Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory

Vilvi

25th January 2006 - 05:37 PM

Hi spony

Thanks again for your time, your work and your code.

I'm not a Java programmer, but I downloaded the NetBeans 4.1 for Java and I run your code. All was OK, but I had a small fright, I was checking the values from top to down and when I arrived to mass elements I found:

=====> Mass Lepton e_+- GOOD
result: 0.0

=====> Mass Lepton e_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: NaN
table: 0.0
diff: NaN

...

oh, surprise, what happens!!!!, aahhhh, no problem, reviewing the code is easy to see that these are the values of phi functions (is only a minor question of description).

I'll try to earn free time in order to review some more details of the code (and check the value of "u").

But now, I would like to be B. Heim to understand all of these.

spony

25th January 2006 - 06:40 PM

QUOTE

I am a java programmer myself, and would be happy to help in any future project. I think we all stand to gain in this whether we can disprove it or reaffirm it.

Spoony, are you using the 64-bit doubles in Java?

One thing we could do is modify the code to calulate the error inherent in the calulation.

 Sure, go right ahead and download the code, the more of us looking for mistakes the faster they will be found. Yes I have used 64-bit doubles throughout the code (almost everywhere) since they are essentialy more precise then floats (which sometimes do some wierd things). The input parameters are mostly ints but i didn't want to get into any sort of casting (read rounding) problems in the middle of the equations. At this point I think it's best just to review subsets of the HeimUnit class, that is focus on solving unit cases which are erronous.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Remember though that phi, is not included in the mass calculations per default since it is not working properly (It's commented out in the MainFunctions class).

TRoc

25th January 2006 - 07:44 PM

All,

Thanks for the second reply hdeasy.

I am checking for any possible theory that I may have missed along the way; but I didn't think so. I have a theory, of which the first part is identical to Heim's "primitive dynamic units called protosimplexes, which combine to form flux aggregates", with different terminology, of course, and without the need for more than 3 dimensions. If Heim did indeed arrive at this postulate from the "top down", all the while working through his complex arrangements, I applaud his mind!

As far as my take on the questions I posed, essentially I am looking for the "storyline". Without a philosophy to guide the reader, or the "promise" of the introduction/abstract, the plot fails. In the end, Science must please the masses (people), for it is they who empower Science. If Heim's theory calculates the different mass quantities of the "elementary particles", that is great. If it takes 3 huge volumes to explain it, I'm not so sure it will be successful.

As long as the "zones of interaction" are measured out in powers of 2, 3, & 4, then it can said to follow Pythagoras' "pleasing ratios", in mirror symmetry. Just the basic "harmonics" of 1, 1.5, and 2; the basis for harmony of complex resonances.

The size of the zones, and the length of time of the interaction are only required to be of enough "dimensions" to allow the transaction to take place. This is a still frame of the over time black body radiation, and encapsulates the mid-ratio energy density known in the frequency spectrum as green, which is absent in both experiment and theory of BBR curve.

Once a minimum energy (in whatever terms you wish to express it) is established, and all other "particles" exist only at shorter wavelengths, or with interaction times too short to ever affect the First energy, it can never be changed. If the equivalence of mass and inertia is accepted, and the Universe is the "largest zone", and the sum of all the masses (communicated through the equivalence of gravitational effects) becomes the density of space, then it is inevitable that these "minimums" are measured with consistent radius, and mass. There can never be a larger "zone", and there can never be more than "all" the masses; therefore the symmetrically opposite must be true as well.

I agree very much with the work of Heim; the paper you linked "Elementary Structures of Matter, Copyright for Contents by Burkhard Heim, Northeim, 1998; Translation by Prof. Dr. Hans Auerbach, Gebenstorf, 1998", was a good summary. I am going to snip a few lines, and paste here.

"In order to derive the smallest geometric unit mentioned above it is necessary to consider a universal background phenomenon. A suitable quantity is the general inertia of all masses, which is always equivalent to gravitational phenomena according to the principle of equivalence. A phenomenological dynamics of gravitation is derived in [1], which, together with a self–consistent treatment of the mass–equivalent of the gravitational field energy, leads to the description of a scalar field function by means of a non–linear system of equations,.."

"..real, positive gravitational potential (potential energy per unit mass), satisfying a nonlinear differential equation, which can be solved in spherical geometry and results in a transcendental algebraic equation for . The solution shows that remains real only between the limits R– and R+, where R– corresponds to the Schwarzschild radius and R+ to the Hubble radius. In the range of relatively small distances (planetary systems) is almost exactly proportional to 1/r and hence practically identical to Newtons law of gravitation. .."

"A single elementary particle is characterized not only by and the limiting distances of its gravitational field, but also by its Compton wavelength. R– vanishes in empty space when the mass of the field source approaches zero, while R , , and the Compton wavelength all diverge. However, since the smallest geometrical unit must be a real number and a property of empty space its value has to remain finite. .."

"As shown in [2], the upper reality bound, R + , of the gravitational field increases with diminishing field source, i.e. the largest value of R, R max , results from the smallest rest mass. Thus, is the greatest possible distance in R 3 .It is defined in [2] as the diameter of the universe and depends entirely on natural constants. .."

The thing I would like to suggest to all of you is that this exact position is taken, yet modeled in simple form, in Milo Wolff's "Wave Structure of Matter" Theory, and that reading it should prove fruitful. Link to Wolff's theory and discussion HERE.

There are other places this idea crops up, including Planck, Dirac, Mach, and Einstein. All seekers eventually realize this necessity, but for one reason or another, the mathematical story of resonance has eluded them. This could be the year that that goal is achieved.

TRoc

metronhead

25th January 2006 - 08:51 PM

Hi Troc

QUOTE

As far as my take on the questions I posed, essentially I am looking for the "storyline". Without a philosophy to guide the reader, or the "promise" of the introduction/abstract, the plot fails. In the end, Science must please the masses (people), for it is they who empower Science. If Heim's theory calculates the different mass quantities of the "elementary particles", that is great. If it takes 3 huge volumes to explain it, I'm not so sure it will be successful.

 Yeah, the length and complexity of the theory does pose some problems, all right. Heim's theories are not concise. On the other hand, we have computers and software which we can use as intelligence amplifiers to make the theory accessible to us mere mortals. And it's quite possible, that other theories like string theory might be describing the same phenomena as Heim theory, somehow, which could lead to some simplification. Perhaps the theory will get more concise and simple as time goes on. Didn't Maxwell start out with something like 20 equations, and condense them down to 4?

But there must be some reason that some of the smartest guys around (theoretical physicists, worldwide) have been butting their heads up against the problem of the origin of mass for centuries, without much apparent recent progress. Perhaps the universe on this level is simply very strange and very, very complex. Perhaps a mind like Heim's, with his visualization abilities, memory, and mathematical abilities was necessary to see all the way through the problem.

We really don't know how complex the universe is on the scale of the Planck length to the size of the elementary particles. It could be very complex, I think.

hdeasy

26th January 2006 - 08:23 AM

QUOTE (spony+Jan 25 2006, 04:00 PM)

There are errors at this point simply because there are so many complex equations (many of the intermediate calculations give incorrect answers). Some of the errors in the code can also be attributed to ambiguitys in equations from the notes (for example there is a parenthesis in a3 which seems to never end).

QUOTE

! u , c.f. compini.for --> /const/
Looking in compini.for,
u = 2.D0*pi*ebn ! # const
where
ebn = Dexp(1.D0)
Seems to imply it's just 2 Pi x e .

 So if i understand correctly it's simply: (2 * Pi * e)
On that constant u - yes, I think it's just 2.Pi.e = 17.079468445.

Dr. Mueller of the Heim-theory group is going to compare the formulas on their web page again with Heim's Manuscript and with his FORTRAN code. It could take him a few days to locate any inconsistencies or errors.

Good Elf

26th January 2006 - 01:30 PM

Hi hdeasy, spony, metronhead, TRoc, Vilvi, rshoemake et al,

It is really great to see that a universal "calculator" of this function is being developed. This goes a long way to remove any lingering suspicions that Heim "cooked the books" or that his adherents are fudging the figures. I have no idea what the theory actually means in terms of conventional Physics but I have a hunch that it is an idea couched in a paradigm that is outside the envelope at present. That does not mean that it is wrong just not the most popular way to express the theory.

The fact that this theory apparently can independently calculate the masses of the fundamental particles at all is a true breakthrough. This holds a lot of hope that the rest of his theory may actually be the embodiment of a deep truth. It is a great pity and a loss that Heim has passed on and can't tell us personally how to understand this theory in the light of present physics. I am convinced that the six dimensional object is an abstraction of some aspect of string theory. Of course we are now all going to look at this and see what we make of it as an "extension" of our own concepts. Spony is making a real contribution here with his Java code. When it finally represents Heims idea we can all look at this code and think about what it really means. Good work spony and anyone who is helping.

Cheers

will314159

26th January 2006 - 02:09 PM

spony, hdeasy, et al

Good Work

Java is over my head, but I can learn it. I'll print all the stuff out and try to put it in in flowchart form and post it on my website. As far as what it all means, i can certainly put in my two cents worth.

As Witten says in his slide lecture that I posted the link to, it's really the wave nature of the wave particle duality that gives the insights. The quantum revolution started with Planck that needed to solve the Black Body Radiation Problem. Classical Theory gave infinite radiation prediction. He had to quantize the radiation frequencies to curb the radiation problem.

Bohr had to quantize the permitted angualr momentum modes to keep the electron from spiralling in to the hydrogen proton. A moving electron charge creates a magentic field which progates an electromagentic field losing energy causing a spiraling into the proton. Bohr said that couldn't happen because only certain orbits were allowed because angular momentum was quantized and only certain orbits were allowed. He didn't say WHY. he just said it was so. But it explained the Hydrogen spectral lines!

De Broglie gave the PHYSICAL INSIGHT and it was GEOMETRIC. he came up with the theory of MATTER WAVES. The electron was a wave. And it was only permitted orbits that were full wavelengths. Schrodinger elaborated on it, but he could never figure out what the waves exactly were. He tried charge density and other stuff. He got into some paradoxes like the famous one like "Schrodinger's Cat." The physics community finally settled in that the waves squared were a probabililty distribution. They say most physiscits today are of the Many Worlds Many Histories School Multiverse view of interperting Quantum Mechanics.

I still like De Broglies geometrical insight.
Quantum Computing really is going to change our way into looking at Quantum Mechanics because the only way all those calculations can be taking place is in alternate universes.

Back to Heim. It is a geometric theory. Matter is a resonance in a Metron lattice. It is like an electron wave going around a proton. It must be an integral number of wavelengts. This whole number of wavelengths is what dettermines the MASS. It is a WHOLE NUMBER of SOMETHING. That Somehting is some aglmation of combination of fundamental constants,

Take Care!

hdeasy

26th January 2006 - 03:10 PM

QUOTE (TRoc+Jan 25 2006, 07:44 PM)

As far as my take on the questions I posed, essentially I am looking for the "storyline". Without a philosophy to guide the reader, or the "promise" of the introduction/abstract, the plot fails. In the end, Science must please the masses (people), for it is they who empower Science. If Heim's theory calculates the different mass quantities of the "elementary particles", that is great. If it takes 3 huge volumes to explain it, I'm not so sure it will be successful.

As long as the "zones of interaction" are measured out in powers of 2, 3, & 4, then it can said to follow Pythagoras' "pleasing ratios", in mirror symmetry. Just the basic "harmonics" of 1, 1.5, and 2; the basis for harmony of complex resonances.

The size of the zones, and the length of time of the interaction are only required to be of enough "dimensions" to allow the transaction to take place. This is a still frame of the over time black body radiation, and encapsulates the mid-ratio energy density known in the frequency spectrum as green, which is absent in both experiment and theory of BBR curve.

Once a minimum energy (in whatever terms you wish to express it) is established, and all other "particles" exist only at shorter wavelengths, or with interaction times too short to ever affect the First energy, it can never be changed. If the equivalence of mass and inertia is accepted, and the Universe is the "largest zone", and the sum of all the masses (communicated through the equivalence of gravitational effects) becomes the density of space, then it is inevitable that these "minimums" are measured with consistent radius, and mass. There can never be a larger "zone", and there can never be more than "all" the masses; therefore the symmetrically opposite must be true as well.

I agree very much with the work of Heim; the paper you linked "Elementary Structures of Matter, Copyright for Contents by Burkhard Heim, Northeim, 1998; Translation by Prof. Dr. Hans Auerbach, Gebenstorf, 1998", was a good summary. I am going to snip a few lines, and paste here.

<snip>

There are other places this idea crops up, including Planck, Dirac, Mach, and Einstein. All seekers eventually realize this necessity, but for one reason or another, the mathematical story of resonance has eluded them. This could be the year that that goal is achieved.

Hi Troc!

I think that one of the best places for the storyline, despite missing symbols in the html, is indeed that English translation of Heim's summary of his work: http://www.datadiwan.de/netzwerk/index_e.htm?dw_001e_.htm

Just reading through this, even without full understanding, gives a good impression of where the mass formula is coming from, how particles are formed by a projection from 6-D on 4-D etc. It cleared up a few things for me - and for this reason I'm looking forward to Von Ludwiger's transcriptions of the 40 (!) Heim tapes. These story-lines really do help one to orient oneself in longer works - like the mass formula derivation on http://www.heim-theory.com or the books themselves. It's good that the Heim theory group is working on a concise introduction to the theory, in normal notation - that will be much shorter and clearer than the original 3 volumes.

I'm not sure about the connection with Pythagoras or black-body radiation. And as for the comparison with String theory - maybe: only the latter still is a background dependent theory, while Heim and Loop Quantum Gravity are background independent. SO for that reason the link will probably be first made to LQG and maybe later to String.

Hmm… just had a look at some of Milo Wolff's stuff and the standing wave model of particles is somehow reminiscent of the transaction model of quantum mechanics described by Gribbin in his Schroedinger's Kittens. Personally I don't like it much as it takes away some of the mystery of QM - in that sense I like the take of Henry Stapp with his jazzed up Copenhagen interpretation. We'll have to wait for that that conscious quantum computer experiment that's been proposed to distinguish between many worlds and Copenhagen - maybe it can say something about the wave/transaction model too. I'm still rooting for Copenhagen and hope Heim won't rock the boat too much there - he retains non-local effects. What I don't yet understand is how coordinates x9 - x12 guide the quantum probabilities. I'll be disappointed if it points to a deterministic, though non-local effect, as I would fear the consequences for free will.

leovinus

26th January 2006 - 09:46 PM

Hi,Hi,

I was looking at the original German documents at

http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/E_Mas...B_Heim_1982.pdf
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads_pw/D_...assenformel.pdf

to figure out how to correct the N3() part in spony's Java code. I will call these
documents "D" and "E" in the following.

If you compare (9.9) on p67 in "D", which describes very nicely the composition
of alpha_3 (and hence N3), and compare with formula (IX) on p9 in "E", you can see that
the formula's are different. No wonder spony found out that code does not
work as expected. (PS: Even if you don't speak German, take a look, the math speaks
for itself)

The good news, if you reorganize the Jave code a little (trying to make sense
of "D" and "E") then you get results which deviations on N3() are pretty small.

However, it seems to me that somebody with a sound understanding of the theoretical
framework (anyone from Innsbruck university here?) should give some indication
on what is the correct version.

Th "bad" news in my opinion is - the fact that 2 of the very few available
documents are contradicting gives me a 'dingbat' alert ;) - does anyone understand
this stuff well enough to proof the math, show that simple code (likes spony's )
does the right thing, and tell us what it means :)

For example, "E" in (9.9), p5, in alpha_3, has an additional sqrt() sign, and
tells us to divide like '(1-sqrt(eta(k,q))) / (1+sqrt(eta(k,q)))^2'. Now, "D"
tells us '(1-sqrt(eta(k,q))) * (1+sqrt(eta(k,q)))^2'. There is also fun
with the exponent (2k +1).

Anyway, by improving Constants.Java and and N3(), I can get some code which
is more readable. Happy to post it. However, somebody has to work out the math
fundament in a correct way.

If you want to have a credible theory, which is meant as input for empirical testing,
then at least your formula's should be correct and consistent. Do the Innsbruck guys
have a word of wisdom?

Or, does anyone have enough stamina to make the code work to predict the right
numbers? That would also make it clear which formula's are correct.

Good Elf

26th January 2006 - 10:39 PM

Hi spony, hdeasy, will314159, leovinus, TRoc, metronhead et al,

Heim has passed on and his ideas are "difficult". Still this is worthy of some clarity and leovinus's criticism is far too premature, better minds than ours have looked at the theory and have reported that it has value.

I think spony is doing a marvelous job here. He is showing true creative flair. "Rome was not built in a day". If spony is able to get working code that mostly reproduces the Innsbruck Groups results this will settle many criticisms. Spony has found a couple of English language versions of the mass formula paper from Blam. There are two versions of it (revisions I guess, 1989 paper is the one mostly used... link below). There is also a table of values that the group has published to generate the known particle spectrum. Of great interest would be values of mass for all the prospective Higg's Bosons. If this "works"... Heim's name will be in "lights".

You are right that it is complicated but the code is dead simple so far but the interpretation is the hard part. Spony is trying to do that bit and it is "just missing it by that much". The end result should be able to be understood by most.. as a formula... as long a spony's brain does not have a "short"...

Heim's Mass Formula in English
There might be some problems with the final interpretation but it is incredibly difficult since it is not conventional Physics and it is a "pure formula" to me at this stage. Still it is producing something that is "quite remarkable" right now.

Anyone can run this code with Sun Java installed. The only difference in Dos Boxes is the use of the "append" to file command (this ">>" not this ">") and to read the text files (*.java) with a Unix File Editor such as Programmers File Editor (Freeware) .

Spony has broken the problem into a number of separate classes.. constants.java (standard universal constants used), QN.java (the generation of the Heim "quantum number"), SelfCouplingFunction.java (Heim's "self coupling function"), MainFunctions.java (the main calculation block using the forgoing four blocks), HeimUnit.java (a "text table" to input his "UnitCase" function to call the main functions and review as output (to console) all the masses of the fundamental particles, along with an evaluation of "goodness of fit"). I admit I haven't a clue what this stuff means but it is "becoming" transparent as a bland calculation. The program will be much easier than the original Innsbruck Fortran and is being produced "independently". Where virtually nobody can run the old Fortran code... everyone can run Java (for free). It could even be made into an applet.

Spony's code page...
Heim Mass Formula in Java ... work in progress

Some other sites/documents that may have been missed by Dröscher and Lietz...
Heim's Research Group at Innsbruck
Comment by the author of the Article in New Scientist on Physorg
Guidelines For a Space Propulsion Device Based on Heim's Quantum Theory Dröscher, W., Häuser, J.
Dröscher on Heim and other topics

Cheers

mdda123

26th January 2006 - 10:59 PM

Just a quick observation, but in spony's "g - EQUATION B25 (p13, 1989 formula)" in the SelfCouplingFunction.java Class, the final term :
"(H(k)*(k-1))"
should probably be
"(H(k-1))"
to match the paper.

Hopefully, using 'many eyes' on this will let us iterate to a fully matching version quickly.

Making this into an applet would also be good, since we could then investigate (by trial and error) what error bars on the constants used (such as G) imply for the error bars on the final masses, etc.

Regards, Martin

spony

27th January 2006 - 12:03 AM

Hello folks,

Lots of activity in here! I thank everyone that is contributing to the debuging process. Unfortunately i just haven't had any time to examine the code today (I did however spend some 10 hours yesterday scouting for errors to no avail).

Anyways my conclussion yesterday was that the 1989 note must not represent the Heim-Theory Groups code in many instances. So I must admit that it does not suprise me that leovinus discovered the 1989 note is inconsistent with the german derivation note (I just hadn't thought of looking there yet).

