peer review process. The lack of publication in established scientific journals and limited engagement with the wider scientific community contributes to its classification as fringe science.
It's important to note that the classification of a scientific idea as fringe or mainstream can evolve over time as evidence and consensus develop. As with any scientific hypothesis, if quantized inertia can provide testable predictions that are confirmed through empirical evidence and if it undergoes rigorous scrutiny and acceptance by the scientific community, its status may change.