AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF INERTIA OF MATTER BASED ON MACH'S PRINCIPLE
(EFFECT OF GRAVITATIONAL INTERACTION OF ALL OBJECTS IN THE UNIVERSE)
The Woodward effect, also referred to as a Mach effect, is part of a hypothesis proposed by James F. Woodward in 1990. The hypothesis states that transient mass fluctuations arise in any object that absorbs internal energy while undergoing a proper acceleration. Harnessing this effect could generate a reactionless thrust, which Woodward and others claim to measure in various experiments. If proven to exist, the Woodward effect could be used in the design of spacecraft engines of a field propulsion engine that would not have to expel matter to accelerate.
James F. Woodward
It's thought by some folks these days that the cause of inertial reaction forces isn't yet really understood, or that they have just succeeded in figuring out the explanation for these forces in terms of their new theory. These views are mistaken. The cause of inertial reaction forces has been understood to be the action of gravity for quite some time now. Back in 1953 Dennis Sciama showed that gravity could account for inertial reaction forces as long as the interaction of local stuff with the gravity field of distant matter was like the interaction of electric charges and currents with the electromagnetic field. It turns out, as a matter of fact, that this is true in general relativity theory, but it took a while to show this.
Trying to ascribe inertia to some origin other than gravity, we see, gets us into rather deep water. We are left with the fact that the least implausible explanation of the origin of inertia is gravitational disturbances that propagate to and from the distant future out there. Support for this view of reality can be found in Wheeler and Feynman's absorber theory that accounts for electromagnetic radiation reaction forces in essentially the same way. All this suggests that radiation reaction is likely to be an important aspect of gravity and inertia, and that it is worth exploring radiation reaction a bit.
James F. Woodward
FLUX CAPACITORS AND THE ORIGIN OF INERTIA, 2004 (pdf)
The explanation of inertia based on “Mach’s principle” is briefly revisited and an experiment whereby the gravitational origin of inertia can be tested is described. The test consists of detecting a small stationary force with a sensitive force sensor. The force is presumably induced when a periodic transient Mach effect mass fluctuation is driven in high voltage, high energy density capacitors that are subjected to 50 kHz, 1.3 kV amplitude voltage signal, and threaded by an alternating magnetic flux of the same frequency. An effect of the sort predicted is shown to be present in the device tested. It has the expected magnitude and depends on the relative phase of the Mach effect mass fluctuation and the alternating magnetic flux as expected. The observed effect also displays scaling behaviors that are unique to Mach effects. Other tests for spurious signals suggest that the observed effect is real.
York Dobyns, Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch
The possibility of an extrinsic origin for inertial reaction forces has recently seen increased attention in the physical literature. Among theories of extrinsic inertia, the two considered by the current work are (1) the hypothesis that inertia is a result of gravitational interactions, and (2) the hypothesis that inertial reaction forces arise from the interaction of material particles with local fluctuations of the quantum vacuum. A recent article supporting the former and criticizing the latter is shown to contain substantial errors.
B. Haisch, A. Rueda and Y. Dobyns
INERTIA: MACH’S PRINCIPLE OR QUANTUM VACUUM? (IN NASA REPORT «INERTIA AND GRAVITATION IN THE ZERO-POINT FIELD MODEL») (pdf)
Two competing theories are tackling the foundational question of whether inertia may have an extrinsic origin. One based on Mach's principle makes the startling prediction that transient mass fluctuations may be created to yield propellant-free propulsion. One based on quantum vacuum fluctuations may revise the conventional understanding of why moving particles have wavelike properties.
J.F. Woodward, T. Mahood
WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF INERTIA? (1999) (pdf)
The question of the cause of inertial reaction forces and the validity of "Mach's principle" are investigated. A recent claim that the cause of inertial reaction forces can be attributed to an interaction of the electrical charge of elementary particles with the hypothetical quantum mechanical "zero point" fluctuation electromagnetic field is shown to be untenable. It fails to correspond to reality because the coupling of electric charge to the electromagnetic field cannot be made to plausibly mimic the universal coupling of gravity and inertia to the stress-energy-momentum (i.e., matter) tensor. The gravitational explanation of the origin of inertial forces is then briefly laid out, and various important features of it explored in the last half century are addressed.