Regarding what the inconsistencies between the notes mean, well that's really anyones guess in my opinion. Also i might as well say now that the derivation of Heims Mass Formula is out of my league, which is why my motivation is solely concerned with discovering the correct equations to calculate particle masses and perhaps see if they can be calculated even more precisely (better constants, better precision). I'd say that if this is possible it is some indication that Heims Mass Formula does truely predict particles in the physical world.

To mdda123 thanks for your email today i did read it. I actualy had thought that it might be H(k-1) however most of the time H is refered to without parameters, so i think it would be strange if they suddenly refered to it in that way there. My understanding is that the 1989 note uses subscripts to describe such situations (I think there's actualy a comment in the 1982 or 1989 note to that effect.). Besides even with that interpretation the intermediate results A(1) and A(2) are still incorrect so...

Regards Martin

Good Elf

27th January 2006 - 01:40 AM

Hi Martin (spony),

There is no rush here, it has taken decades to come to light, a few days or even weeks is nothing. I quite understand you "problem" with the Physics. You are quite right to be critical with the documentation, it is quite "obscure" as Physics. It probably no longer has "the masters hand" on it so transcription errors are occurring with the "scribes". If problems occur with these scientific formula in such short historical periods, imagine just how corrupted the message in the Bible has become over 2000 years and more?

That is no criticism of anyone at all. Heim's Theory is "off the map" in terms of ordinary Physics. This theory could have come from another planet, it would still be quite hard to interpret. Even his closest associates would have great difficulty.

There are lots of subtlety here and you are on the very edge of it. If you succeed in interpreting Heim's Theory in this program it would go a long way to giving his theory credit. This would sort out what it could really mean. If it does get the masses of real world particles it will have done something no other theory has achieved to date. If correct then his theory about Interstellar Travel gains a great deal of credibility and it would be the basis of a Unified Field Theory similar to Einsteins and based on Geometrodynamics.

Do you think it may be possible to predict the masses of the various Higgs Particles...
Higgs Boson Search
New Higgs estimates

Cheers

aoeu

27th January 2006 - 07:30 AM

In N3 you made an error here:

((1-Constants.alphaMinus())/(Constants.alphaPlus()))*
should be
(1-Constants.alphaMinus()/Constants.alphaPlus())*

This generates the connerrect value for N3(2,1) in addition to N3(1,1) if you set u to 2*Pi*e, but the rest are still incorrect.

hdeasy

27th January 2006 - 08:21 AM

QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 27 2006, 01:40 AM)

Do you think it may be possible to predict the masses of the various Higgs Particles...
Higgs Boson Search
New Higgs estimates

Cheers

Hi Spony, will314159, leovinus, TRoc, Good_Elf, metronhead et al,

First to make it clear: the Higgs particle is one thing Heim will not predict! This is because by the very nature of the mass assignment process, it is not a Higgs mechanism that gives the mass but the 'protosimplexes' or aspects of the 6-D fluxes projecting into 4-D.

Then on the inconsistencies in the various notes on Heim-theory.com - Dr. Mueller of the Innsbruck group already said that in the next few days he is going over that, comparing with his code and the original hand written manuscript from Heim. Maybe there he'll find some problems.

Though he doesn't want to make the code available yet, I can at least list the Fortran routines for comparison with the Java - one or two naming similarities, not surprisingly perhaps:

Hprog.f (MAIN program)
Ibin.f (Binomial coefficients function)
WN0fu.f
compini.f
detailini.f
detailout.f
etaqk.f
fmass.f
thetaqk.f
const.fi
hprogin.dat

Sizes in bytes
845 Aug 10 11:45 Ibin.f
7086 Aug 11 07:22 compini.f
641 Aug 11 07:23 detailini.f
728 Aug 11 07:24 detailout.f
244 Aug 11 07:25 etaqk.f
4093 Aug 11 07:26 fmass.f
162 Aug 11 07:26 thetaqk.f
7004 Aug 11 07:34 Hprog.f
7310 Aug 12 07:17 WN0fu.f

Binary
24840 Aug 12 15:29 ../bin/Hprog.bin

[[FONT=Courier]
Some of the output from a recent run:

Name MeV/c**2 a1 a2 a3 W(N=0) fi
e- 0.5110010 35. 11. 8.99677E+01 2.87889E+10 0.00000E+00
p 938.2749363 0. 23. 8.42294E+01 1.46628E+31 9.28034E+00
n 939.4217465 0. 36. 1.01150E+02 1.50198E+31 9.28034E+00

[FONT=Courier]

Good Elf

27th January 2006 - 08:39 AM

Hi hdeasy,

QUOTE

First to make it clear: the Higgs particle is one thing Heim will not predict!
He he he... I didn't want to hear that!

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

First to make it clear: the Higgs particle is one thing Heim will not predict!
He he he... I didn't want to hear that!

it is not a Higgs mechanism that gives the mass but the 'protosimplexes' or aspects of the 6-D fluxes projecting into 4-D.
Could these give a particle "like the Higgs" with Higgs properties a mass? You never know... I am not too keen on the Higgs myself but the Standard Model Predicted the Higgs so it may exist in some transformed incarnation? I see that there are many "Higgs Bosons" in the Zoo. As I understand it Heim's Theory does not do well at predicting exactly just which particles exist? Once you have a particle and its properties you can then estimate it's mass? Is this correct?

I understand why he does not want to make the FORTRAN code available but there would be great advantages to Heim's Theory being available in Java. It could only do Heim's name a great service and boost his credibility. Your group could use this as well in your overall move to gain acceptance.

Cheers

spony

27th January 2006 - 08:44 AM

QUOTE

Vilvi

27th January 2006 - 08:48 AM

hdeasy

27th January 2006 - 02:37 PM

QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 27 2006, 08:39 AM)

Could these give a particle "like the Higgs" with Higgs properties a mass? You never know... I am not too keen on the Higgs myself but the Standard Model Predicted the Higgs so it may exist in some transformed incarnation? I see that there are many "Higgs Bosons" in the Zoo. As I understand it Heim's Theory does not do well at predicting exactly just which particles exist? Once you have a particle and its properties you can then estimate it's mass? Is this correct?

I understand why he does not want to make the FORTRAN code available but there would be great advantages to Heim's Theory being available in Java. It could only do Heim's name a great service and boost his credibility. Your group could use this as well in your overall move to gain acceptance.

Hi Good_Elf,

Heim Theory is good at predicting the particles - apparently it used to have a problem with this, in that there was a virtual continuum of masses. But Heim then derived a projection operator from R6 to R4 that filtered this almost-continuum through a much sparser quantized grid - this is what he called his 'World selector'. With this in place, the particles in the ground state reduced essentially to the ones we know, except that one or two extra ones were predicted - notably the neutral electron e0. The big question of critics of the theory (e.g. in the Wikipedia talk pages) was why is this e0 never observed? To this, Von Ludwiger replied that in 80's, at CERN a physicist told him that the e0 had not been ruled out and that indeed in cosmic rays there was a neutral lepton type particle sometimes detected which should have decayed in the long trip from the stars - implying infinite lifetime, as predicted for e0. Now the retort was that the only experiments recently done to exclude something like this were to rule out 'heavy neutral leptons'. But reading these articles it was not clear if they had just excluded heavy leptons, i.e. much heavier than the electron. Thus until it becomes clear hat the experiments cover the lower range as well, hope is there for e0. Should the worst come to the worst and it be totally ruled out, it is hoped that Heim theory would find that it is in fact forbidden by some as yet unknown constraint.

As for resonance particles, i.e. above the ground state - they are also predicted by the theory. I must look back to see if the world selector seriously decimates their ranks as well - I should think so. But as to whether a Higgs-type particle of very high mass is predicted, it's something that I will also have to look up.

On the unwillingness of Dr. Mueller to release the Fortran code - I believe he wants to write a paper based on the results and would need to wait until it is published until releasing the code. I think it's a great exercise for Spony to derive the Java implementation completely independently from the Fortran one. One exercise I want to do soon is plug in the current best estimate of G and then the value that was best in 1982 to see if (1) the values really get closer to the experimental ones and (2) the reproduced 1982 values are close to those generated at that time in DESY. That would be a great demonstration that the formula is not fudged - as no rigged up set of equaitions should behave precognitively.

Another thing to do on Monday, if I can get to some experimentation instead of woffling on the Forums (hey, but's that's even more fun (

) might be the Boese Conjecture ( http://groups.google.de/group/rec.arts.sf....577d11290f69bca ) of iteration on G until best fit is made to current measured particle masses - that would give the prediction for actual G. May not be simple if other factors cause uneven effects on different particles.

Haiko Lietz

27th January 2006 - 11:54 PM

Hello guys,

it's great to see this joint effort! I never imagined this when I wrote the New Scientist article. I think this kind of teamwork is really needed now. Heim derived the theory pretty much in isolation, basically due to his disablement. As Ludwiger said, this was both right and wrong; right because he managed to come up with something spectacularly important, and wrong because science lives by communication and peer review.

Congratulations on the Java program! There's no need to hurry. In the meantime let me point you towards this open letter by the research group.

Best wishes!

Haiko

spony

28th January 2006 - 01:04 AM

QUOTE

Hi all,

Checking 1982 formula and 1989 formula, you can see that in F function of 1989 (formula B5) there is no N1 term after first bracket. (The formula B5 corresponds to H in 1982 formula XI). Also, in spony's code isn't this term. Adding this term in F function in the "MainFunctions" module we can improve several masses.

We are in contact. smile.gif

 Great observation Vilvi, considering the drastic improvements to the particle mass calculations I think we should asume that the term was simply forgotten in the 1989 version. In the current code I'm running the improvements are the following (the left side representing code with the forgotten term):

CODE

[spony@camel23:...code_branch_2]$ diff -y -I result 1982.txt 1989.txt

=====> Mass Lepton e_+- INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Lepton e_+- INCORRECT!!!
result: 0.5069433094351814 result: 0.5069433094351814
table: 0.51099891844 table: 0.51099891844
diff: 0.0040556090048186055 diff: 0.0040556090048186055

=====> Mass Lepton e_0 INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Lepton e_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 0.51615472229441 result: 0.51615472229441
table: 0.51617049 table: 0.51617049
diff: 1.5767705590086223E-5 diff: 1.5767705590086223E-5

=====> Mass Lepton mu INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: 105.64624350477573 result: 105.83835701456276
table: 105.658389 table: 105.658389
diff: 0.012145495224274327 | diff: 0.17996801456276046

=====> Mass Messon pi_+- INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Messon pi_+- INCORRECT!!!
result: 139.56546983144233 result: 139.8052858816514
table: 139.57018 table: 139.57018
diff: 0.004710168557664929 | diff: 0.2351058816514069

=====> Mass Messon pi_0 INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Messon pi_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 134.9678082255353 result: 134.9678082255353
table: 134.9766 table: 134.9766
diff: 0.008791774464697255 diff: 0.008791774464697255

=====> Mass Messon eta INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Messon eta INCORRECT!!!
result: 548.7714990547316 result: 548.7714990547316
table: 547.3 table: 547.3
diff: 1.4714990547316802 diff: 1.4714990547316802

=====> Mass Messon K_+- INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Messon K_+- INCORRECT!!!
result: 493.78981947899103 result: 494.38805625641464
table: 493.677 table: 493.677
diff: 0.11281947899101397 | diff: 0.7110562564146221

=====> Mass Messon K_0 INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Messon K_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 497.73736153457315 result: 497.73736153457315
table: 497.672 table: 497.672
diff: 0.06536153457312821 diff: 0.06536153457312821

=====> Mass Baryon p INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Baryon p INCORRECT!!!
result: 938.2253400146225 result: 938.2253400146225
table: 938.27231 table: 938.27231
diff: 0.04696998537747277 diff: 0.04696998537747277

=====> Mass Baryon n INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Baryon n INCORRECT!!!
result: 939.5187295870255 result: 939.5187295870255
table: 939.56563 table: 939.56563
diff: 0.046900412974537176 diff: 0.046900412974537176

=====> Mass Baryon lambda INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Baryon lambda INCORRECT!!!
result: 1115.5657137735054 result: 1115.5657137735054
table: 1115.683 table: 1115.683
diff: 0.11728622649457066 diff: 0.11728622649457066

=====> Mass Baryon sigma_+ INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Baryon sigma_+ INCORRECT!!!
result: 1189.3476753491802 result: 1190.4949560797256
table: 1189.37 table: 1189.37
diff: 0.02232465081965529 | diff: 1.1249560797257345

=====> Mass Baryon sigma_- INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Baryon sigma_- INCORRECT!!!
result: 1197.2684831502972 result: 1198.4157638808426
table: 1197.449 table: 1197.449
diff: 0.18051684970282622 | diff: 0.9667638808425636

=====> Mass Baryon sigma_0 INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Baryon sigma_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 1192.4141690861554 result: 1192.4141690861554
table: 1192.642 table: 1192.642
diff: 0.2278309138446275 diff: 0.2278309138446275

=====> Mass Baryon xi_- INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Baryon xi_- INCORRECT!!!
result: 1321.194429835963 result: 1322.3417105665085
table: 1321.32 table: 1321.32
diff: 0.1255701640368443 | diff: 1.0217105665085455

=====> Mass Baryon xi_0 INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Baryon xi_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 1314.651905919428 result: 1314.651905919428
table: 1314.9 table: 1314.9
diff: 0.24809408057217297 diff: 0.24809408057217297

=====> Mass Baryon omega_- INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Baryon omega_- INCORRECT!!!
result: 1672.4382250073816 result: 1675.0214731598894
table: 1672.45 table: 1672.45
diff: 0.011774992618484248 | diff: 2.571473159889365

=====> Mass Baryon delta_++ INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Baryon delta_++ INCORRECT!!!
result: 1235.4705307393078 result: 1248.1339956095753
table: 1232.0 table: 1232.0
diff: 3.470530739307833 | diff: 16.133995609575322

=====> Mass Baryon delta_+ INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Baryon delta_+ INCORRECT!!!
result: 1235.9515764190307 result: 1237.098857149576
table: 1232.0 table: 1232.0
diff: 3.9515764190307436 | diff: 5.098857149575906

=====> Mass Baryon delta_0 INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Baryon delta_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 1235.9514005135957 result: 1235.9514005135957
table: 1232.0 table: 1232.0
diff: 3.9514005135956722 diff: 3.9514005135956722

=====> Mass Baryon delta_- INCORRECT!!! =====> Mass Baryon delta_- INCORRECT!!!
result: 1231.16168053911 result: 1232.3089612696551
table: 1232.0 table: 1232.0
diff: 0.838319460890034 | diff: 0.3089612696551285

Only the very last displayed particle is less precise. Leovinus has also contributed with a significant number of improvements especialy to the physical constants class, so I plan on posting an updated version tonight.

Hey Haiko, great article! I read it sometime around the 6th of january. It was my introduction to Heim Theory.

Regards Martin

Good Elf

28th January 2006 - 01:36 AM

Hi Haiko Lietz ad HDEasy, spony et al,

Thanks HDEasy for your reply... The issue of the neutral electron may not be a very difficult point in the end, it may actually be found in the future and this would be a plus. Maybe the neutral electron is actually an electron neutrino in unusual resonance circumstances when we measure the full electron mass? These particles may not be counted in current experiments. The rest of what you said seems to be very positive.

If the program that spony is developing works fully then it will be a cinch to test the Boese Conjecture as mentioned by HDEasy by just substituting the various values for G into spony's Java Code. As also mentioned it could also get it "very wrong" and derive misleading results. At the moment it would appear to be "premature" until the bugs are ironed out. I think it would be good if spony tells us when his code is ready or at least "better". The DESY results may have had some early undetected problems and that may retrospectively upset the result, it seems some corrections have been made over a period. I wonder if there is an exact track of these slight modifications over time... and to what exactly?

I can understand Dr Mueller's wish to publish. The already published papers should be "corrected" where and when the omissions may have occurred. It is very understandable that Heim himself had great difficulties to overcome regards the editing of his own documents. His work should be edited to best represent his vision. This way his work will gain the credit that it is due.

There seems to be reason to hope that it has real merit, especially the 8 dimensional extension to the idea.

What I notice is a description of mass as very close to Peter Higgs view of how mass arises. I quote...

QUOTE (Abstract:Heim’s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures+)

This lead to the conclusion that space must be composed of a 6-dimensional geometric lattice of very small cells bounded on all sides by metrons. The existence of metrons requires our usual infinitesimal calculus to be replaced by one of finite areas. The unperturbed lattice represents empty vacuum. Local deformations of the lattice indicate of something other than empty space. If the deformation is of the right form and complexity it acquires the property of mass and inertia. Elementary particles are complex dynamical systems of locally confined interacting lattice distortions. Thus the theory geometricizes the world by viewing it as a huge assemblage of very small deformations of a 6-dimensional lattice in vacuum. The theory also has significant consequences for cosmology.

It would suggest that there is some correspondence between this theory and Peter Higgs concepts of the arising of mass. I do not think the idea is 100% correct but I am sure that others will have different opinions.

Cheers

PS: Congratulations spony. These messages crossed paths... is this code on the site now? ... Forget that I will wait.

spony

28th January 2006 - 02:35 AM

The site is now updated with the recent improvements/modifications.

Heim Mass Formula Program

Regards Martin

spony

28th January 2006 - 05:52 PM

I've had alot of success in finding errors concerning the 'self-couplings' function today. These were simply basic errors in the code. Because of this I've posted another incremental version.

The self-couplings function no longer returns absurd results such as NaN and Infinity so I've now included it in the mass equation per default. Also the self-couplings function is now erronous solely because W is. If correct values for W are substituted it seems the self-couplings function gives correct results. W is the following equation in the 1989 note:

user posted image

At this point W returns enormous values around 10^50 to 10^100 which are completely wrong compared to the Selected Results note. This is either because the equation for W is incorrect or because x is incorrect. x is the following equation in the 1989 note:

user posted image

It returns values around 100, and equation W then raises e to this value, which seems to be the reason the values for W are so enormous.

Does anyone have any insight?

Regards Martin

metronhead

28th January 2006 - 06:23 PM

Hi guys-

This is slightly off topic, but maybe it does give us an idea of what sort of mind we are dealing with, with Heim:

Heim was apparently the inventor, at least on the German side, of the idea to use explosive implosion of a sphere of uranium or plutonium to reach critical mass and so detonate a nuclear weapon. This is the idea that makes nuclear weapons really practical, and small enough to be put on missiles, and it is used on all modern nuclear weapons, and also in the nuclear triggers of fusion bombs.

Wikipedia, Burkhard Heim

QUOTE

In 1943 he met Heisenberg who was involved in German atom bomb research at that time and told him of his plan to use chemical implosion to facilitate an atomic explosion. This design was based on his idea he developed for a 'clean' hydrogen bomb when he was 18. Heisenberg was impressed by Heim's knowledge, but thought the approach would be impractical. (Ten years later, Heim's design was used in the first such bomb.)

At that point Heim had to do military service in the German air force. He sent a paper on explosives to the Chemical-Technical 'Reichsanstalt' in Berlin, whereupon he was summoned to work there on the development of the proposed new explosives. It was here that he met with the accident that handicapped him for life.
 
Apparently he met with Heisenberg in 1943, at the age of 18, and told him of his idea, which was based on an idea for a "clean" hydrogen bomb. Apparently Heim speculated that if chemical explosives were developed that detonated rapidly enough, and if a sphere of explosive lenses were detonated at the same time, hydrogen at the center of the sphere could be compressed and heated enough to spark a fusion reaction. Heim apparently told Heisenberg that the same scheme could be used for nuclear weapons using fissionable material. Heisenberg dismissed the idea as impractical, and sent Heim on his way. Heisenberg, though, did acknowledge Heim's potential.

