Experiment Cost Estimate to Test RST
Experiment Cost Estimate to Test RST
This estimate outlines three complementary approaches to test Reactive Substrate Theory (RST). Each tier targets a different aspect of the theory: low‑acceleration mechanics, nonlinear substrate behavior, and spinor‑like topology. Costs are ballpark ranges based on typical lab rates, equipment quotes, and observatory time.
Tier 1: Tabletop Analog Experiment (Nonlinear Elastic Medium)
Goal: Emulate Φ dynamics in a controllable medium to test stability of localized structures from the (−μΦ + βΦ³) balance.
Method: Use a nonlinear elastic or optical medium to produce, track, and measure soliton‑like knots. Quantify dispersion vs. self‑focusing and effective restoring term analog.
Key measurements: Phase stability, energy localization, dispersion length, restoring coefficient, bifurcation thresholds.
- Equipment: $75k–$150k
- Personnel (1 PI, 1 postdoc, 1 tech): $120k–$250k
- Consumables & fabrication: $25k–$50k
- Facility fees: $15k–$30k
Total: $235k–$480k
Pros: Fast, affordable, isolates nonlinearity vs. dispersion.
Cons: Analog mapping; not a direct vacuum test.
Tier 2: Precision Low‑Acceleration Dynamics (Astrophysical Data Analysis)
Goal: Test RST’s modified inertia/drag predictions at accelerations ≲ 10⁻¹⁰ m/s² using galaxy rotation curves, wide binaries, and dwarf spheroidal kinematics.
Method: Curate datasets, fit RST parameters (μ, β, thresholds), compare to ΛCDM and MOND, cross‑validate across samples.
- Personnel (2 data scientists, 1 astronomer): $300k–$450k
- Compute: $15k–$40k
- Data cleaning/licensing: $5k–$20k
- Travel/collaboration: $10k–$20k
Total: $330k–$530k
Pros: Uses real astrophysical regimes; no lab build.
Cons: Indirect; depends on systematics and model degeneracies.
Tier 3: Laboratory Vacuum Test with Nonlinear Optics
Goal: Build a controllable system whose envelope equation matches:
∂²Φ/∂t² − c²∇²Φ − μΦ + βΦ³ = J(x,t)
and probe source‑coupling J(x,t) via external modulation.
Method: Ultrafast laser setup with engineered μ and β via cavity detuning and Kerr nonlinearity. Inject spatially patterned sources and measure stability, dispersion, and topology.
- Equipment: $1.2M–$2.5M
- Personnel (PI + 2 postdocs + 2 engineers): $700k–$1.1M
- Facility buildout: $150k–$300k
- Ops/consumables/service: $100k–$200k
Total: $2.15M–$4.1M
Pros: High control, closer match to target equation.
Cons: Expensive; requires specialty expertise.
Optional: Observatory or Spacecraft Concept
- Observatory time: $0.6M–$1.5M over 2–3 years
- SmallSat concept study: $3M–$8M (not flight)
Summary of Ranges
- Minimum credible (Tier 1 + Tier 2): $565k–$1.01M
- Ambitious lab validation (add Tier 3): $2.7M–$5.1M
- Enterprise‑level (add observatory/space): $3.3M–$6.6M+
Why this mix: Tier 1 probes the nonlinear balance (−μ, β). Tier 2 tests low‑acceleration predictions. Tier 3 pushes toward a direct equation‑level proxy with tunable J(x,t).