To sum up, we have seen that local zero point fields other than quantum gravity perhaps (should it ever be invented) cannot account for the origin of inertia. They do not display the universal coupling to massenergy, possessed by gravity, that is required of any candidate field. GRT, however, already predicts the existence of forces that correspond to the inertial forces we experience in fact, so no new explanation of the origin of inertia is required in the first place.
So inertial forces are gravitational forces, as the principle of relativity and their universal coupling to mass-energy demand. Any theory that proposes that this is not the case should be regarded with deep suspicion, for it almost certainly violates the principle of relativity. And should you be interested in investigating rapid spacetime transport schemes, deep suspicion is indicated for any proposal that violates the principle of relativity. The likelihood that the principle of relativity is wrong is vanishingly small.
In a cosmological perspective, gravitational induction is explored as a source to mechanical inertia in line with Mach’s principle. Within the standard model of cosmos, considering the expansion of the universe and the necessity of retarded interactions, it is found that the assumed dynamics may account for a significant part of an object’s inertia.
Hoyle and Narlikar (HN) in the 1960's developed a theory of gravitation which was completely Machian and used both retarded and advanced waves to communicate gravitational influence between particles. The advanced waves, which travel backward in time, are difficult to visualize and although they are mathematically allowed by relativistic wave equations, they never really caught on. The HN theory reduced to Einstein's theory of gravity in the smooth fluid approximation and a transformation into the rest frame of the fluid. Unfortunately the theory has been ignored by much of the General Relativity community since it was developed with the static universe in mind. However, it is easy to drop the static universe condition (by dropping the "C"-field matter creation terms) and then you have a perfectly good theory of gravitation. Hawking in 1965 pointed out a possible flaw in the theory. This involved integrating out into the distant future to account for all the advanced waves which might influence the mass of a particle here and now. Hawking used infinity as his upper time limit and showed the integral was divergent. We would like to point out that since the universe is known to be expanding, and accelerating, the upper limit in the advanced wave time integral should not be infinite but is bounded by the Cosmic Event Horizon. This event horizon He represents a barrier between future events that can be observed and those which cannot. We maintain that the advanced integral is in fact finite when the cosmic event horizon is taken into account, since the upper limit of the advanced wave integral becomes He/c. Hawking's objection is no longer valid and the HN theory becomes a working theory once again.
Inertia is perhaps one of the most mysterious phenomena of the macrocosm. It is unknown how it arises, where it takes its sources and why it is how it is.
From a kinematic point of view inertia does not differ from the gravity, it is similarly universal, it just gives all bodies the same acceleration, it just has no points of support, no application. It is therefore not surprising that Einstein identified them as similar, equal. Einstein's arguments are well known: the gravitational mass is the source of the force of gravity and inertial mass is an indicator of inertia. These masses are equal, and therefore the forces they induce must also be equal. These are reasoned arguments, but they shall not mean that "inertia and gravity are just different names for the same phenomenon”. The gravity force are potential, they weaken with the distance from the gravitating bodies, while the inertial forces are not potential and do not depend on any distances. These forces are different in nature and should be separated.
Mach's principle establishes a relationship between the inertia of bodies and the existence of other masses, and can be briefly formulated with this statement: in an empty Universe, there is no inertia. However, modern physics followed Einstein’s latest works and does not consider anymore the principle of Mach as a necessary basic requirement.
PROPOSAL FPR EXPERIMENTAL VERIFYING OF MACHIAN TRANSIENT MASS FLUCTUATIONS, 2001 (pdf)
Starting from quoted papers it show that, applying Mach's principle, obtains transient mass fluctuation by varying proper energy. It is show why the experiments performed until now measured a smaller effect than was predicted. On establish conditions for using gravitational energy by means of transient mass fluctuations. On suggest a new type of experiment for verify the effect of transient mass fluctuation. If experiment will succeed, this opens the possibility to realize new kind of devices for energy production and space transportation.