But Heisenberg was, at the time, cooperating (?) with a German atomic bomb program. The funny thing was, it seems, that lots of things went wrong with that program. Heisenberg's calculation of the critical mass went awry, for example- he forgot to figure in the random "drunkard's walk" nature of the process, and his calculation mistakenly overestimated the amount of fissionable material necessary- saying that tons of fissionable material would be needed, instead of pounds. Measurements of some critical nuclear parameters such as the nuclear cross section of carbon were screwed up. According to the book Heisenberg's War, all of these things appear to add up to a covert program of discouragement- Heisenberg apparently did not want Hitler to get the nuclear bomb first, and so he consistently argued that the program would be much too difficult for Germany to accomplish during the war. According to Heisenberg's War an American intelligence agent met socially with Heisenberg during the war, with orders to feel out his politics and assassinate him if necessary, to slow the German bomb project. That intelligence agent left without assassinating Heisenberg, and reported back to Washington that Heisenberg was certainly "no Nazi", and should be left in place.

And then Heim shows up- with his explosive implosion idea that would take Heisenberg's calculations of critical mass and overturn them. Explosive implosion is the way that even very small nuclear weapons- including the new generation of "mini-nukes" are constructed. So if Heim's ideas became well known, Germany would need, not tons of nuclear material, but grams, or tens of grams, instead. Heisenberg's critical mass calculations might be reexamined, and eventually found to be wrong. Heim, not knowing it, may have been inserting himself into a very dangerous, extremely high stakes game of international espionage- an effort to keep Hitler from getting the bomb first.

Heisenberg dismissed Heim's idea as impractical, and sent Heim on his way. Heim was then drafted into the Air Force, and wrote a letter outlining his ideas to his superiors, and was then summoned to do explosives research. During his work there, at the age of 19, he was involved in a "tragic accident" that put him out of commission for the duration of the war, and came very close to killing him.

The Americans, either hearing of Heim's ideas or independently inventing them, work on explosive implosion, too, and it becomes the standard way of setting off nuclear weapons- making them small enough, and reliable enough to be put on missiles and carried easily in airplanes.

Heim studies physics, starting in 1946, and gets increasingly suspicious and reclusive. There are hints, though, that both Washington and Moscow were keenly interested in Heim's ideas. Tapes of his few lectures go missing, and are rumored to end up in Washington or Moscow. He sets up a private foundation to fund his ideas on space flight, and the money gets stolen. He worries incessantly about plagiarism of his ideas.

I might as well be honest- I wonder if the explosion that took Heim's hands and most of his vision was an accident at all. Certainly, there were lots of people on both sides, who would kill or maim to prevent Hitler from getting the bomb.

I wonder if that explosion denied the world a unified field theory- and wonder as well if it brought a unified field theory to the world.

A lot of this is speculation- the historical view that Heisenberg was covertly stalling the German bomb project is a minority view. Wikipedia - Heisenberg. Critics of this view point to covert recordings made of the detained German bomb physicists after the war, discounting the possibility that Heisenberg may have known he was being recorded or may have been lying to his physicist friends. Heisenberg claimed after the war that he was secretly aiding the allies, but most historians don't believe him. Heisenberg's War is a fascinating read, though.

If Heim was the inventor of the idea of explosive implosion of fissile material, the intelligence agencies on both sides of the cold war might have had a very keen interest in him, indeed.

Question- was his "clean bomb" fusion idea quantitatively wrong? Is it possible to set off a fusion reaction with a sphere of explosive lenses, given a sufficiently rapid and powerful chemical explosive? The laser implosion ideas are similar, of course, but what about chemical explosives?

mdda123

28th January 2006 - 08:16 PM

On the value of x=...

If you replace (1/4)(B) with (1/(4B)) things seem to get a lot closer.

Zephir

28th January 2006 - 09:03 PM

QUOTE (metronhead+Jan 28 2006, 09:23 PM)

was his "clean bomb" fusion idea quantitatively wrong? Is it possible to set off a fusion reaction with a sphere of explosive lenses, given a sufficiently rapid and powerful chemical explosive?

You decide..

spony

28th January 2006 - 09:08 PM

QUOTE

On the value of x=...

If you replace (1/4)(

with (1/(4B)) things seem to get a lot closer.

 Looks like you're right mdda123! The values for W become almost identical (off by 10^-5) if you also plug in the correct values for A. So the only remaining question concerning the self-couplings function is why A gives the wrong values....That and the few particles which still give incorrect values for a1, a2 and a3.

Then the question is why the particles mass predictions are still slightly off compared to the heim-theory groups predictions. Perhaps something concerning the main functions. Also N5 and N6 are slightly off (10^-5).

metronhead

28th January 2006 - 10:52 PM

Hi Zephir-

QUOTE

QUOTE (metronhead @ Jan 28 2006, 09:23 PM)
was his "clean bomb" fusion idea quantitatively wrong? Is it possible to set off a fusion reaction with a sphere of explosive lenses, given a sufficiently rapid and powerful chemical explosive?

You decide..
 Dunno, all sarcasm aside. Quantitative question, isn't it? Depends on the math, doesn't it? Depends also on the rapidity of the explosion, the specific chemical explosives, I guess. I really don't know what sorts of pressures and temperatures are possible inside a shock wave at the center of an exploding sphere of high explosive lenses. Apparently, there is enough pressure and temperature at the heart of such a sphere to lower the critical mass enough to make mini-nukes and fusion bomb triggers possible. The "Davy Crocket" bomb, for example has a yield of 0.01 to 1 kilotons (the whole bomb only weighs 23 kg), while the uncompressed critical mass of plutonium is approximately 10 kg- which would result in a much larger explosion. If one critical mass of plutonium yields an explosion of 22 kilotons (the size of the Nagasaki blast) does this mean that the Davy Crockett bomb has only 500 grams of plutonium? Fusion bomb triggers are apparently even smaller.

Wikipedia- nuclear weapon yield

But Heim apparently thought a clean fusion bomb, using only hgh explosives and hydrogen was possible, at the age of 18.

Probably, though, the pressures and temperatures are not enough to jumpstart a fusion reaction.

Could be wrong, though.

A "clean bomb" would put a little crimp in our nuclear nonproliferation efforts, wouldn't it?

Let's ask the Defense Dept. I'm sure they'll tell us.

But we've strayed from the subject- Heim's mass formula. My bad- sorry!

mdda123

28th January 2006 - 11:14 PM

Ok, I'm not claiming any great insight here, but ...

If in the function for g = Q1^2 + Q2^2 + ~Q3^2 + ~c

we replace the powers of the Q : g = Q1^3 + Q2^2 + ~Q3^1 + ~c

(so that we've got the same form as 10.8 in D)
we get a pretty good match for A() too.

private static double g_new(double k) {
return (Math.pow(QN.Q1(k), 3) +
Math.pow(QN.Q2(k), 2) +
((Math.pow(QN.Q3(k), 1)/k)*Math.pow(Math.E, k-1)) +
Math.pow(Math.E, ((1-(2*k))/3)) -
(H(k)*(k-1)));
}

spony

28th January 2006 - 11:39 PM

Hmm that is interesting....I guess the question is what is incorrect the equation or the Selected Results.

Guest_Neil farbstein

28th January 2006 - 11:54 PM

QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 28 2006, 01:36 AM)

QUOTE (Abstract:Heim’s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures+)

What relationship is there between the Heim theory and the Aether theory. It seems that Heim's theory is some type of ether theory with an absolute frame of reference the "cellular"space-time that replaced infinitesimal space-time seems to be an absolute frame of reference, something that Einstein said is impossible. All of the results of relativity theory that have been proved to umteen decimal places would have to be predicted by Heim's theory too.

mdda123

28th January 2006 - 11:55 PM

Guest_Neil farbstein

29th January 2006 - 12:02 AM

QUOTE (Guest_Neil farbstein+Jan 28 2006, 11:54 PM)

QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 28 2006, 01:36 AM)

QUOTE (Abstract:Heim’s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures+)

This is the first time I heard of this theory in detail and the first time I have been told about metrons. Quantum foam seems to be a similar concept but without an absolute frame of reference. What does Heim's theory predict about the graininess of space-time or the emission of virtual particles by the event horizon near black holes or quantum black holes.

spony

29th January 2006 - 12:20 AM

QUOTE

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

But with the new g() we get A() correct to >7dp. And haven't we been using the values of A() from the Selected Results to calibrate everything else?

OTOH, I know that spotting that making exponent changes was a bit of a fluke. But looking at the sloppy way in which inline division (1/4B) and inline sqrt() (equation 9.9 vs IX)...

 Yes you're right that we've used the Selected Results values in calibrating phi today (I forgot that for a moment). But I think we should still keep an open mind concerning whether the selected results have been correctly calculated (Perhaps A was calculated incorrectly and so the Selected Results concerning phi are also incorrect. Who knows). And yeah, the 1989 note definitly is ambiguous in some places.

I'm having a dig into the a1,a2,a3 functions. Looking at the tests set up in HeimUnit, the Baryon delta tests are going to be difficult to satisfy, since the parameters of the particles are identical, but the results ought to differ. Where are the 'q' values coming from?

unitCase(SelfCouplingFunction.a1(2, 1, 3, 3, 0), 23, "a1 Baryon delta_+");
unitCase(SelfCouplingFunction.a1(2, 1, 3, 3, 0), 21, "a1 Baryon delta_-");

 Yeah I've noticed that too.....I think they've accidentaly interchanged two results because if the table results for Baryon delta ++ are switched with Baryon delta - , everything seems to work out. Also i think the same may be the case for Baryon delta + and Baryon delta - concerning a2.

QUOTE

Where are the 'q' values coming from?

 The values for q are defined as the absolute values of epsilon_q. See p2 and p3 1982.

Regards Martin

Good Elf

29th January 2006 - 02:00 AM

Hi Guest_Neil farbstein (sign on Neil

QUOTE (Guest_Neil farbstein Posted on Jan 29 2006+ 12:02 AM)

Well I have had a brief look into this problem (I thought about writing something but I am a greenhorn with this theory). Your questions are persistent but I suppose I can give it my best shot. What I see (from my point of view) is you are right that Heim reduces his space to Cartesian coordinates. However he then scales everything using his relationships v/v-prime = C/C-prime. Where this relates the the ratio of the speed of light and an absolute velocity to be a constant at any other velocity. It has a singularity at v = 0. Maybe there is no case where v = 0 in Heim's Theory.

This goes some way towards forming a covariant form of this system and reducing the physics between various relatively moving systems to something like a Lorentz invariance (preserving the laws of physics at any velocity). I do not know if it is right but it leads to an unusual function that differs from the inverse square law (just a little). His metrons to my way of thinking appear to form little cubes in space (actually little boxes with a metron on each face... close packed). The added "dimensions" are parameters that describe the way each box face behaves in space. All this (Universe) could be reduced to an array of points at the corners of the cubes (or the corners of the "flat" square metrons) in a cubic array "lattice" existing in all space-time. Matter (mass) deforms this elastic array "lattice" locally by "stretching" and this is "similar" function to the Stress Energy Tensor in Einstein's Theory. This is a discretized "absolute" frame version the continuous and covariant space-time of Einstein.

I guess you could talk in terms of Aether, but I think it is easier to refer to it in terms of a deformed "absolute" space-time in Cartesian coordinates. The relativistic covariance is "restored" (or partially restored) by this velocity independent scaling of the speed of light so all moving (absolute frames) note the speed of light unchanged relative to the particles (absolute) velocity. A mass particle moving through this lattice distorts the nearby points in the array creating "stresses" in this lattice". This leads to a velocity dependent scale for space. In Heim's cosmology the Universe started with one very big metron (a 3D cubic box I assume, with eight points in the corners made from 6 flat metrons with associated parameters as "dimensions"). The universe did not expand it just increased the number of metrons until they reached the number in the Universe we have today (the boxes are now around the size of a Planck Volume). This scaling factor of v/C reinterprets this idea for general relativity if you say the speed of light is constant then from a single unit of volume (at around the Planck Volume) the universe expands into many more units of volume till the size of the Universe is the same as in Heim's Universe today (in Heim's Universe everything in it just keeps getting smaller with time as metrons keep getting smaller). Hubble Expansion into an expanding space says distance between points is actually really getting bigger by "expansion". These two views are reconciled by this "Heim scaling". There is a distance range in Heim's Universe where something like Rindler Foliation occurs (the equivalent to the function in General Relativity).

This bears an uncanny resemblance to Peter Higgs deformed lattice idea of mass symmetry breaking and is a theory for how this occurs. It is probably due to this function and the way this "space-time" deforms that result in an energy function whose area under the 4D curve when correctly added up gives the mass of any particle subject to a rather "difficult" process of "accounting". I have no idea at all how that part works and it is a guess on my behalf based on the rest of the theory I have read. This is why the maths is "non-calculus" and "discrete" since it relies on these little boxes and the way the system is distorted because the properties of the faces on the box are the "extra parametric dimensions".

This way Heim gets a figure for the speed of light and the number of times "in absolute terms" relative to a selected base zero velocity. His theory then allows Hyperlight travel. The rest of his theory is pretty conventional once you are able to modify mass using his magnetic field and spinning disk principle to "release" graviphotons... which reduce mass. This is a modified form of Poynting's Law in Electromagnetics but for "mass"? I notice that Heim's spaceship takes several months to "build up speed" before the mass is reduced to 1/10000th the normal mass. Thus through conservation of momentum the Heim vessel gets a boost in velocity to many times the "unscaled" speed of light. The spaceship then coasts to the star system "inertially". What I would like to point out is this build up period would not be necessary. Immediately reducing mass then accelerating would be far more efficient and acceleration while in the mass reduced state by simple reaction will be vastly more efficient. In the documentation this is when Heim's spaceship is traveling inter-dimensionally. This correlation and mappings are not actually explained. It may be this elucidation is not necessarily since all travel can be related to the reference frame of "absolute" space.

In some ways (if this theory was correct or at least approximates the real world) the calculations are easier and more tractable than Einsteins Equations especially when you consider the great distances over which these relationships are needed to work. I do not see a "complete" Unified Field Theory in Heim's work but is a "tour de force" in producing practical mathematical results in intractable problems. Computers would "eat" his theory up being a simplified calculator for interstellar flight (if the rest of the theory worked). If Heim's Theory really is the way the Universe works then it will need some testing urgently. The guy from Sandia Labs should be allowed to test it ASAP.

There are some discrepancies between Heim's Theory and General Relativity. GR has been very well tested. That may be OK since we still use Newtonian Physics for our spacecrafts being the more practical system. What it does offer is another intermediate theory that assists in the bigger problem of TOE. For instance the SU(2) symmetry of space-time under relativistic phase rotation doesn't appear to be a part of this theory and mass "just exists" in his theory and deforms his space-time lattice. That is OK since he is able to calculate particle masses using universal constants and some of his derived quantum numbers and functions. This is a six dimensional calculation. It is very possible this theory could work (In at least one way it does... particle mass calculations). Heim's maths must be telling us something about particle masses so the Universe is at least in some way like this.

Heim's Theory is three dimensional but does introduce higher dimensional travel as naturally occurring phenomenon but not formally part of his theory. Why Heim does not deal with this at the start I do not know? Perhaps this is where his theory is a bit like David Bohme's Theory in being the result of hidden variables and this is where his mass is arising from.

There will be other interpretations of this concept for sure. The LQG people will see aether everywhere and I see that added dimensions to the theory may be a way to "force" unnatural embedding of Heim's theory into our Universe. I like strings and so on... It is a matter of personal choice what the individual believes. I think this is a step forward because it is a very practical implementation of his theory. I am sure you can make it fit any paradigm you like but that would be up to Philosophical interpretation until testing of this theory is performed. I even think it would be possible to couch this theory in Einsteins Unified Field Equation format with some extra functions added in.

Spony's efforts will be a great beacon of light on Heim's ideas, as is the work of the rest of the Heim Group. I do not know what all those equations mean... you just have to trust the "master" because in the end it does produce results.

This bit comes from the Heim Theory Page in Wikipedia (it is "disputed" as I am sure what I have written will be disputed as well)...

QUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory+)

As it was stated before, Heim Theory uses an 8-dimensional space. Different subsets of R8, that Heim called "hermetries", give rise to all the known particles and interactions:

* H1 = R3∪I2: gluons
* H2 = R3∪T1∪I2: color charges
* H3 = R3∪T1∪S2∪I2: W bosons
* H4 = R3∪S2∪I2: Z bosons
* H5 = T1∪S2∪I2: photons
* H6 = H6 (T1∪I2) * H7 (T1∪S2): weak charge
* H8 = R3∪S2: neutral particles with mass
* H9 = R3∪T1∪S2: particles with electric charge and mass
* H10 = I2: probability field
* H11 = S2∪I2: gravito-photon
* H12 = S2: graviton

Note that, according to Heim, either S2 or I2 (or both) is always necessary for interactions to take place. It's worth noting that Heim Theory predicts the existence of all the known 4 forces, along with 2 new gravitational-like forces:

* H1 predicts gluons, carriers of the strong nuclear force.
* H3 and H4 predicts the W bosons and Z boson, carriers of the weak nuclear force.
* H5 predicts photons, carriers of the electromagnetic force.
* H10 predicts quintessence, a weak gravitational-like repulsive force that would cause the expansion of universe.
* H11 predicts gravito-photons, as yet unobserved particles that would, theoretically, allow the conversion of an electromagnetic field into a gravitational-like field.
* H12 predicts gravitons, carriers of gravity.

These force carriers together also allow one to predict novel forms of space travel. Whether this holds true in practice remains controversial.

It is possible to add arbitary parametric dimensions to Heim's Theory but care should be taken to not invalidate his original thesis with personal views as to what Heim really thought. It could even damage Heim's reputation if the theory makes predictions that eventually are found to be in error.
$user posted image$
Only six of these dimensions are originally Heims. The top left 4x4 block is related to Einsteins Unified Field Theory, the next two dimensions are parameters added as metron "dimensions"... These are not actual physical dimensions. The next two blank rows and columns are there for 'extensions" into quantum field theory "and beyond". Dr. Droescher has extensions that increase this to 12 dimensions. With all these non-physical Dimensions you can build any theory in the Universe. It remains to be proved that for all the add-ins the theory remains "physical". This is "impossible to test" without an experiment and I hope it does not fall into the error of LQG in having nothing that is testible. Heim does apparently say his basic theory can be tested with the current loop and rotating ring configuration.

Cheers

duke_nemmerle

29th January 2006 - 12:22 PM

duke_nemmerle

29th January 2006 - 03:25 PM

Sorry to double post but did anyone else notice that the theory guesses the age of the universe at 5.45*10^107-something years old with a diameter of 6.37*10^109 light years. I guess it was in a different state(an empty metronic lattice) though up until between 15 and 45 billion years ago. I'm not saying this harms the theory, big bang has more things taped on to it every year to keep it current(ie it's no less concocted than people accuse this of)

http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/AuerbachJSE.pdf

In the cosmology section

Cosmic Foam

29th January 2006 - 05:40 PM

"All this (Universe) could be reduced to an array of points at the corners of the cubes (or the corners of the "flat" square metrons) in a cubic array "lattice" existing in all space-time"

Or I was thinking that you could array it like in a string way where the center of each face is a point equalling 6. A more consistant approach with a cube. I was also looking at the 6 dimensional Calabi-Yau manifold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi-Yau_manifold

So, I am basically working on a cube you can manipulate to see what numbers you get when stretched and then based off of the masses I would derive things like energy.

spony

29th January 2006 - 08:20 PM

QUOTE

Hey spony, concerning the values of q. Care was taken to mention that it was changed in the 1989 paper. Please have a look and let me know

I think there might be a problem with you not taking B2(1989 paper) into account. Or am I missing it somewhere? You might be using q wrong. I didn't check yet

 Up to this point I had simply been plugging in the values for q from those listed for particles in Selected Results (I had not been calculating them from either the 1982 or 1989 equations). Your comment made me suspicious though and to my huge suprise the values for q have been calculated from the equations listed in the 1982 note and not from the equation in the 1989 note.

I'm rather confused as to what this means....is the entire Selected Results simply mass precictions from the 1982 version of the Mass Formula? Considering it was published in 2003 i find this rather strange. On the otherhand as you say care was taken to mention that it was changed in the 1989 paper and since the equation only has one minor change I doubt it was mentioned incorrectly.

I haven't looked at how the new values for q effect the mass predictions, but i'll be doing that now.

Regards Martin

duke_nemmerle

29th January 2006 - 11:02 PM

Martin hopefully some new light can be shed by someone who knows the math when the derivation for the mass formula is translated. I'm not sure whether it's supposed to correspond to the 1989 or the 1982 formulas. It's certainly going to be beyond my grasp, but perhaps someone will have an insight.

spony

29th January 2006 - 11:38 PM

I haven't discovered anything conclusive but the site has been updated with new code:

Heim Mass Formula Program

I've added a particle class to represent particles. The equations which determine qx and q can now be found in this class. Also I've cleaned up the HeimUnit class.

Regards Martin

hdeasy

30th January 2006 - 09:00 AM

Hi Good_Elf!

Wonderful long analysis, all essentially correct. You have achieved a very good insight into the theory.

Vilvi

30th January 2006 - 11:25 AM

Hi, all

What a hard weekend, how much work and improvements!!. Yet now, I’m almost lost.

I would like to note something about eta(2,1) and eta(1,2), their values are different:

Eta (k=2, q=1)= 0,98516776358
Eta (k=1, q=2)= 0,86080722799

The question is that in several formulas the reference is eta(q,k) not eta(k,q). I don’t know exactly the implication of this fact, perhaps spony, who has all the code in his mind, could note something about this.

On the other hand, we can be optimist, I think the solution is near

, even these values can be considered good. Now the question is to understand the formulae’s derivation, not just understand the main lines of Heim theory, which is very important, but also go down to the “arena” and to repeat the calculus of Heim. I would like also that Heim’s group (or someone), could translate the original German documents, not just wait to have a corrected and definitive version, we just need something to work, more eyes reviewing the process. This is science, if the theory is good, congratulations, if not, why?, were is wrong?, which elements of this theory are useful?, how can be integrated in other theory?, etc.

To be continued…

Good Elf

30th January 2006 - 11:30 AM

Hi HDEasy,

QUOTE (hdeasy Posted on Jan 30 2006+ 09:00 AM)

Wonderful long analysis, all essentially correct. You have achieved a very good insight into the theory.

Thanks for that, at least it is not too far off the "garden path".

I still haven't a clue what all the equations are actually doing.

Cheers

spony

30th January 2006 - 12:53 PM

QUOTE

I would like to note something about eta(2,1) and eta(1,2), their values are different:

Eta (k=2, q=1)= 0,98516776358
Eta (k=1, q=2)= 0,86080722799

The question is that in several formulas the reference is eta(q,k) not eta(k,q). I don’t know exactly the implication of this fact, perhaps spony, who has all the code in his mind, could note something about this.

 Yes I've noticed this mystery also. It seems that the intermediate calculations of eta which are given are simply inversed with regards to the parameters when compared to what is used in the equations. That is they have calculated them correctly but not given the values which are actualy used in the equations. This is however not too big a problem since the eta values can still be used to 'calibrate' our code, so I'm not to worried about this.

While we're talking about eta (and theta) I'd like to mention that in the code the parameters for those two functions are switched (I did this because in all other references of the parameters k and q in the papers they are always mentioned in that order, except with regard to eta and theta). Also I'd like to mention that the reason phi (the self-couplings function) was giving results such as NaN and Infinity earlier on was because I had accidentaly given the parameters k and q in the wrong order to a call to the function eta (so i definitly think that we've coded the parameters for eta and theta in the correct order up to now).

The much bigger problem at this point in my opinion is the fact that it seems increasingly likely that the Selected Results paper is based on the 1982 results and not the 1989 results (perhaps only partial of the results were recalculated with the 1989 formula?). The fact that q does not correlate with 1989 but does with 1982 (from what I can tell) leads me to believe this.

But alas the week has started and I've become busy with other things again so I think I will wait and see what results from the reevaluation of the Heim-Theory Groups code with the equations in the various papers by Dr. Mueller. Alternatively if you have some spare time hdeasy perhaps you might consider generating the values for the Selected Results paper with the code you have?

Regards Martin

Cosmic Foam

30th January 2006 - 02:08 PM

QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 30 2006, 11:30 AM)

Hi HDEasy,

QUOTE (hdeasy Posted on Jan 30 2006+ 09:00 AM)

Wonderful long analysis, all essentially correct. You have achieved a very good insight into the theory.

Thanks for that, at least it is not too far off the "garden path".

I still haven't a clue what all the equations are actually doing.

Cheers

Yes I am still trying to understand what the '36 equations' represent as compared to Einsteins 16 from 4 dimentions. Does this calculate between each dimension point from the other?

Vilvi

30th January 2006 - 04:19 PM

QUOTE

The much bigger problem at this point in my opinion is the fact that it seems increasingly likely that the Selected Results paper is based on the 1982 results and not the 1989 results (perhaps only partial of the results were recalculated with the 1989 formula?). The fact that q does not correlate with 1989 but does with 1982 (from what I can tell) leads me to believe this.

Hi spony,

I think also that the good formulae are in 1982 paper, which at least is related to Heim paper “D_Zur_Herleitung_Der_Heimschen_Massenformel”, page 77.

I saw your last code (b0.04 version). In the “MainFunctions” module, you assign to F function the result of F1982 function (corresponding to H, formula XI in 1982 paper), but in 1982 formula there is no “SelfCouplingFunction.phi” at the end of H formula. Avoiding this term in F1982, the results obtained are better. With this small modification, we have:

=====> Mass Lepton e_- INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.5069433094351814
table: 0.51100343
diff: 0.004060120564818637
(HG)diff: 4.511560000031167E-6

=====> Mass Lepton e_0 INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.51615472229441
table: 0.51617049
diff: 1.5767705590086223E-5
(HG)diff: 0.0

=====> Mass Lepton mu INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 105.64624350477573
table: 105.65948493
diff: 0.013241425224279624
(HG)diff: 0.0010959300000052963

=====> Mass Messon pi_+- INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 139.56546983144233
table: 139.56837088
diff: 0.0029010485576748124
(HG)diff: 0.0018091199999901164

=====> Mass Messon pi_0 INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 134.9678082255353
table: 134.96004114
diff: 0.007767085535306251
(HG)diff: 0.016558860000003506

=====> Mass Messon eta INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 548.7714990547316
table: 548.80002432
diff: 0.02852526526839938
(HG)diff: 1.5000243200000796

=====> Mass Messon K_+- INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 493.78981947899103
table: 493.71425074
diff: 0.07556873899102357
(HG)diff: 0.0372507399999904

=====> Mass Messon K_0 INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 497.73736153457315
table: 497.72299959
diff: 0.014361944573181518
(HG)diff: 0.05099958999994669

=====> Mass Baryon p INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 938.2253400146225
table: 938.27959246
diff: 0.0542524453775286
(HG)diff: 0.007282460000055835

=====> Mass Baryon n INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 939.5187295870255
table: 939.57336128
diff: 0.05463169297445347
(HG)diff: 0.007731279999916296

=====> Mass Baryon lambda INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1115.5657137735054
table: 1115.59979064
diff: 0.03407686649461539
(HG)diff: 0.08320935999995527

=====> Mass Baryon sigma_+ INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1189.3476753491802
table: 1189.37409717
diff: 0.026421820819678032
(HG)diff: 0.004097170000022743

=====> Mass Baryon sigma_- INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1197.2684831502972
table: 1197.30443002
diff: 0.035946869702684126
(HG)diff: 0.1445699800001421

=====> Mass Baryon sigma_0 INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1192.4141690861554
table: 1192.47794854
diff: 0.06377945384451777
(HG)diff: 0.16405146000010973

=====> Mass Baryon xi_- INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1321.194429835963
table: 1321.29326013
diff: 0.09883029403681576
(HG)diff: 0.02673987000002853

=====> Mass Baryon xi_0 INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1314.651905919428
table: 1314.902062
diff: 0.25015608057196914
(HG)diff: 0.0020619999997961713

=====> Mass Baryon omega_- INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1672.4382250073816
table: 1672.17518902
diff: 0.2630359873814996
(HG)diff: 0.27481097999998383

=====> Mass Baryon delta_++ INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1235.4705307393078
table: 1232.91663788
diff: 2.55389285930778
(HG)diff: 0.916637880000053

=====> Mass Baryon delta_+ INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1235.9515764190307
table: 1234.60981181
diff: 1.3417646090306334
(HG)diff: 2.60981181000011

=====> Mass Baryon delta_0 INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1235.9514005135957
table: 1229.99529979
diff: 5.956100723595682
(HG)diff: 2.00470021000001

=====> Mass Baryon delta_- INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1231.16168053911
table: 1237.06132359
diff: 5.899643050890063
(HG)diff: 5.061323590000029

=====> C Messon pi+- GOOD
result: 0.0

=====> qx Messon pi+- INCORRECT!!!
result: 2.0
table: 1.0
diff: 1.0

=====> q Messon pi+- INCORRECT!!!
result: 2.0
table: 1.0
diff: 1.0

=====> Mass Messon pi_+- INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 136.0506949803107
table: 139.56837088
diff: 3.5176758996892943
(HG)diff: 0.0018091199999901164

=====> C Messon pi0 GOOD
result: 0.0

=====> qx Messon pi0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 1.0
table: 0.0
diff: 1.0

=====> q Messon pi0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 1.0
table: 0.0
diff: 1.0

=====> Mass Messon pi_0 INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 134.55431946310298
table: 134.96004114
diff: 0.4057216768970022
(HG)diff: 0.016558860000003506

=====> C Messon eta GOOD
result: 0.0

=====> qx Messon eta INCORRECT!!!
result: 1.0
table: 0.0
diff: 1.0

=====> q Messon eta INCORRECT!!!
result: 1.0
table: 0.0
diff: 1.0

=====> Mass Messon eta INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 547.834535346564
table: 548.80002432
diff: 0.9654889734359813
(HG)diff: 1.5000243200000796

Also, as you can see, the main phi function (not SelfCouplingFunction.phi) in 1982 paper is a sort of N5, N6 and the last term 4*q*alfa- . Perhaps, could be useful to programme the original phi function in its 1982 form (avoiding N5 and N6, and consequently, other induced errors).

Thanks,

metronhead

30th January 2006 - 09:09 PM

Hi Vilvi-

QUOTE

I would like also that Heim’s group (or someone), could translate the original German documents, not just wait to have a corrected and definitive version, we just need something to work, more eyes reviewing the process.
 Well, I've sent for the three books, plus the introductory booklet, even though I don't speak German. I still don't quite know what to do with them, other than study German. The preliminary plan is:

I don't think it would violate "fair use" regulations if I scanned the books into Word, then used Systrans to computer translate them, and placed the documents on a website that requires a password to access. Members of this group, and others who have a need, might then be able to access the documents, after asking for a password, and making a pledge not to violate "fair use" laws. Existing documents in both English and German might provide a specialized word list, and then I thought I might be able to use the "search and replace" function of Word to progressively make the translation better- leaving the equations completely alone. Then, perhaps German speaking members of the group might consent to review the translation and suggest improvements, and then a group of German speaking members or the Heim group themselves might agree on a consensus translation. Finally, the translation would be offered back to the original publisher for republication in English.

The plan would be to contact the publisher, and operate with their knowledge and consent. If the publisher does not approve, the whole deal is off.

I haven't actually gotten the books yet, nor do I have a copy of Systrans, although I plan to buy the .pdf translator program.

So far, I've had mixed results with the Google language tools translator- it tends to kind of mangle the equations, although with enough work, I think that the text could be copied into the Google language translator paragraph by paragraph, and then copied back into a master document. I hope that the Systrans .pdf translator will be better, and will leave the equations alone.

Haiko Lietz

30th January 2006 - 10:15 PM

metronhead et al.,

the research group writes:

QUOTE

A translation of his books is not intended as far as we know. In any case a revision would be necessary before.
 I still congratulate your plan. In any way, take a look at the original Heim paper at Protosimplex and all the stuff there.

The Protosimplex site is much much richer in German. You will find charts how to read the books. The books are extremely complicated to read, so I doubt it will make sense translating them with a machine. Imagine: Heim was blind. He dictated his thoughts to his wife. Gerda wrote all formulas without comprehending what she was doing. Turning those notes into books was an enormous piece of work already. In 1980 Walter Dröscher had become aware of Heim's first book and subsequently helped Heim revise it. Heim's books still need revision. This is what the research group is working on. And this needs to be done before they are translated. I have ordered two secondary literature books about Heim Theory, will see how detailed they are...

Greetings all, Haiko

hdeasy

31st January 2006 - 09:22 AM

Hi Spony et al.

It might help in debugging the JAVA to have a look at the detailed output from a run of the Fortran:

Note that I also get some big values using Dr. Mueller's code, so I'm doing something wrong, but it doesn't effect the mass calculations:

iprint = 1 iparm = 1 itab = 1
igam = 2 ialfpm = 2
******************************************************
Teilchenmassen nach B.Heim ( 1985 )
nur Grundzustaende N=0, Programm :April/Mai 2003
Stand : 5.5.2003, Lauf: 23-Jan-06
******************************************************

eingegebene Konstanten:
----------------------
Pi = 0.314159265358979D+01
base of natural logarithm: ebn = 0.271828182845905D+01
PlanckWirkungsquantum/2Pi: hq = 0.105457159600000D-33 [Ws*s]
speed of light : c = 0.299792458000000D+09 [m/s]
gravity constant: gam = 0.667320000000000D-10 [m**3/(kg*s*s)
Vakuum-Wellenwiderstand : Rg = 0.376730313461000D+03 [Ohm]
Feinstrukturkonstante: alfa = 0.729735253328589D-02
"starke" Konstante : beta = 0.999985890199089D+00
Umrechnung kg - MeV : fakMeV = 0.560958920000000D+30 [MeV/kg]
Einheitsstrecke :s0 = 0.100000000000000D+01 [m]

berechnete Konstanten:
-----------------------
Zahlenfaktor: eta = 0.989989640819342D+00
Zahlenfaktor: theta = 0.793991266691442D+01
Elementarladung: eq = 0.000000000000000D+00 [As]
Massenfaktor amu = 0.183221239697733D-01 [kg]
Zahlenfaktor alfa plus:alfp = 0.812835374722543D-02
Zahlenfaktor alfa minus:alfm = 0.161803398874989D+01
Zahlenfaktor xi =
c.f. Anhang B , pg. 54
theta1,1 + 0.987563988106124D+00
theta1,2 + 0.985167763578005D+00
theta2,2 + 0.842423846102092D+00
eta1,1 + 0.792534502274329D+01
eta1,2 + 0.791095117096025D+01
eta2,2 + 0.704779223636100D+01

===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
e- eps= 1 N = 0
k = 1 n = 0 m = 0 p = 0 sigma = 0
P = 1 Q = 1 qL= -1 kappa = 0
e- ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 0.5110010472818188
sum1= 9.035972E-31 sum2= 7.3447524E-33
G = 216.0 S= 0.0E+0 F= 0.0E+0
FIFI = 2.3154706
ieq = -1 k = 1
a1= 35.0 a2= 11.0
a3 = 89.96774193548387 Wn0 = 2.8788914652021766E+10
fi= 0.0E+0 y= 5.0
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
mue- eps= 1 N = 0
k = 1 n = 11 m = 6 p = 11 sigma = 6
P = 1 Q = 1 qL= -1 kappa = 1
mue- ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 105.65302162327731
sum1= 1.8833624E-28 sum2= 7.3447524E-33
G = 216.0 S= 18020.61 F= 27264.443
FIFI = 2.3154706
ieq = -1 k = 1
a1= 1.0 a2= 23.0
a3 = 7.268909346653874 Wn0 = 2.0420523097462876E+25
fi= 0.0E+0 y= 0.07250498564349676
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
pi+ eps= 1 N = 0
k = 1 n = 12 m = 9 p = 2 sigma = 3
P = 2 Q = 0 qL= 1 kappa = 0
pi+ ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 139.57312001382345
sum1= 2.4880431E-28 sum2= 7.3447524E-33
G = 216.0 S= 25438.201 F= 34454.046
FIFI = 4.630935
ieq = 1 k = 1
a1= 25.0 a2= 0.0E+0
a3 = 95.62488479262673 Wn0 = 1.3372620552400046E+26
fi= 0.0E+0 y= 7.75
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
K+ eps= 1 N = 0
k = 1 n = 17 m = 26 p = 30 sigma = 28
P = 1 Q = 0 qL= 1 kappa = 1
K+ ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 493.80663555074005
sum1= 8.802829E-28 sum2= 7.3447524E-33
G = 216.0 S= 120392.625 F= 92075.08
FIFI = -1.1577338
ieq = 1 k = 1
a1= 16.0 a2= 31.0
a3 = 7.268909346653874 Wn0 = 2.6150842354944375E+29
fi= 0.0E+0 y= 0.07250498564349676
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
e0 eps= 1 N = 0
k = 1 n = 0 m = 0 p = 0 sigma = 1
P = 1 Q = 1 qL= 0 kappa = 0
e0 ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 0.5155716140789336
sum1= 9.190898E-31 sum2= 0.0E+0
G = 215.74312 S= 4.0 F= 0.0E+0
FIFI = 2.3154706
ieq = 0 k = 1
a1= 34.0 a2= 28.0
a3 = 77.11059907834101 Wn0 = 2.797351426050015E+10
fi= 0.0E+0 y= 2.5
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
pi0 eps= 1 N = 0
k = 1 n = 12 m = 3 p = 6 sigma = 4
P = 2 Q = 0 qL= 0 kappa = 0
pi0 ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 134.9641368647739
sum1= 2.405954E-28 sum2= 0.0E+0
G = 215.74312 S= 24490.201 F= 33418.972
FIFI = 4.630935
ieq = 0 k = 1
a1= 22.0 a2= 2.0
a3 = -0.03225806451612903 Wn0 = 1.049233121012929E+26
fi= 0.0E+0 y= 0.0E+0
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
K0 eps= 1 N = 0
k = 1 n = 18 m = 5 p = 5 sigma = 2
P = 1 Q = 0 qL= 0 kappa = 1
K0 ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 497.74468342242704
sum1= 8.873104E-28 sum2= 0.0E+0
G = 215.74312 S= 117250.72 F= 96915.14
FIFI = -1.1577338
ieq = 0 k = 1
a1= 22.0 a2= 17.0
a3 = 98.29474093901051 Wn0 = 3.5292408732661953E+29
fi= 0.0E+0 y= 10.16509757823609
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
eta eps= 1 N = 0
k = 1 n = 18 m = 22 p = 17 sigma = 14
P = 0 Q = 0 qL= 0 kappa = 0
eta ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 548.7479186372773
sum1= 9.782319E-28 sum2= 0.0E+0
G = 215.74312 S= 132798.9 F= 103333.085
FIFI = 0.0E+0
ieq = 0 k = 1
a1= 28.0 a2= 33.0
a3 = 48.65020477733604 Wn0 = 5.301498682793403E+29
fi= 0.0E+0 y= 0.8207094423367368
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
p eps= 1 N = 0
k = 2 n = 0 m = 0 p = 0 sigma = 0
P = 1 Q = 1 qL= 1 kappa = 0
p ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 938.2749363482532
sum1= 1.6726195E-27 sum2= 7.3447524E-33
G = 404103.87 S= 0.0E+0 F= 9.28034
FIFI = 3.5152952
ieq = 1 k = 2
a1= 0.0E+0 a2= 23.0
a3 = 84.22944038929441 Wn0 = 1.4662791077994134E+31
fi= 9.28034064699272 y= 4.269230769230769
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
Sigma+ eps= 1 N = 0
k = 2 n = 2 m = -7 p =-12 sigma = 10
P = 2 Q = 1 qL= 1 kappa = 0
Sigma+ ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 1189.382396530658
sum1= 2.1202592E-27 sum2= 7.3447524E-33
G = 404103.87 S= 49.419704 F= 108126.57
FIFI = -10.318584
ieq = 1 k = 2
a1= 21.0 a2= 30.0
a3 = 26.153717026378892 Wn0 = 7.502968889013914E+31
fi= 0.0E+0 y= 0.33653846153846156
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
Sigma- eps= 1 N = 0
k = 2 n = 2 m = -6 p = -5 sigma = -8
P = 2 Q = 1 qL= -1 kappa = 0
Sigma- ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 1197.3033275286684
sum1= 2.1343795E-27 sum2= 7.3447524E-33
G = 404103.87 S= -167.47137 F= 111755.04
FIFI = -10.318584
ieq = -1 k = 2
a1= 21.0 a2= 47.0
a3 = 94.49556333917106 Wn0 = 7.620369666633226E+31
fi= 0.0E+0 y= 9.98076923076923
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
Theta- eps= 1 N = 0
k = 2 n = 2 m = 7 p =-17 sigma = 2
P = 1 Q = 1 qL= -1 kappa = 1
Theta- ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 1321.254116239052
sum1= 2.3553418E-27 sum2= 7.3447524E-33
G = 404103.87 S= 1319.1549 F= 163640.64
FIFI = 3.5152952
ieq = -1 k = 2
a1= 26.0 a2= 25.0
a3 = 15.61504718741213 Wn0 = 1.0358030145924945E+32
fi= 9.28034064699272 y= 0.1771148125294952
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
Omega- eps= 1 N = 0
k = 2 n = 4 m = 4 p = -1 sigma =-15
P = 0 Q = 3 qL= -1 kappa = 0
Omega- ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 1672.1671220139237
sum1= 2.980901E-27 sum2= 7.3447524E-33
G = 404103.87 S= 460.3179 F= 315642.43
FIFI = 0.07576701
ieq = -1 k = 2
a1= 47.0 a2= 3.0
a3 = 69.73881856540085 Wn0 = 4.2428516715052703E+32
fi= -137.03599976 y= 2.0384615384615383
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
o++ eps= 1 N = 0
k = 2 n = 2 m = 1 p = 9 sigma = 4
P = 3 Q = 3 qL= 2 kappa = 0
o++ ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 1234.5298773981037
sum1= 2.2007345E-27 sum2= 1.4689505E-32
G = 397178.34 S= 240.5995 F= 132911.02
FIFI = 1383.0426
ieq = 2 k = 2
a1= 21.0 a2= 25.0
a3 = 69.73881856540085 Wn0 = 7.472576982744235E+31
fi= -520.3029770990219 y= 2.0384615384615383
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
o+ eps= 1 N = 0
k = 2 n = 2 m = -1 p = -1 sigma = -6
P = 3 Q = 3 qL= 1 kappa = 0
o+ ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 1234.779334272695
sum1= 2.2011865E-27 sum2= 7.3447524E-33
G = 404103.87 S= 11.866012 F= 127674.96
FIFI = 31.486122
ieq = 1 k = 2
a1= 23.0 a2= 26.5
a3 = 82.92386511024642 Wn0 = 8.247076246991248E+31
fi= -520.3029770990219 y= 3.9423076923076925
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
o- eps= 1 N = 0
k = 2 n = 2 m = -1 p =-16 sigma =-15
P = 3 Q = 3 qL= -1 kappa = 0
o- ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 1229.989416562917
sum1= 2.1926477E-27 sum2= 7.3447524E-33
G = 404103.87 S= 599.564 F= 125024.24
FIFI = 31.486122
ieq = -1 k = 2
a1= 23.0 a2= 21.5
a3 = 22.643358395989974 Wn0 = 8.171641673230371E+31
fi= -520.3029770990219 y= 0.27884615384615385
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
n eps= 0 N = 0
k = 2 n = 0 m = 0 p = -2 sigma = 17
P = 1 Q = 1 qL= 0 kappa = 0
n ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 939.4217465361206
sum1= 1.6746712E-27 sum2= 0.0E+0
G = 404889.4 S= 73.32002 F= -352.4812
FIFI = 2.105037
ieq = 0 k = 2
a1= 0.0E+0 a2= 36.0
a3 = 101.14999999999999 Wn0 = 1.5019793008996357E+31
fi= 9.28034064699272 y= 35.92307692307692
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
Lambda eps= 1 N = 0
k = 2 n = 1 m = 3 p = 0 sigma =-11
P = 0 Q = 1 qL= 0 kappa = 0
Lambda ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 1115.4335043421192
sum1= 1.9884406E-27 sum2= 0.0E+0
G = 404889.4 S= 16.0 F= 75516.0
FIFI = -0.10521532
ieq = 0 k = 2
a1= 13.0 a2= 45.0
a3 = -0.03333333333333333 Wn0 = 4.935870068325931E+31
fi= 0.0E+0 y= 0.0E+0
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
Sigma0 eps= 1 N = 0
k = 2 n = 2 m = -7 p =-14 sigma = -2
P = 2 Q = 1 qL= 0 kappa = 0
Sigma0 ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 1192.388195216183
sum1= 2.1256248E-27 sum2= 0.0E+0
G = 404889.4 S= 148.12209 F= 108535.67
FIFI = -7.2620482
ieq = 0 k = 2
a1= 21.0 a2= 46.0
a3 = 83.86257744733581 Wn0 = 7.6130303703562945E+31
fi= 0.0E+0 y= 4.173076923076923
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
Theta0 eps= 1 N = 0
k = 2 n = 2 m = 6 p = -1 sigma = 6
P = 1 Q = 1 qL= 0 kappa = 1
Theta0 ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 1314.7415524204145
sum1= 2.3437395E-27 sum2= 0.0E+0
G = 404889.4 S= 424.0 F= 160948.48
FIFI = 2.105037
ieq = 0 k = 2
a1= 26.0 a2= 22.0
a3 = 71.62409766874894 Wn0 = 1.0323791048143414E+32
fi= 89.36565216265652 y= 2.2155763509910335
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
o0 eps= 1 N = 0
k = 2 n = 2 m = -1 p =-10 sigma = 2
P = 3 Q = 3 qL= 0 kappa = 0
o0 ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 1234.694093270507
sum1= 2.201042E-27 sum2= 0.0E+0
G = 404889.4 S= 283.40103 F= 126594.89
FIFI = 19.576624
ieq = 0 k = 2
a1= 23.0 a2= 41.0
a3 = 93.762893081761 Wn0 = 8.444881931283474E+31
fi= -520.3029770990219 y= 9.192307692307692
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
nue1 eps= 1 N = 0
k = 1 n = -3 m = -3 p = -2 sigma = -1
P = 0 Q = 1 qL= 0 kappa = 0
nue1 ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 3.818072788277337E-9
sum1= 6.806332E-39 sum2= 0.0E+0
G = 215.74312 S= 15.9143714 F= -231.65749
FIFI = 1.6444579E-6
ieq = 0 k = 1
a1= 31.0 a2= 43.5
a3 = 41.17762646483633 Wn0 = 2.4070605686442077E+10
fi= 0.0E+0 y= 0.6170057386330332
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
nue2 eps= 1 N = 0
k = 1 n = -3 m = -3 p = -2 sigma = -1
P = 1 Q = 1 qL= 0 kappa = 0
nue2 ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 5.37601853062303E-3
sum1= 9.5836225E-33 sum2= 0.0E+0
G = 215.74312 S= 15.9143714 F= -231.65749
FIFI = 2.3154706
ieq = 0 k = 1
a1= 34.0 a2= 28.0
a3 = 77.11059907834101 Wn0 = 2.797351426050015E+10
fi= 0.0E+0 y= 2.5
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
nue3 eps= 1 N = 0
k = 1 n = -3 m = -3 p = -2 sigma = -1
P = 2 Q = 0 qL= 0 kappa = 0
nue3 ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 0.010752021400400073
sum1= 1.9167217E-32 sum2= 0.0E+0
G = 215.74312 S= 15.9143714 F= -231.65749
FIFI = 4.630935
ieq = 0 k = 1
a1= 22.0 a2= 2.0
a3 = -0.03225806451612903 Wn0 = 1.049233121012929E+26
fi= 0.0E+0 y= 0.0E+0
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
nue4 eps= 1 N = 0
k = 2 n =-24 m =-31 p =-34 sigma =-15
P = 1 Q = 1 qL= 0 kappa = 0
nue4 ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 0.026434363957858156
sum1= 4.712353E-32 sum2= 0.0E+0
G = 404889.4 S= 269808.53 F= -674688.7
FIFI = 2.105037
ieq = 0 k = 2
a1= 0.0E+0 a2= 36.0
a3 = 101.14999999999999 Wn0 = 1.5019793008996357E+31
fi= 9.28034064699272 y= 35.92307692307692
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

--------------------------------------------
nue5 eps= 1 N = 0
k = 2 n =-24 m =-31 p =-34 sigma =-15
P = 1 Q = 1 qL= 0 kappa = 1
nue5 ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 0.21237499817951735
sum1= 3.7859278E-31 sum2= 0.0E+0
G = 404889.4 S= 269808.53 F= -674608.56
FIFI = 2.105037
ieq = 0 k = 2
a1= 26.0 a2= 22.0
a3 = 71.62409766874894 Wn0 = 1.0323791048143414E+32
fi= 89.36565216265652 y= 2.2155763509910335
end of input file

N1(k,q) ,k = 1 q = 0,1,2 :
1.0 0.9968812705531683 -99999.0
N1(k,q) ,k = 2 q = 0,1,2 :
1.0 0.9962780882675571 0.9589182514626359
N2(k,q) ,k = 1 q = 0,1,2 :
0.6666666666666666 0.6750617425258187 -99999.0
N2(k,q) ,k = 2 q = 0,1,2 :
0.6666666666666666 0.6767036958714701 0.7913672787769995
N3(k,q) ,k = 1 q = 0,1,2 :
1.9571855627151193 1.9573176662909734 -99999.0
N3(k,q) ,k = 2 q = 0,1,2 :
2.6600114223776776 2.598741762839081 2.05922493936305
N4(k,q) ,k = 1 q = 0,1,2 :
4.0 4.0 -99999.0
N4(k,q) ,k = 2 q = 0,1,2 :
2.0 4.0 6.0
N5(k,q) ,k = 1 q = 0,1,2 :
1.1577337563356573 1.1577337563356573 -99999.0
N5(k,q) ,k = 2 q = 0,1,2 :
1.1577337563356573 1.732391925929268 76.73188427276281
N6(k,q) ,k = 1 q = 0,1,2 :
1.6444579190054496E-6 1.6444579190054496E-6 -99999.0
N6(k,q) ,k = 2 q = 0,1,2 :
-0.10521531495463907 0.025255670921430457 0.1557266567975

will314159

31st January 2006 - 10:59 AM

Metronhead

speaking as a lawyer, with permision, you don'thave to worry about fair use. Without permission, it sounds a n enttire whole translation exceeds fair use.

Of course the Heim people are putting all kinds of stuff on the web, and the Heim heirs may not care, and may welcome the furtherance of his work, but there is the issue of control.

I have a copy of Systrans. that's how I did the tranalations of the table of contents pages of the Heim books. I also have a Text aloud book that does test to speech, then speech to MP3. It wouldn't do the equations because they would be figures instead of text.

Back in the late 1920's there were two versions of Quantum Mechanics: 1) Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics and 2) Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics. Von Neumann and Dirac about the same time showed they were equivalent representatations of an infinite Hilbert algevraic space. Dirac went a little bit furter and wrote a relativistic wave equation and predicted an electron with a positive charge or alternatively travelilng backwards in time:, to wit a positron.

The point being, given a few years, Witten or somebody of his caliber, will synthesize a bridge between Heim theory and string theory and show they are common strands of a deeper underlying theory and we"ll learn even deeper stuff in the process.

Cosmic Foam

31st January 2006 - 05:19 PM

This page I thought was helpful particularly the first article. I am not sure if it has been listed here yet.

http://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/index.html

Predicts 6 interactions with the extra gravitational interactions but the initial paper I read here says we are talking about 6 dimensions. What is with the 8 dimensions? I'll have to see.

MAGNET EXPERIMENT TO MEASURING
SPACE PROPULSION HEIM-LORENTZ FORCE

"::4.2 Magnetic Field Generation::

...In order to obtain a viable space propulsion system the
Heim-Lorentz formula requires magnetic fields of several
tens of Tesla and current densities of several hundred
A/mm 2. It is an experimental fact that high density mag-
netic fields destroy superconductivity. Type I (metals) su-
perconductors have small BC. Type II (alloys) supercon-
ductors have higher BC. The picture, Fig. 7, plotted from
data taken from the internet, shows the critical current
density, j 2 en v , at 4.2 K (He). At 25 T a current
density of some 448 A/mm 2 can be sustained, which
comes close to the value of 600 A/mm 2 assumed for field
propulsion. Values of 60 T, needed to transit into parallel
space, so far have not been reached.
In the following, a brief discussion on the state of the art
of producing high magnetic fields is given. For the fusion
reactor Iter to be built in France in the next decade, a
magnetic field strength of 9.7 T at 4.5 K carrying a cur-
rent of 80 kA using a 316LN stainless steel jacket with a
diameter 40.7 mm was reached. This magnetic field is,
however, not large enough for field propulsion.
There is a new high temperature superconducting material
available, Nb3Sn, that has reached 12 T with 3,000 A/
mm2 at 4.2 K. Other suitable compounds are Bi-2212, Bi-
2223, and Y-123.
High field magnets need a careful mechanical design be-
cause the Lorentz forces scale with B2. Nb3Sn can with-
stand up to 150 MPa compressive force. In principle, a
large current is better since lower number of turns is
needed and therefore lower self-inductance.
This also means better superconductor volume efficiency
or lower stored energy and thus lower peak temperature.
However, the brittle Nb3Sn superconductor material is
difficult to be made into long wires..."

"::Future Work::

Needless to say that Heim theory and also LQT harbor
many unresolved issues. Heim theory needs to be put on a
more rigorous mathematical basis. For instance, it is well
known that Einstein's equations of general relativity can
be derived from the variation of the Einstein-Hilbert ac-
tion. In the same way it needs to be shown how the her-
metry forms can be used to derive all other known funda-
mental interactions. In particular, it should be clarified
how the two additional gravitational interactions can be
derived from a modified Einstein-Hilbert action. The con-
version equation from photons into gravitophotons as
well as the conversion of gravitophotons and gravitons
into quintessence particles needs to be mathematically
proved. So far, the authors have not derived the so called
mass formula that is an eigenvalue equation leading to the
mass spectrum of elementary particles as given by Heim.
With regard to the high currents needed, an alternative
could be to use a hot plasma. Since currents of some
5 107 A are needed, this seems to be out of reach at pres-
ent."

rshoemake

31st January 2006 - 05:51 PM

Here are some references for superconductor magnet field strengths acheived:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/AnnaWoo.shtml

http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/magtech/core/pulse.html

hdeasy

1st February 2006 - 07:55 AM

QUOTE (Cosmic Foam+Jan 31 2006, 05:19 PM)

Remember - Heim initiially restricted his theory to 6 dimensions, as
in the original 8x8 ' Energy density tensor' , 28 elements were zero, leaving 36 non-zero = 6 x 6.
This was enough for the derivation of the mass formula. But later when Droscher joined him, the other 2 dimensions were re-introduced. Different subsets of R8, that Heim called "hermetries", give rise to all the known particles and interactions. The full-blown theory actually extends to 12 dimensions. It can't get any worse, though, as Heim derived a restriction on the maximum possible number of dimensions, n, i.e.:
n = 1 + sqrt(1 + p(p - 2)(p - 1))
To get an integer, non-zero number of dimensions, you need p = 4, n = 6, or p = 6, n = 12. I just confirmed there were no solutions for p < 11 (p = 10 corresponds to about 26 dimensions). Hmmm... I just showed that he next case is p = 57, n = 420 . That would be an awkward theory to work in, though.
Maybe there's another restriciton excluding that one. Like common sense

Vilvi

1st February 2006 - 08:38 AM

To metronhead, hdeasy, et ali,

The idea of metronhead to buy, translate and give access to the Heim's books seems to me wonderful, but I am afraid that the publisher will not give his consent so that you publish it in the network. What is clear is that there is a demand of the translated papers of Heim (I believe that Heim's group had to act in this sense).

Thanks hdeasy for the results you sent. According to these values, the masses calculation is done with the 1989 formula, because it uses the functions, G, S, F and FI(FI).These values can be used to see if the same functions of the spony's code give the same result. The values of phi (fi) and "y" do not correspond with those of the table and nevertheless, the values of the masses are good. I believe that "fi" does not have to take part so much in the masses calculation (and is related to the calculation of mean life of particles).What is clear is that Wn=0 values are erroneous.

What is transcribed by cosmicfoam in his post, reinforces the idea that still more it is necessary that the Heim's theory will be spread in order to be interpreted by more people (apart from Witten).

Guest

1st February 2006 - 09:29 AM

To metronhead, Vilvi, Spony, Good_Elf, et ali, et cetera,

Having the books and understanding German, I think that even after translation into English they will not be very accesible. Better to start with a translation of the mass formula derivation on heim-theory.com . This is more acessible and in standard notation. If the Systran people don't do that soon I might run it through Google language tools - and sort out the wreckage to give something intelligible.

I think that the Wn=0 values are erroneous because of a bug in the routine that calculates them - this was, if I recall, the one that wouldn't compile initially when I got it and so I had to try some mods, which apparently didn't work. I wasn't too worried, as I got the right masses, but the right lifetimes would be nice too. I will look at when I have some time.

hdeasy

1st February 2006 - 09:31 AM

Ooops! - sent last one through an unregistered window... Guest was a nomme de plume

By the by - I finally clicked on that 'Final theory' link and left a scathing review...

will314159

1st February 2006 - 03:14 PM

Greetings et al

My advice is to admit nothing and deny everything but I had a friend once that fantasized that he saw someone download systran premium using kazaa resurrection.

give me a link to the german web page that anybody wants translated and i"ll upload it to my web page with a password or without. Except for the equations which may be graphics. Just the heim mass formula on heim theory.com wouldn't be enough reference because that just leads me to a table of contents. Unless you want the whole PDF file translated.

Take Care!

umu

1st February 2006 - 03:20 PM

I read somewhere on the net that Heim used 4/3c for the speed of gravitational waves, ie. faster than the speed of light. Can this be true?

will314159

1st February 2006 - 03:37 PM

Deutsche from heim-theory.com

http://heim-theory.com/Inhalt/Einfuhrung_i...imsche_mas.html

Einführung in die Heimsche Massenformel

>>>Inhalt

Inhaltsverzeichnis (1 Seite)

A Kurzfassung (5 Seiten)

B Bemerkungen über den Physiker Burkhard Heim (2 Seiten)

C Zum Stand der Elementarteilchen- und geometrisierten Physik (10 Seiten)

D Zur Herleitung der Heimschen Massenformel
(81 Seiten), Version vom 9.10.2003
Ab sofort ohne Passwortschutz, da genügend Kontaktadressen bekannt.

E Die Massenformel nach Burkhard Heim (1982)
(10 Seiten)

F Die erweiterte Massenformel nach B. Heim (1989) (11 Seiten)

G Ausgewählte Ergebnisse (13 Seiten)

H Literaturverzeichnis (4 Seiten)

Zur Anzeige der Dokumente benötigen Sie den Adobe Acrobat Reader. Falls Sie ihn noch nicht installiert haben sollten, können Sie ihn hier downloaden:

****************************************
English
http://heim-theory.com/Inhalt/Einfuhrung_i...imsche_mas.html

Introduction to the Heim mass formula

>>> contents

Table of contents (1 side)

A edited version (5 sides)

B remarks over the physicist Burkhard home (2 sides)

C to the conditions elementary particle and geometrisierten physics (10 sides)

D for the derivation of the Heim mass formula
(81 sides), version of 9.10.2003
Immediately without password protection, since admits sufficient contact contacts.

E the mass formula after Burkhard home (1982)
(10 sides)

F the extended mass formula according to B. Heim (1989) (11 sides)

G selected results (13 sides)

H bibliography (4 sides)

For the announcement of the documents you need the Adobe Acrobat reader. If you should not have installed it yet, you can downloaden it here:
Get Adobe Acrobat Reader

Make your translation requests

Take Care!

Cosmic Foam

1st February 2006 - 06:22 PM

Relating to Gravitomagnetism, this reminds me of the Flux Capacitor in the Back To The Future movie.
The Flux Capacitor had 3 bars forming a triangle shape. Could be related to a frame dragging event for the 5th dimension where Gravitomagnetism would be 2 degrees of rotation and I would guess Vacuumagnetism for 3 degrees for the 6th dimension.

So they are trying to build an induction drive? Sounds similar to Quantum Tunneling.

HDeasy:
Energy Density Tensor looks like a matrix of course. Yes I was checking that out, a good way to measure things sometimes in graphics. I don’t use them too much in but probably good if you are changing many things at once.

“Different subsets of R8, that Heim called "hermetries", give rise to all the known particles and interactions. The full-blown theory actually extends to 12 dimensions. It can't get any worse, though, as Heim derived a restriction on the maximum possible number of dimensions, n, i.e.:
n = 1 + sqrt(1 + p(p - 2)(p – 1))”

Ok this is based off of T and I am not referring to Teslas. Tensor.

This is allot of info at the moment. I am calculationg. Brain fry

How do 12 Hermetries come from 8 dimensions?

Would the Hermetry be the mirror effects of the other particles? I don’t have allot of info on those. How does it relate to String Theory.

Also I didn’t see a 7th Hermetry on the Heims Theory Wiki page.

Kettricken

1st February 2006 - 08:37 PM

QUOTE

Relating to Gravitomagnetism, this reminds me of the Flux Capacitor in the Back To The Future movie.
 Strange you mention it.

I have allways found Buckhard Heim very lookalike Dr Emmet Brown (Christopher Lloyd) in that movie.

Maybe he was as genius as the scientist in the movie too......

Vilvi

2nd February 2006 - 09:10 AM

QUOTE (Cosmic Foam+Feb 1 2006, 06:22 PM)

How do 12 Hermetries come from 8 dimensions?

Would the Hermetry be the mirror effects of the other particles? I don’t have allot of info on those.

You can read about this topic in the paper AIAA-2002-4094 by Droscher and Hauser. Look for in this link:

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/

In resume, an Hermetry is a combination of different subspaces. Some rules are imposed to create a combination. Here you will have the 12 "main" combinations:

H1=H1 ( I 2 ,T 1) gluons
H2=H2 ( I 2 ,T 1 , R3) color charges
H3=H3 ( I 2 , S 2 ,T 1 , R3) W+_ bosons
H4=H4 ( I 2 , S 2 , R3) Z0 boson
H5=H5 ( I 2 , S 2 ,T 1) photons
H6=H6 ( I 2 ,T 1)*H7=H7 (S 2 ,T 1) weak charge
H8=H8 (S 2 ,R3) neutral field (particle) with mass
H9=H9 (S 2 ,T 1 , R3) field (particle) with electric charge and mass
H10=H10 ( I 2) probability field
H11=H11 ( I 2 , S 2) gravito-photon
H12=H12 (S 2) graviton.

R3 is ordinary space (x1,x2, x3)
T1 is time (x4)
S2 is x5, x6
I2 is x7, x8

Good luck

hdeasy

2nd February 2006 - 09:21 AM

QUOTE (Cosmic Foam+Feb 1 2006, 06:22 PM)

This is allot of info at the moment. I am calculationg. Brain fry

Hi Cosmic Foam, will314159, et al.

To Cosmic Foam

The 12 Hermetries come from 8 dimensions by first splitting the 8 dimensions into subspaces R3 (3-D space), T1 (time), S2 and I2 where the latter two subspaces are also imaginary, like time. So you see that from differently grouping the 4 subspaces you could in principle have 4! = 4x3x2 = 24 Hermetries But as there is a restriction that I2 or S2 must always be present , this effectively cuts the actual number down to 12.

There is a bit of confusion on the definition of H6 and H7 - usuallly it is given as:
H6 (T1∪I2)
H7 (T1∪S2), but then later H6 and H7 are grouped together in
H6 = H6 (T1∪I2) * H7 (T1∪S2): weak charge. See also http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...r-2002-4094.pdf

To will314159

Have a look at http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/contents.html - there's a new open letter from the theory group. There, they say they will soon translate section D on the derivation of the mass formula - I.e.
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads_pw/D_...assenformel.pdf - but if you want to have a go a t it with SysTran then go ahead! THe formulae may take a bit of work, though.

leovinus

3rd February 2006 - 03:20 PM

Hi hdeasy, spony, et al

Thanks for posting the Fortran output hdeasy, that is helpful :)

I hope that somebody else has already solved all issues, ;))
but just in case, here are a couple of more observations.

Using the Fortran output, and the further debugging of spony's
Java code leads to interesting open questions. A shortlist
is below as input for anyone with spare time in the weekend :))

Also, in case someone is wondering "why bother", you might want to
remember that current "best" physics theory have 26 constants in it
with no real explanation on why or how these get their values.
This is QCD, SU(x), etc.. Read more e.g. at

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html

So, if for whatever reason, there is a theory (Heim?) and working
program to compute any of the 26 constants, that might give insight
and further understanding of physics. But the key is "current published
papers and code do not match up and nobody seems to have a consistent
version of code/papers".

A consistent set of code and formula's would also help to
get rid of my main personal worry that Heim theory is just an obfusecated
printf() along the lines of "we have a fundamental constant x=3.14,
after a long math exercise, we found that the formula
((sqrt(pi))^2)*( ((1-pi)(1+pi)) +pi^2)
gives the correct value" ;)

If, with little effort, we can make the Java/Fortran code produce
the numbers, write up the corrected formula's, that can
make a difference, and people will study it.

Enjoy,

L.

Anyway, some observations & questions about the Fortran output:

1. Again, thanks for the providing the output. The good news is
that that is helpful is pinpointing what is "good" in both
the papers and the Java code. Would you be willing to put
a couple of additional print's in the Fortran code to
pinpoint error's? Or can you (having the Fortran code) pinpoint
mistakes in the Java code?

2. The main intermediate problems in spony's Java code
are with N3(), N5(), N6(), A(). (For only few values like (2,2))
Any insights you have from reading the Fortran code?

3. Fortran output contains

>c.f. Anhang B , pg. 54
>theta1,1 + 0.987563988106124D+00
>theta1,2 + 0.985167763578005D+00
>theta2,2 + 0.842423846102092D+00
>eta1,1 + 0.792534502274329D+01
>eta1,2 + 0.791095117096025D+01
>eta2,2 + 0.704779223636100D+01

Comparing this the paper "G", the tetha's and eta' are actually
mixed-up. I hope that is only in these print statements, and not in the
code?

3. What is
>Massenfaktor amu = 0.183221239697733D-01 [kg]??

4. All constants in your Fortran output match the Java stuff, so that is good.

5. Now, the interesting stuff, the mass computations. I have compared
some Java temp results with Fortran results. This is an example for
e- (electron) but it has been done for all particles.

From Java (some debug output)
>A:eps= -1.0 k= 1.0 n= 0.0 m= 0.0 p= 0.0 sigma= 0.0 P= 1.0 Q= 1.0 qL= 1.0 kappa= 0.0
>B: G= 215.99999488129367 S= 0.0 F= 0.0 phi= 2.315471905052851
>C: (k,q)=(1.0,1.0) M= 0.5069433094351874

From Fortran:

>=====> Mass Lepton e_- INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
>
>e- eps= 1 N = 0
>k = 1 n = 0 m = 0 p = 0 sigma = 0
>P = 1 Q = 1 qL= -1 kappa = 0
>e- ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 0.5110010472818188
>sum1= 9.035972E-31 sum2= 7.3447524E-33
>G = 216.0 S= 0.0E+0 F= 0.0E+0
>FIFI = 2.3154706
>ieq = -1 k = 1
>a1= 35.0 a2= 11.0
>a3 = 89.96774193548387 Wn0 = 2.8788914652021766E+10
>fi= 0.0E+0 y= 5.0

Because the mass formula is (Document "F", (B3))

M= (MEV_PER_UNIT/KILO_PER_UNIT) *masselement * alpha+ * (G+F+S+phi+4*q*alpha-)

it is a relief to see that, in general, G,F,S, and phi in Fortran and
Java match up. Yes, there are differences but the Fortran and Java code are
using the >same< formula for mass computations.

(a) Comparing the output for all particles, we see that there are often
small differences for e.g. F,S,G Not sure about the reason.
Probably "mistakes" in the Java formula's based on the incomplete
papers. hdeasy, can you compare the Fortran/Java code?
I doubt these are numerical differences, rather missing constants,
or subtle differences with stuff like (-1)^2k+1, or misplaced ().

(b) When reformulating the mass formula for dbg reasons as

constant = M / (alpha+ * (G+F+S+phi+4*q*alpha-))

and substituting the values G,F,S,phi from the Fortran output, it becomes
obvious that
- Normally, that constant value is 0.126725......
That is good as that is exactly ((MEV_PER_UNIT/KILO_PER_UNIT) *masselement)
So Java and Fortran code are using the same 1989, "F", B3 formula.
- However, for e- particle, the first particle in the fortran output,
the constant value is 0.12773120146520617.
I tried 7 other particles and it is always 0.126725......
Means, the Fortran code for computing e- mass has a bug or undocumented
difference. Any idea hdeasy?
- Also, the Java code has some typo's in the constants. It should be

private static final double KILO_PER_UNIT = 1.66053886*Math.pow(10, -27);
private static final double MEV_PER_UNIT = 931.494043;
private static final double FAK_MEV = 0.560958920000000 *Math.pow(10, 30);

but it makes only minor difference.
- Most differences between Fortran and Java output are in F,G, and S.
These use a bunch of intermediate formula's such as G1/2/3/4.
It is essential to check and compare all these routines :) hdeasy - any input
or help we can give? Or can you splitup formula's and print all
partial variables of F,S,G,N3,N4,N5,N6, phi :)?
- The value's of Wn0 does not correlate with "G", table VIII at all.
hdeasy noticed this earlier. So that will be a bug in the Fortran
code. The Java implemention also gives wrong numbers. Any idea's?

spony

4th February 2006 - 11:14 AM

Take a look at this. There are three runs of the java code on the (randomly choosen) particle K+.

Run 1) Only uses 1989 equations everywhere.
Run 2) Uses 1982 equation + phi (from 1989) for F instead of general 1989 equation.
Run 3) Uses pure 1982 equation for F.

CODE

[spony@camel02:...code_branch_2]$ java HeimUnit
G: 215.99999532957085
S: 120392.62727158268
F: 92373.53072585973
phi: -1.1577343080676945

=====> Mass Messon K_+- INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 494.48295263750634
table: 493.71425074
diff: 0.7687018975063324
(HG)diff: 0.0372507399999904

[spony@camel02:...code_branch_2]$ javac *.java
[spony@camel02:...code_branch_2]$ java HeimUnit
G: 215.99999532957085
S: 120392.62727158268
F: 92115.8612989625
phi: -1.1577343080676945

=====> Mass Messon K_+- INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 493.8847156144327
table: 493.71425074
diff: 0.17046487443269598
(HG)diff: 0.0372507399999904

[spony@camel02:...code_branch_2]$ javac *.java
[spony@camel02:...code_branch_2]$ java HeimUnit
G: 215.99999532957085
S: 120392.62727158268
F: 92075.07555812017
phi: -1.1577343080676945

=====> Mass Messon K_+- INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 493.790022423707
table: 493.71425074
diff: 0.07577168370698928
(HG)diff: 0.0372507399999904

Then look at the output for K+ from hdeasy (look especialy at F):

CODE

--------------------------------------------
K+ eps= 1 N = 0
k = 1 n = 17 m = 26 p = 30 sigma = 28
P = 1 Q = 0 qL= 1 kappa = 1
K+ ==> Mass [MeV/c**2] 493.80663555074005
sum1= 8.802829E-28 sum2= 7.3447524E-33
G = 216.0 S= 120392.625 F= 92075.08
FIFI = -1.1577338
ieq = 1 k = 1
a1= 16.0 a2= 31.0
a3 = 7.268909346653874 Wn0 = 2.6150842354944375E+29
fi= 0.0E+0 y= 0.07250498564349676
===============================================
Laufart : igam= 2 ialfpm= 2
Fassung vom 5.5.03

I don't know what the chances are of me hitting that number so well, but it seems obvious to me that the code hdeasy is in possesion of is 1982 formula code (atleast with regard to F).

Regards Martin

spony

4th February 2006 - 11:35 AM

Just checked a number of the other particles and the same is the case for them. This has been a suspicion of mine for a while now, remember also that q and qx seem to be determined from the 1982 formula and not the 1989.

The question is what does it mean. At the top of the 1989 paper it says:

QUOTE

After DESY physicists in 1982 had programmed and calculated the mass formula which was published in the book Elementarstrukturen der Materie (Heim 1984), the mentioned formula by B. Heim was extended and in 1989 a 57 pages report with a new formula and the results of the calculations were sent to the company MBB/DASA. Unfortunately this later code could no more be recovered today. Parts of these formulae have now been programmed again by the research group "Heim Theory" (by Dr. A. Mueller). It was found that in the manuscript some brackets in very long equations were lost during the process of writing; this had to be corrected at best estimate. The code covers the masses of basic states only and no lifetimes....

 Perhaps the Heim-Theory Group themselves had problems reconstructing the 1989 formula in code and thus settled on the 1982. This is ofcourse speculation on my part, I just don't know what's going on.

Reagrds Martin

ARtone

4th February 2006 - 02:31 PM

Hi all

As I have only just been pointed toward this discussion by Good Elf can I just comment on the paper which appears to start the discussion and is accessed from the link defined there as "here". This paper accessed by the link is a review or interpretation of the original work by Heim and although I have not at this time seen the original it is obvious from the initial the first few para's of the review that they have completely misinterpreted what is in the original document.

What Heim meant by 6 dimensions was not up/down, left/right, back/forward plus 3 others. He really meant 6 positional measurements in space because just as on a computer screen it takes 4 measurements to define the position of a shape such as a square (x, y for the top left corner and x, y for the bottom left corner) it takes 6 measurements(dimensions) to define the exact position of say a cube in space.

As this is a fundemental error there is no point in any further reading of the document Ill try to find the original.

All for now but Ill be back

Tone

Cosmic Foam

4th February 2006 - 02:52 PM

I was told that isn't the most accurate document. There are allot of others listed here that are pretty good.

Drude

4th February 2006 - 10:45 PM

Very interesting theory. I read it, and I loved it. However, just like String theory, it needs rigid proof.

leovinus

4th February 2006 - 11:33 PM

Hi spony et al,

Interesting observation that you get the most accurate results with the 1982
papers. Indeed, the use of the N3() formula from 1982 was also more accurate
(but still needed corrections

. This is now in your code as N3a and N3b.

> Take a look at this. There are three runs of the java code on the (randomly choosen) particle K+.
>Run 1) Only uses 1989 equations everywhere.
>Run 2) Uses 1982 equation + phi (from 1989) for F instead of general 1989 equation.
>Run 3) Uses pure 1982 equation for F.

Looking at this, it just occured to me that it might be worthwhile to slightly reorganize
your code. Maybe a class Particle82 and a separate one Particle89 is worthwhile
(using ONLY formula's from 82 resp. 89). Just a thought.

Of course, ARTone gives another perspective. I look forward to any newer/different/more accurate paper, and complementary to what is published in German/English on the website(s). Keep them coming.

L.

spony

5th February 2006 - 04:47 PM

Hello folks,

I've updated the code, so that it now has multiple representations of the formulas (rigid 1982 and 1989). Alternative formulas can now be constructed by extending the Formula class. So if anyone has any ideas be my guest and go ahead and do that, if you send me the code I will add the formula.

mdda123: I didn't get around to adding the formatting options yet.

Regards Martin

spony

6th February 2006 - 12:50 AM

There was a small error concerning particles in the above, this is now fixed (still b0.05). Also I've now added mdda123's formatting option. The formatting option is very nice as it makes it easy to import the results into excel which gives a better overview of the results. Simply type:

CODE

java HeimUnit -csv > result.txt

Regards Martin

hdeasy

6th February 2006 - 08:03 AM

QUOTE (spony+Feb 4 2006, 11:14 AM)

Hi Spony et al.,

Well, Dr. Mueller has e-mailed me saying it's okay to send you the Fortran code for comparison. I'll send that to your e-mail address rather than posting it here generally as it was for yours eyes only.

Regards,
Hdeasy

Good Elf

6th February 2006 - 09:56 AM

Hi HDEasy and spony,

Please express my personal gratitude in this matter to the Professor HDEasy. Spony can only help in this matter. If the results are confirmed everyone will be able to see that Heim's work is independent of any lingering doubts.

It then remains to all to try and understand what Heim has been able to do here. It will represent "something" and that indepth understanding of the property of mass must be able to be interpreted within the current paradigms.

Thank you Spony...

Vilvi

6th February 2006 - 02:03 PM

Hello all,

Thanks again spony for your work and hdeasy for the fortran code.

I was reviewing the last spony code and I'll make some minor comments:

1.- I think the actual code is using the same value of function N3 (actually 1989 value, cause it is not parametrised) independent if the calculus is for 1982 or for 1989.

2.- I think the parameters (k, P, Q, kappa, x) for lepton "mu" must be the same that for electron (due to physics reasons, because they are similar particles, except the mass), id est: "mu = new Particle1982(1, 1, 1, 0, 1);" in module "Formula1982". Making this substituion all the 1982 values for lepton "mu" are good.

3.- I think there is a small mistake in the experimental value for electron. We are using "0.51099891844" and in the Table III of Selected Results we have: "0.51099907"

Bye,

metronhead

6th February 2006 - 09:02 PM

The really good paper on derivation of the mass formula seems to be this one from Ludwiger and Gruener, unfortunately it has not been translated.

Zur Herleitung der Heimschen Massenformel

I have been cutting and pasting from the pdf file into a Microsoft word file, and using the Google language tools. The results from a few preliminary pages are listed below.

The last thing I want to do, though, is take a paper that makes perfect sense in German, and translate it badly into English so that it doesn't make sense any more.

I could really use some help from the native German speakers and the the more mathematically advanced members of the group in correcting the preliminary translation. The plan is to arrive at a consensus translation, then submit it to the Heim group, and finally to Ludwiger and Gruener for their approval, so that they can submit it to an English physics journal, if they want. If group members wish, this work could be moved onto my website, when I get it set up.

The first sentence in each group of three is cut and pasted directly from the pdf file. The second sentence is from the Google language tools. The final sentence (bold) is the proposed translation.

I could really use some help on a few problem words, and a couple of problem concepts. Real puzzler words and concepts are in bold italics.

[QUOTE] Einführung in die Heimsche Massenformel
 IGW Innsbruck, 2003

introduction to the Heim mass formula? IGW Innsbruck, 2003

1 for the derivation of the Heim mass formula I. by Ludwiger and K. Gruener research circle Heim theory IGW Innsbruck, 2003

Inhalt
contents of
1. Die Gravitation im Mikrobereich
1. The gravitation in the microbe realm 2-7
1. Gravity of the Micro-Realm 2-7

2. Die Lösungen der 6-dimensionalen Feldgleichungen für den Mikrobereich
2. The solutions of the 6-dimensionalen feldgleichungen for the microbe realm
2. The solutions of the 6-Dimensional Field Equations for the Micro-Realm.
2.1 Die drei Struktureinheiten der Welt 7-10
2,1 the three structure units of the world 7-10
2.1 The Three Structure Units of the World 7-10
2.2 Die Lösungen der Feldgleichungen für die vier Hermetrieformen 10-13
2,2 the solutions of the feldgleichungen for the four Hermetrieformen 10-13
2.2 The solutions of the field equations for the four Hermetry Forms 10-132.3 Theoretische Bestimmung der Elementarladung und der Feinstrukturkonstanten 13-18
2,3 theoretical determination of the elementary charge and the fine structure constant of 13-18
2.3 Theoretical Determination of the Elementary Charge and the Fine Structure Constant 13-18
3. Die polymetrische Geometrie
3. Polymetrische geometry
3. Poly-metric Geometry
3.1 Die polymetrischen Feldgleichungen 18-22
3,1 the polymetrischen feldgleichungen 18-22
3.1 The Poly-metric Field Equations 18-22
3.2 Korrelationen der Partialstrukturen und deren Extrema 23-26
3,2 correlations of the Partialstrukturen and their extrema 23-26
3.2 Correlations of the Partial Structures and their Extrema 23-26
3.3 Kopplungsgruppen und Kondensorflüsse 26-30
3,3 groups of couplings and condensor lens rivers 26-30
3.3 Coupling Groups and Condensations.

4. Die mikroskopische Strukturdynamik als Ursache der Trägheit
4. The microscopic structure dynamics as a cause of the inertia of
4. Microscopic Structure Dynamics as a Cause of Inertia.

4.1 Kondensorflüsse 31-35
4,1 condensor lens rivers 31-35
4.1 Condensations 31-35

4.2 Die Trägheit aller Hermetrieformen 35-37
4,2 the inertia of all Hermetrieformen 35-37
4.2 The Inertia of all Hermetry Forms 35-37

5. Die prototypischen Grundflussverläufe und prototrope Konjunktoren 37-42
5. The prototypischen basic river processes and prototrope Konjunktoren 37-42
5. The Protypical Basic Flow Processes and Prototrope (emerging?) Conjunctions. 37-42

6. Die geometrischen Ursachen von Spin, Isospin, Helizität und Antistrukturen 42-47
6. The geometrical causes of spin, isospin, Helizitaet and anti-structures 42-47
6. The Geometrical Causes of Spin, Isospin, Helicity, and the Anti-Particles 42-47

7. Ermittlung der Summe der Partialmassen in einer Elementarstruktur 48-56
7. Determination of the sum of the Partialmassen in an elementary structure 48-56
7. Determining the sum of the Partial Masses of an Elementary Structure 48-56

8. Feinstrukturkonstante und das elektromagnetische Feld 56-66
8. Fine structure constant and the electromagnetic field of 56-66
8. The Fine Structure Constant and the Electromagnetic Field 56-66

9 Grundzustände der Elementarteilchen und Quarks 66-73
9 initial states of the elementary particles and quark 66-73
9 Ground States of the Elementary Particles and Quarks 66-73

10.Anregungsgrenzen von Resonanzen und Massen der Neutrino-Zustände 73-79
10.-suggestion-border from resonances and masses of the neutrino conditions 73-79
10 Activation limits (?) of Resonances and Masses of the Neutrino States 73-79

11.Experimentelle Bestätigung der Heimschen Strukturtheorie 80-81
11-experimental confirmation of the Heim structure theory 80-81
11. Experimental Confirmation of the Heim Structure Theory 80-81

introduction to the Heim mass formula? IGW Innsbruck, 2003 2 1.

The gravitation in the microbe realm 1.
1. Gravity in the Micro-realm
1. Seit Einsteins Entdeckung, dass sich das Gravitationsfeld (im Rahmen der Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, ART) durch die Geometrie der Raumzeit erklären läßt, bemühen sich die Physiker, auch die übrigen Felder und auch die Teilchen durch geometrische Strukturen zu interpretieren.
Since Einstein's discovery that itself the gravitational field (in the context of general relativity theory, KIND) by geometry of space-time lets explain, it strives the physicists to interpret also the remaining fields and also the particles by geometrical structures.
Since Einstein's discovery that the gravitational field itself (in the context of the general relativity theory, GR) explains the geometry of space-time, physicists have tried to interpret the remaining fields as well, and also the particles as geometrical structures.

Am erfolgreichsten scheinen Theorien zu sein, in denen geometrische
Letzteinheiten (Strings) als Ursachen physikalischer Wirkungen untersucht werden (siehe Kapitel C).
Theories seem most successful to be, in which geometrical last the latter (stringers) are examined as causes of physical effects (see chapters C).
The most successful theories seem to be geometrical, while in String Theory the strings are seen as causes of physical effects (see chapter C).

Die Struktur der ART ergab sich aus der tiefen Einsicht in die Logik der physikalischen Gesetze.
The structure of the ART resulted from the deep insight into the logic of the physical laws.
The structure of GR (general relativity) resulted from deep insight into the logic of physical laws.
Dagegen fehlt in der Superstringtheorie ein generelles Verständnis von deren Logik.
On the other hand a general understanding of their logic is missing in the superstringer theory.
On the other hand a general understanding of their logic is missing in superstring theory.

Die Strings, welche physikalische Eigenschaften elementarer Teilchen bestimmen sollen, werden in Bereichen angesiedelt, wo keine Physik mehr definiert ist.
The stringers, which physical characteristics of elementary particles are to determine, are settled in ranges, where no physics is more defined.
Strings, which are to determine the physical characteristics of elementary particles, are residing at size scales where physics is no longer defined.
Denn das Quadrat der Planckschen Länge ist eine Naturkonstante (Treder 1974).
Because the square of the Planck length is a natural constant (Treder 1974).
The square of the Planck length is a natural constant (Treder 1974).
Nach der Unschärferelation kann es keine physikalischen Objekte mit kleineren Ausdehnungen geben.
After the uncertainty relation there cannot be physical objects with smaller expansions.
After Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle there cannot be physical objects with dimensions smaller than the square of the Planck length.
Damit ist das Konzept unphysikalischer Punkte nur unwesentlich verschoben auf das unphysikalischer Strings, sofern diese mit der Planck-Länge vergleichbar sind.
Thus the concept of unphysikalischer points is only insignificantly shifted on that unphysikalischer stringers, if these are comparable with the Planck length.
Thus the concept of non-physical points is only insignificantly different from that of non-physical strings, if these are comparable in size with the Planck length.
Die Versuche Einsteins und seiner Schüler, materielle Feldquanten durch eine Theorie ihrer geometrischen Strukturen verstehen zu können, schien durch die Inflation der in Beschleunigern registrierten elementaren Teilchen aussichtslos zu werden.
The attempts of Einstein and its pupils to be able to understand material feldquanten by a theory of its geometrical structures seemed to become offering no prospects by the inflation of the elementary particles registered in accelerators.
The attempts of Einstein and his pupils to be able to understand physical quantum fields by a theory of geometrical structures seemed to offer no prospects of explaining the increasing numbers of elementary particles seen in accelerators.
Umgekehrt gibt es heute zu viele alternative theoretische Ansätze, die viele neue Teilchen voraussagen, zu deren Nachweis enorm hohe Energien erzeugt werden müssen.
Turned around it gives today too many alternative theoretical beginnings, which forecast many new particles, for whose proof enormously high energies to be produced must.
As a consequence, today there are too many alternative theories, which forecast many new particles, whose proof of existence would require enormously high energies.

Die Frage ist daher berechtigt, ob die Vereinheitlichungs-Bestrebungen und Untersuchungen der Wechselwirkungen nicht grundsätzlich das Auffinden von Teilchenmassen ausschließen, weil diese Theorien einen zweiten logischen Schritt vor den ersten setzen?
The question is justified therefore whether the standardization efforts and investigations of the reciprocal effects exclude not in principle a finding from particle masses, because these theories set a second logical step before first?
The question is justified therefore whether the standardization efforts and investigations of the exchange effects exclude in principle finding the particle masses, because these theories set a second logical step before the first?
Der erste logische Schritt sollte das Auffinden der inneren Strukturen bzw. der inneren Dynamik von Materiefeldquanten und von deren Massen sein.
The first logical step should be finding the internal structures and/or the internal dynamics of matter field quanta and of their masses.
The first logical step should be finding the internal structures and/or the internal dynamics of matter field quanta and their masses.
Erst dann sollte sich entscheiden lassen, nach welchen Untersuchungen und Austausch-Bosonen gesucht werden muß.
Only then should be able to be decided, for which reciprocal effects and exchange bosons must be searched.
Only then should it be decided, which exchange effects and exchange bosons must be searched for.

Wie sich physikalische Felder geometrisieren lassen, hat Einstein für das Gravitationsfeld in der ART gezeigt.
How physical fields can be geometrisieren, Einstein for the gravitational field showed in the ART.
How physical fields can be determined by geometry, Einstein showed for gravitational fields in GR.
In seinen Feldgleichungen wird die Divergenz des Riemannschen
Krümmungstensors der Divergenz des phänomenologischen Energie-Impuls-Dichtetensors gleich gesetzt.
In its feldgleichungen the divergence of the Riemann curvature tensor of the divergence of the phenomenological energy impulse density tensor is directly set.
In its field equations the divergence of the Rieman curvature tensor of the divergence of the phenomenological energy impulse density tensor (?) is directly determined.
Das gestattet globale kosmologische Untersuchungen, wenn beispielsweise die
Materie der Galaxien als gleichförmig über den Raum verteilt angesehen wird.
Permits global cosmological investigations, if for example the subject of the galaxies is regarded as homogeneous distributed over the area.
This permits global cosmological investigations, if for example the galaxies are regarded as homogenously distributed throughout the universe.
Doch die Art, wie die Raumzeit-Geometrie mit der Materie-Verteilung verknüpft ist, störte selbst Einstein immer.
But the ART, how space-time geometry is linked with the subject distribution, disturbed even Einstein always.
But in GR, how space-time geometry is linked with this distribution always disturbed even Einstein.
Er war sich sehr bewußt, dass eine geometrische Darstellung des phänomenologischen Energie-Anteils für die Gravitationsfeld Gleichung, speziell für elementare Gravitationsquellen, also Teilchen, nachgeliefert werden müsse.
It was very conscious itself that a geometrical representation of the phenomenological energy portion for the gravitational field equation, particularly for elementary sources of gravitation, had to be delivered subsequently thus particles.
He was very conscious himself that a geometrical representation of the phenomenological energy portion for the gravitational field equation, particularly for elementary sources of gravitation, had to be derived subsequently for the particles.
Das Auftreten der Singularität am Zeitbeginn des Universums geht einzig darauf zurück, dass Einsteins Feldgleichungen noch unfertig sind, d.h. dass in dieser Theorie die Raumzeit nur dann existiert, wenn auch Energie-Materie vorhanden ist.
The occurrence of the singularity at the beginning of time of the universe decreases/goes back only to the fact that Einstein's feldgleichungen are still incomplete, i.e. that in this theory space-time exists even if energy subject is present.
The occurrence of a singularity at the beginning of time in the universe evolves only from the fact that Einstein's field equations are still incomplete, i.e. that in his theory space-time exists only if energy/matter are present.
In einer vollständig geometrisierten Theorie sollten sich erst im Laufe der Raumzeit-Evolution elementare geometrische Strukturen entwickeln, welche die Eigenschaften von Energie oder Materie hätten, und ein Urknall bräuchte nicht stattgefunden zu haben.
In a completely geometrisierten theory only elementary geometrical structures should develop in the course of the space-time evolution, which would have the characteristics of energy or subject, and a Big Bang did not braeuchte to have taken place.
In a completely geometry based theory only elementary geometrical structures should develop in the course of space-time evolution, which would have the characteristics of energy or matter, and a Big Bang did not necessarily have to occur.

Einführung in die Heimsche Massenformel IGW Innsbruck, 2003
Introduction to the Heim mass formula? IGW Innsbruck, 2003 3

2. Durch Einsteins einheitliche Feldtheorie der Gravitation und des Elektromagnetismus angeregt, versuchte Burkhard Heim zu Beginn der 50er Jahre des letzten Jahrhunderts, Einsteins Ansatz in der Weise abzuwandeln, dass er den metrischen (und ebenfalls wie von Einstein nichthermitesch gewählten) Tensor der Riemannschen Geometrie durch eine Polymetrie ersetzte und anstelle der Differentialgeometrie eine Differenzengeometrie verwendete.
2. By Einstein's uniform field theory of the gravitation and electromagnetism lively, Burkhard Heim tried at the beginning of the 50's of the last century to modify Einstein's beginning in the way that it replaced the metric (and likewise as of Einstein nichthermitesch selected) tensor of Riemann geometry by a Polymetrie and used in place of the differentialgeometrie difference geometry.
2. Using Einstein's uniform field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism, Burkhard Heim tried at the beginning of the 50's of the last century to modify Einstein's theory in a way that replaced the metric (and the same as Einstein non-Hermitically selected) tensor of Riemann geometry by a poly-metric, and he used difference geometry instead of differential geometry in this effort.

Im Mikrobereich müssen die Feldgleichungen zu Eigenwertgleichungen für
diskrete Zustände der Raumzeit-Geometrie werden.i
In the microbe realm the feldgleichungen must to eigenvalue equations for discrete conditions of space-time geometry werden.i
In the micro-realm the field equations must become eigenvalue equations for discrete conditions of space-time geometry i

Logischer Ausgangspunkt einer einheitlichen Beschreibung der Materie sollte das allen Teilchen gemeinsame Merkmal, die Trägheit und das Äquivalenzprinzip von Trägheit und Gravitation sowie das Äquivalenzprinzip von Masse und Energie sein.
logical starting point of a uniform description of the subject should that all particles common characteristic, the inertia and the equivalence principle of inertia and gravitation as well as the equivalence principle of mass and energy be.
A logical starting point of a uniform description of the subject should be: all particles common characteristics, inertia and the equivalence principle of inertia, and gravitation as well as the equivalence principle of mass and energy.
Um die Gravitation im mikroskopischen Bereich zu behandeln, muß zwischen der Masse der Feldquelle und der Energie-Masse des Feldes unterschieden werden.
In order to treat the gravitation within the microscopic range, must be differentiated between the mass of the source of field and the energy mass of the field.
In order to treat gravitation within the microscopic range, one must distinguish between the mass of the source of field and the energy mass of the field.
Für die ortsabhängige Masse m ® erhielt Heim einen Ausdruck, wie ihn auch Arnowitt, Deser und Misner (1962) angaben.
For the place-dependent mass m ® Heim received an expression, how it also to Arnowitt, Deser and Misner (1962) indicated.
For the position-dependent mass m ® Heim derived an expression, the same one that Arnowitt, Deser and Misner (1962) derived.
Eine relativistische Beschreibung bewegter und ruhender Massen führte Heim zu einem Feldstärketensor des Gravitationsfeldes, der Ähnlichkeiten mit dem elektromagnetischen Feldstärketensor der Maxwell-Theorie hat.
A relativistic description of moved and resting masses led Heim to a field strength tensor of the gravitational field, which has similarities with the electromagnetic field strength tensor of the Maxwell theory.
A relativistic description of moving and resting masses led Heim to a field strength tensor of the gravitational field, which has similarities with the electromagnetic field strength tensor of the Maxwell theory.
Die gravitative Feldquelle und das von ihr erregte Gravitationsfeld bilden eine Einheit.ii
The gravitative source of field and that of it excited gravitational field form a Einheit.ii
The gravitative source of field and that of the excited gravitational field form a unity .ii
Der einheitliche Energiedichtetensor ist jedoch nichthermitescher Art.
the uniform power density tensor is however nichthermitescher kind.
The uniform energy density tensor is however non-Hermitian

In der ART müßte somit der metrische Fundamentaltensor der Riemannschen Geometrie ebenfalls nichthermitesch angesetzt werden.
In the KIND thus the metric fundamental tensor of Riemann geometry would have to be likewise set nichthermitesch.
In the GR thus the metric fundamental tensor of Riemann geometry would have to be likewise set non-Hermitian.
Wird wie in der ART der Strukturanteil dem phänomenologischen Anteil proportional gesetzt, dann sind die nichthermiteschen Feldgleichungen als Äquivalenzprinzip aufzufassen, da der nichthermitesche Energiedichtetensor bereits Feld und Quelle einheitlich beschreibt.
As in the KIND if the structure portion is proportionally set for the phenomenological portion, then the not along ashes feldgleichungen are to be understood as equivalence principle, since the not along ash power density tensor already describes field and source uniformly.
As in the GR, if the structure portion is proportionally set to the phenomenological portion, then the non-hermetic (?) field equations are to be understood as equivalence principle (?), since the non-hermetic power density tensor already describes the field and source uniformly.
Soll die ART in den Mikrobereich erweitert und im Bereich materieller Quellen untersucht werden, dann müssen die Feldgleichungen in eine quantisierte Fassung gebracht werden, was zu Eigenwertgleichungen führen muß, die den zeitunabhängigen Schrödingergleichungen ähneln.
If the KIND is to be extended into the microbe realm and be examined within the range of material sources, then the feldgleichungen must be brought into a quantized version, which must lead to eigenvalue equations, which resemble the time-independent Schroedinger equations.
If the GR is to be extended into the micro-realm and be examined within the size range of physical objects, then the field equations must be brought into a quantized version, which must lead to eigenvalue equations, which resemble the time-independent Schroedinger equations.

Note- edited on 02/08/06 to incorporate hdeasy's input, and also to change the translation of nichthermitesch to "non-hermitian".

hdeasy

7th February 2006 - 09:05 AM

Hi Metronhead,

Nice try - seems mostly okay at first glance. I know German reasonably well, so should be able to go over it some time soon. However, I am overloaded a bit now - I have a table to translate that compares Heim/LQT/String theories. It's from Von Ludwiger and he's also given me the lenghty text of the transcript of the Audio-book auf deutsch to read through, so that is quite a bit. Just few points though:

The occurrence of a singularity at the beginning of time in the universe evolves only from the fact that Einstein's field equations are still incomplete, i.e. that in his theory space-time exists even if energy/matter are present.

should be

The occurrence of a singularity at the beginning of time in the universe evolves only from the fact that Einstein's field equations are still incomplete, i.e. that in his theory space-time exists ONLY if energy/matter are also present.

And it should be

Neutino conditions ---> Neutrino states

power density tensor ---> energy density tensor

Kettricken

7th February 2006 - 11:27 AM

QUOTE

leovinus

7th February 2006 - 01:54 PM

Hi all,

In light of the availability of the Fortran code to spony, and more
suggestions for improvement of the Java code, I hacked up a slightly
more objective comparisons of various code/math packages
Kind of getting away from the "look, one number is better if we do this"

This is a quick first shot which can be easily improved. Bascially, I have
just taken all mass predictions from Java code, based on either 1989 or 1982 math,
and computed an averaged sqr distance. This gives us some numbers to minimize such as
raw distance and/or percentage deviation compared to mass in the table.

What do the numbers below say. Something like
- the normalized java mass predictions are one order of magnitude worse
than the given HG predictions (from old Fortran code).
- the normalized differences can be >very roughly< interpreted as
"the old HG fortran mass prediction deviate by ~0.09% compared to the table values,
while the current Java code deviates by ~0.65 to 0.49% from the table values."
- the math from 1982 gives better results (as observed earlier)
- the use of the N3 function from 1982 (instead of 1989) is better on two values
N3(2,1) and N3(2,0) but makes minor difference overall.

Getting these numbers requires one small Java change (below) and a seprate script
(which could be done -trivially- in Java too by changing the UnitTest function

If spony is using the Fortran code to improve the Java mass prediction, then
the "avg. norm distance" should go down reaching the same ~0.09% deviation as the old
Fortran code. If we correct any more errors, deviation from table should be even lower.

Enjoy,

L.

========

Procedure (using new -csv flag

and a cmd line like

./heim.exe -csv | awk '/1989 test/ {ok=1}/\"Mass/ { if (ok) { print $0}} /C 0/ {ok=0}' | awk -f script.awk

(and exchange "1989" with "1982" for 1982 results if needed)

(1) b0.05 - out of the box - with N3_1989

result 1989
avg. distance computed mass result to table = 6.97653
avg. distance hg82 computed mass to table = 1.04977
avg. norm distance mass result computed compared to table=0.00658432
avg. norm distance hg82 compared to table=0.000942607

result 1982
avg. distance computed mass result to table = 1.49136
avg. distance hg82 computed mass to table = 1.04977
avg. norm distance mass result computed compared to table=0.00488662
avg. norm distance hg82 compared to table=0.000942607

(2) With N3_1982 (instead of N3_1989)

result 1989
avg. distance computed mass result to table = 5.44992
avg. distance hg82 computed mass to table = 1.04977
avg. norm distance mass result computed compared to table=0.00550541
avg. norm distance hg82 compared to table=0.000942607

result 1982 (*) This should be the best/most consistent one.

avg. distance computed mass result to table = 1.50257
avg. distance hg82 computed mass to table = 1.04977
avg. norm distance mass result computed compared to table=0.00496438
avg. norm distance hg82 compared to table=0.000942607

============================HeimUnit.java
System.out.println("1989 test");
massEquation_Tests(formula1989);
particle_Tests(formula1989);
System.out.println("END89");

System.out.println("1982 test");
massEquation_Tests(formula1982);
particle_Tests(formula1982);
System.out.println("END82");
============================
#
#
BEGIN {}
{
n=split($0,a,",");

res_hg=a[n]; res_table=a[n-1];res_comp=a[n-2];

diff_comp =(res_comp-res_table)
diff_hg =(res_hg-res_table)

d_comp += diff_comp *diff_comp
d_hg += diff_hg *diff_hg

d_norm_comp +=(diff_comp/res_table ) * (diff_comp/res_table)
d_norm_hg +=(diff_hg /res_table) * (diff_hg/ res_table)

n+=1

##print res_hg " "res_table" " diff_hg " " d_hg
}
END{

n=n*1.0

print " avg. distance computed mass result to table = " sqrt(d_comp)/n
print " avg. distance hg82 computed mass to table = " sqrt(d_hg)/n

print " avg. norm distance mass result computed compared to table=" sqrt(d_norm_comp)/n
print " avg. norm distance hg82 compared to table=" sqrt(d_norm_hg)/n
}

will314159

7th February 2006 - 02:49 PM

Translation Problems

The Systran does not work directly with PDF Adobe so I have to convert to Microsoft Word. If I do an all at once conversion from pdf to doc after 11 pages or so it goes from portrait mode to landscape and all the eqations get all messed up.

the only way to do it is just a little bit at a time. One pain is Heim being translated as "home." One surprise is the equations did not convert as graphics but went to text.

One piece of advice, i remember from physics is not be so concerned about all those decimal places of precision but first be concerned about getting an answer in the ball park of magnitude and to know why. Why physically are we getting the right answer? Can anybody express it in 25 words or less?

Take Care!

Good Elf

7th February 2006 - 03:34 PM

Hi will314159,

QUOTE

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Why physically are we getting the right answer? Can anybody express it in 25 words or less?
Vision beats science. He was "seeing something" we are not and it may be the most important aspect of our Universe.

I think Heim's Theory is an "intermediate" theory in the face of impossible intractable mathematics using standard theory. General Relativity cannot solve most problems. GR may be "right" but it is unable to be applied to most practical problems. Heim actually knew all about Relativity and so the reason he abandoned it for his theory is one of those leaps of faith.

This is from one of the Heim Groups Documents....
In 1944 Heim lost both hands, his eyesight and his sense of hearing in an explosion accident. With the help of his father, Burkhard Heim studied in Goettingen and got his diploma-degree (M.Sc.) in physics. For several months in 1952 he was employed at the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics in Goettingen, where the famous physicist C. F. von Weizsaecker had called him. Very soon it was found that it was impossible for him to work within a team, because of his handicap, and he left the MPI and after that continued to work alone and privately on a unified theory of matter and gravitation. In the year of Einstein’s death (1955) Heim informed Einstein on his work on a unified field theory. (Regrettably, only the mathematician W. Hlávaty could answer his letter.) In close collaboration with the relativity theorist Pascual Jordan, Heim wanted to carry out experiments on gravitation, but success eluded him, as the necessary budget was not available. Instead, L. Boelkow, director of the leading aero-space company in Germany, MBB/DASA, gave some financial support, since he was interested in the field propulsion system which Heim had proposed. (In a letter to Heim, Wernher von Braun enquired about progress in the development of such a field propulsion system since otherwise he could not accept responsibility for the enormous cost of the moon-landing project. Heim answered in the negative.)
Heim is credited in some circles with the discovery of atomic weapon assembly by the use of shaped explosives before the Manhattan Project. Have a look at this thread...
Higher Dimensional Problem Solving, A lesson from the Manhattan Project
Remember I am no "expert" on Heim but I can get the drift that this man was "somebody"...

Cheers

will314159

7th February 2006 - 05:24 PM

My twenty five words or so, say a 100. I"ll bet it" resembe the Wikipedia article.

An analgous Schrodinger wave equation is set up where the Hamoltonian of a wave eauation is equal to Energy Eigenvalues. Then to satisfy Riemann Curvature, some mathematical oepration is done with Christoffel Tensor symbols. This is the quantization of space and the Heim contribution!

Then something is done with the Hermitian matrices to get the reduction in dimensions. This dimension thing to me sounds like fourier superposition where you can combine solutions to get more solutions. And where you got zeroes in the matrices, you can get rid of solutions.

And the mass equation, I'm not there yet, but it is a solution of something. where does mass first does show up? It must be in the wave equation?

Zephir

7th February 2006 - 06:04 PM

QUOTE (will314159+Feb 7 2006, 08:24 PM)

And the mass equation, I'm not there yet, but it is a solution of something. where does mass first does show up

The wave equation describes the energy potential solution inside of homogeneous massive environment, whereas the Schrodinger equation describes the the energy potential solution inside of inhomogeneous massive environment, i.e. the composed from the massive points in space, like the string or E/M lattice.

That's the whole difference. Yes, here is problem in causality, as both the Schrodinger, both the wave equation requires such massive environment to be existing at first. But it can result from the subsequent solution of it recursively - it means, the Schrodinger equation can be considered to be a result of recursive wave equation solution, where the density field forms a solution of some independent wave equation for energy density potential, and so on.

user posted image

In the following animation, the wave equation solution evolves into the Schrodinger equation solution smoothly as the result of spontaneous symmetry breaking with increasing of the energy inhomogeneities density in the system.

metronhead

8th February 2006 - 03:31 AM

QUOTE

Why physically are we getting the right answer? Can anybody express it in 25 words or less?
 
Dunno about the 25 words, but I think that maybe Heim got the right answer because he is a revolutionary, and went his own way. I think that our mathematics of infinite divisibility is basically incompatible with quantized time and space, and Heim realized that pretty early- though not as early as Max Planck, who derived Planck's constant, the Planck length, the Planck area, and the Planck time. But Heim took Planck's results, very, very seriously.

Heim also did not demand that his unified field theory be simple. I think that the solutions to the problems of constructing a unified field theory may have been hiding in complexity, and it took a mind with his sort of logic, creativity, visualization ability, and memory to see all the way through the problem.

I think he got some critical stuff right, with his smallest unit of area, his ideas that extra dimensions might be something all around us that we just don't see as another dimension, like information, and a plethora of other brilliant, logical ideas and observations.

The other short answer is that we are getting the right results because Heim kept fiddling with the theory until the results came out right. I hope that is not correct, but is does seem to be a possibility with a theory as long as Heim's theory is, that a genius worked his *** off to construct over most of a lifetime. I don't believe this myself, it seems to me that if the particle mass predictions come out of the core theory that means that the basic model is right, and the micro-realm is just more complicated than we had believed up until this point.

Schneibster

8th February 2006 - 05:54 AM

Will, I'll be very, very interested in the translation when you are done. I have tried wading through this stuff before, and it was extremely difficult.

hdeasy

8th February 2006 - 08:55 AM

QUOTE (Kettricken+Feb 7 2006, 11:27 AM)

QUOTE

- I have a table to translate that compares Heim/LQT/String theories.
 That sound very interesting. I have searched for something like that on the web.
Will it be possible for you to post it here when it's done? Yes, it is now on-line at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory#L...d_String_Theory

By the way, does anyone know if the recent searches for neutral heavy leptons, as reported eg. in http://pdg.lbl.gov/2004/listings/s077.pdf , only consider heavy leptons in the sense of those with mass of order 1 GeV?

Vilvi

8th February 2006 - 01:17 PM

Hello all.

I would like to comment something. In the results we are handling it does not appear the lepton tau. This lepton, as you know, is basic in the construction of the present elementary particle model.

In the table III “Selected Results” the particles with mean lives greater than 10^-16 are presented. The current values for the lepton tau are:

mass= 1776.99 MeV
mean life=290.6 * 10^-15 (greater than 10^-16)

The program we are handling introduces the values for n, m, p and sigma from the Table I “Selected Results”. These values, in agreement with Heim's documents, can be calculated.

My questions are:

why do not appear the values of n, m, s, p, sigma corresponding to the lepton tau?
it is a forgetfulness?
the theory does not predict them?

I believe that it is necessary to calculate the values of the Table I, in order to see which are the permitted values for n, m, p, sigma.

Bye.

metronhead

8th February 2006 - 02:15 PM

Hi hdeasy-

Thanks for the input, I'll make the changes. I'll post back the preliminary translation when a big chunk is done. I think that I have also been confusing hermetry forms with the term non hermitian, which appear to be two very different things.

hdeasy

11th February 2006 - 10:44 AM

Hi Metronhead, Will314159 , Good_elf , Spony etc.
More than 25: In contrast to the QCD & String, Heim thought that one should first describe the internal particle structure and then add on the interactions. This he did, where the particle structure, arising from 6-D cyclic processes in 4 interlinked (in 6-D) sub-zones, gave values for masses depending on the frequency of these cyclic processes. Adding on interactions, he first derived the fine structure constant for the electromagnetic interactions. Droscher helped him later to extend to other forces. It was indeed his method of quantisation of the Christoffel symbols that gave Heim the edge over LQG. His dimension law and reduction of the energy density tensor to its non-zero components allowed him to restrict to 6-D for the masses. But including the zero elements restored the extra 2 dimensions to give the interactions.

I’m more than half way through reading Von Ludwiger’s transcript of the Heim tapes and it’s great! This should be much easier to translate to English as there are really no equations – it’s all descriptive. It will serve as a wonderfully soft intro to Heim theory.

E.g. in there Heim explains how he first came on the mass equation – in one furious session he used his residual sight and arm stump holding chalk to jot down board after board of equations, where it was never obvious that something ‘real’ would emerge. But to his own amazement and relief, at the end out popped the masses. Maybe that’s really how it was – his unique memory and analytical skills allow such a tour-de-force. It's consistent with the French magazine Figaro (15.1.1969) describing Heim as a work robot.

Oh and Metronhead: hermitian (matrix = its complex conjugate transposed) is indeed different from hermetry (a partial metric, with different hermetries using different combinations of the sub-spaces of R6 or R8).

will314159

11th February 2006 - 04:53 PM

that was it HDEASY
the 25 words or so. Still got to figure out the signifigance of the Christoffels. I know they are part of the Riemann curvature and the Levi-Civitata tensor calculus. It was his contribution to the quantization of general relativity. Just as Dirac relativized quantum mechanics, Heim quantized general relativity.

hdeasy

13th February 2006 - 12:35 PM

QUOTE (will314159+Feb 11 2006, 04:53 PM)

From http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ChristoffelSymbol.html

" The Christoffel symbols are tensor-like objects derived from a Riemannian metric g. They are used to study the geometry of the metric and appear, for example, in the geodesic equation. There are two closely related kinds of Christoffel symbols, the first kind Gamma_(i,j,k), and the second kind Gamma_(i,j)^k. Christoffel symbols of the second kind are also known as affine connections (Weinberg 1972, p. 71) or connection coefficients (Misner et al. 1973, p. 210).

It is always possible to pick a coordinate system on a Riemannian manifold such that the Christoffel symbol vanishes at a chosen point. In general relativity Eric Weisstein's World of Physics, Christoffel symbols are "gravitational forces," and the preferred coordinate system referred to above would be one attached to a body in free fall. "

I am nearly finished the transcript of the Heim tapes in German and it's very good. I am more than ever
convinced that it should be translated into English.

jonpress

13th February 2006 - 02:39 PM

Heim's metron seems to correspond to the quantization of space required by any of the theories of quantum gravity that i've come across. Ashtekar is referenced in the Heim paper.

Has anyone in the real physics world come across the G.I Gurdjieff idea of interpenetrating cosmoses (inter alia)??

hdeasy

14th February 2006 - 09:45 AM

The Innsbruck institute IGW cannot be reached any more at the old address. The new one reads

http://www.igw-resch-verlag.at/

Also, Professor Haeuser held a lecture on MHD drive and the Heim field drive at the end of 2005 in India

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...JHSarod2005.pdf

Zephir

14th February 2006 - 12:18 PM

QUOTE (hdeasy+Feb 14 2006, 12:45 PM)

lecture on MHD drive and the Heim field drive

Well, it appears like the real working UFO engine, finally (click to picture to see another "samples")...

spony

14th February 2006 - 08:30 PM

Hello folks,

I know it's been awhile since I've posted. One of the reasons is that I've been translating the Heim Groups code to java. I already had an incremental update based on this code last week, but I've been waiting to get aproval to post the java code on the net from Dr. Mueller. I'm going to delay this for a while longer since his only objection was that the java code must produce the same results and the java code still deviates somewhat (it is really close now though and the results are now extreemly dependant on the graviational constant). I still haven't gotten around to translating the selfcouplings function which also seems to deviate from the papers.

I expect to release some new code this weekend at the latest.

Btw, i appear to be getting better results with 6.673 as the gravitational constant then 6.674. As far as i understand it the gravitational constant is essentialy unknown beyond ~6.67. Although wikipedia lists it as 6.6743 (or so I think it was, wikipedia seems to be down atm....). I'm not a physicist so i was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments regarding this?

Regards Martin

will314159

14th February 2006 - 11:27 PM

"Btw, i appear to be getting better results with 6.673 as the gravitational constant then 6.674. As far as i understand it the gravitational constant is essentialy unknown beyond ~6.67. Although wikipedia lists it as 6.6743 (or so I think it was, wikipedia seems to be down atm....). I'm not a physicist so i was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments regarding this? "

sounds like the "butterfly effect" for nonllinear systems of chaos theory. Small differences in initial conditions make big differences in the output.

I think the preoccupation with more than three significant figures is misplaced. But then I am old enough to have been trained on the slide rule back in junior high. I didn't have my first calculator till I came back from Vietnam.

My first computer was a PDP8 where I had to toggle in the instructions to teach it how to read a a paper tape.

Having a physics degree and a year of electrical engineering that has always been the hallmark and difference between Physics and engineering. Physics looks at the big picture and is more concerned about getting a ballpark answer and understanding how you got there and not getting buried in the details. The forest and not the individual trees. Engineering is immersed in the details and sometimes is lost and forgets the fundamentals.

metronhead

15th February 2006 - 08:44 AM

Hi spony-

QUOTE

The National Bueau of Standards re-evaluated G in 1982:

]6.6726

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Btw, i appear to be getting better results with 6.673 as the gravitational constant then 6.674. As far as i understand it the gravitational constant is essentially unknown beyond ~6.67. Although wikipedia lists it as 6.6743 (or so I think it was, wikipedia seems to be down atm....). I'm not a physicist so i was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments regarding this?

 The National Bueau of Standards re-evaluated G in 1982:

]6.6726

The universal Newtonian gravitational constant is being redetermined at the National Bureau of Standards with use of the method of Boyes (1895) in which the period of a torsion pendulum is altered by the presence of two 10.5-kg tungsten balls. The difference in the squares of the frequencies with and without the balls is proportional to G. The resulting value of G is (6.6726 + or - 0.0005) x 10 to the -11th cu m/sec kg. 6.6726

But the current value from the National Bureau of Standards is:

Current National Bureau of Standards

QUOTE

Newtonian constant of gravitation

Value 6.6742 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

Standard uncertainty 0.0010 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

Relative standard uncertainty 1.5 x 10-4

Concise form 6.6742(10) x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

 One value from before that is [ on edit 6.673 X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, not 6.73], from Heyl and Chrzanowski in 1930-1942.

It concerns me a little that the value that works the best in the mass formula is right on the 1982 measurement, but on the low end of the error range for the currently accepted best value (range 6.6732- 6.6752 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2). But, the value that works the best in the formula is in the error range of the modern value accepted by the National Bureau of Standards, it seems.

millka

15th February 2006 - 10:19 AM

QUOTE (spony+Feb 14 2006, 08:30 PM)

... Btw, i appear to be getting better results with 6.673 as the gravitational constant then 6.674. As far as i understand it the gravitational constant is essentialy unknown beyond ~6.67. Although wikipedia lists it as 6.6743 (or so I think it was, wikipedia seems to be down atm....). I'm not a physicist so i was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments regarding this? ...

Hi Spony,

i'm no physicist either, but looking at the previous answers to your post, it seems the value of G depends on who you ask or where you look ..

I would like to make two remarks ..

1. Remark: Hmm, what about turning the problem upside down ?

As far as i understand, the value of the particle masses are 'known' with smaller error margins than the value of G. So i'm curious about the results if you run your implementation of Heim's mass formula with different values of G, e.g. from 6.66 until 6.68 (which i guess are far lower / higher than the true value of G) with a stepping of 0.001 or even 0.0001. Then, for every value of G, look what happens to the individual differences of the calculated versus 'known' particle masses.

I see three possible results:

A: The results show no pattern at all:
Every particle seems to need another value of G to be calculated with minimal error.
Interpretation: Well, i told you i'm no physicist ..

B: You find a best G:
All particle masses calculate with minimal error for one common value of G.
Interpretation: Bingo, that sounds veeeeery interesting ..

C: You find two or more best G's:
Some particles masses are correct with this G, while others are correct with that G.
Interpretation: Umm, thats still interesting - what do the particles of a 'cluster' sharing a special best value of G have in common ?
E.g. all Leptons 'prefer' this G, while all Baryons 'prefer' that G ?

2. Remark: Calculation and Value of G might depend on which theory you use.
From what i've read about Heim's theory, i think Heim's Gravitation is slightly different from Standard Gravitation:

a: Heim's Gravitation becomes zero and even negative at very large distances.
b: In Heim's Gravitation, the mass creates a field, which results in an additional field mass, which in turn results in slightly more additional field mass ...

I assume the standard procedure to measure G doesnt give the value of G immediately without any calculation. Most likely they measure something else, and insert that into some formula X to calculate G.

Is that formula X the same for Heim's Theory and Standard Theory ?
Maybe not. How big might the difference be ?
Maybe try the search for optimal G with an even broader range of possbile G's ..

OK, i admit that sounds like infantile crackpot experimental physics - like a baby with a hammer hitting everything in range, but it wouldnt be the first case of using statistics in physics ..

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.