Probably not. The Heim excited states for these particles would still be spin 1/2 and these particles are stated to have spin 3/2. In talking about Heim excited particle states and the excited states of particle theory I think we are comparing two different things. The excited states of particle physics involve partial wave analysis, and Heim theory doesn't go into that, at least as far as I understand it. This may be the reason my comparisons of Heim excited particle states and particle theory excited states don't agree.

One other thing of interest, the books are still available through the publisher. I was told about one on eBay.de which I had my German friend purchase for me, and I will order the other one from the publisher. They do answer English language e-mails.

jreed

Hi Will314159

I saw that about the HT page as well, and the conflation of Selector Calculus with Calculus of Differences. I thought about reverting some of the edits on HT, but as you say, maybe it's more readable now. I'll have a look about the anti-Heim stuff. Have to be a bit careful, as some of the discussion on the AfD page wanted to make retention of Heim-theory conditional on a re-write. Still a bit busy at work, so correction of Jim's translations will have to wait a bit longer. But Olaf probably got all the 'rids' anyway. Great to hear that Max is still bent on being a canine nerd.

I have the impression that spin is an emergent phenomenon, and not preserved as higher states of "excitation" are achieved. The mental image I have is very similar to the picture of the atom - chemical properties (due to valence electrons) are emergent phenomena, too. Increasing the atomic number (ie. inserting protons in the nucleus) increases the corresponding number of electrons, which fill the orbitals in sequence by energy. The number of electrons in the outer shell is contingent on the atomic number in a rather complicated way.

I see Heim's excitation number N as analogous to atomic number. Spin is analogous to the number of electrons in the outer shell of an atom (valence electrons). I don't think you should talk about excitations of a particular particle in Heim's model. Each particle and its properties emerge from the model as a result of adding "geometric states" of increasing energy in the six dimensions of Heim's space. It is these “geometric states” that are excited, not the particle – just like it is the electrons that are excited in the atomic model.

On the other hand, I could see short-lived states analogous to excited atoms, where the number of valence electrons is unchanged, but they are moved to higher-energy orbitals, leaving vacant lower-energy orbitals. In this analogy the spin characteristic would remain unchanged, so the resultant particle would not be significantly different from the original. It would have more energy, but would quickly revert to the original state by emitting a photon. If something else came out of the decay, besides the ground state and a photon, I'd say that some of the "geometric states" had spit off (analogous to atomic fission), and you would end up with two new particles, both fundamentally different from the original.

Is this analogy leading me in the wrong direction?…Jim

For another analogy, I like to think of things in this way :

If particles are composed of overlapping "states" (hermetry?) then it's feasible for these states to be in some form of stable oscillation. Zephir's diagrams show this sort of thing quite a lot.

"Spin" is easy to think of : unless all states overlap in a complete phase with other, there will be, at times, a point when the oscillations of each sub-state are biased towards one particular side (in a 2D view of things) of the center of the particle, it's not unfeasible to see how, as this "bias" moves around the mean, it could cause the particle to "spin".

However, that's really thinking of things in a 3D world. In multiple dimensions, one could imagine all the other standard model "properties" to simply correspond to the "spin" in other dimensions.

Quantizing this also seems reasonable, if the "spin" (property) wasn't in phase by exactly 1/2 (or -1/2) (say) then the state would be unstable, and a particle wouldn't form or would have extremely short lifetime.

I must admit that leads me to something this forum hasn't discussed that much, and that's the particle life-time predictions .. I'd like to think that these come out of the
"stable" or "unstable" oscillation patterns ..

Anyway, enough rambling ..

S.

I think in the english translation of Heims MBB presentation section 14 (german version page 67ff) some of the spin stuff can be found. The explanation where the Isospin comes from and also the particle spin (sorry for possibly wrong terms!).
Maybe this gives some highlevel explanation for some of the questions - even though probably not detailed enought to be "waterproof".

Michael

The spin in Heim theory is one of the quantum numbers that specify a particle, as well as in normal particle physics. It may change with excitation, so I tried to calculate what the mass of a Sigma particle with spin 3/2 would be, and that calculation blew up. Mathematica couldn't compute it because of some overflow problems. This was with the 1982 program.

Maybe someone knows how to calculate the mass of this excited Sigma particle?

This brings up another question that I've been wondering about. If you look at Heim's quantum numbers, Table I from the Heim Theory Group's "Selected Results" pdf, you'll see the following quantum numbers for the neutron and proton:

neutron: k=2, n=0, m=0, p=-2, sigma=17, P=1, Q=1, qL=0, kappa=0
proton : k=2, n=0, m=0, p=0, sigma=0, P=1, Q=1, qL=1, kappa=0

In standard particle physics, these two particles are the only members of an isospin multiplet with total isospin = 1/2. I would have expected that they would have identical quantum numbers for all but one of their values except the one that identified the isospin quantum number, either +1/2 or -1/2 since they are identical under the strong interaction and differ only by the isospin. Instead we see big differences in sigma and differences in p and qL. Comments anyone?

jreed

The quantum numbers n, m, p and sigma are Heim's "configuration zone" quantum numbers, aren't they? These have no corresponding interpretation in the standard theory. Well, I guess that differences in these numbers correspond to the difference between and an “up” and a “down” quark in the standard model (except that quarks carry charge, too).

As for isospin, that is P/2, so it is 1/2 for both proton and neutron. The sign of the spin can be though of as the z-direction orientation. Protons can have positive or negative spin, but all protons have "spin 1/2". Same for neutrons, and (I assume) for isospin, which I think of as imaginary spin.

The only remaining difference is the qL quantum number you quoted. I think you are referring to the epsilon-q-sub-x column in the table (Table I here). I guess that is charge, which makes sense.

Jim

The difference in the configuration space quantum numbers is what I was trying to get at. Why is sigma=0 for the proton and 17 for the neutron? These particles should be quite close to each other, the only difference being the charge, given by the isospin. Where do 17 and 0 come from? Can we come up with 17 by purely theoretical construction? It's an integer, prime and doesn't correspond to anything I can think of in this context. If I want to model particles, such as the newly found spin 3/2 Sigma particles how do I come up with the quantum numbers n, m, p and sigma? We know the quark configurations for these particles. How do these map to Heim's n, m, p and sigma? If they don't map, then what do we use to find Heim's quantum numbers?

jreed

That's a nice concrete question(sigma being 17 for n, 0 for p) about one part of the calculation that I could pass on to one of the Heim theory group.

As for the 6-dim interpretation of the particles - remember that a particle is virtual if the 6-d cyclic process is ' open-ended' or non-cyclic. Only stable cyclic processes are seen as particles. The length of the cycle is related to the lifetime.

Finally, I notice that the entry on Droscher in Wikipedia was also under threat from Heim arch-enemy Pjacobi - it was scheduled for deletion early in October. None of us saw that - not I nor Will314159 or other Heim-synpathetic Wilipedia editors (including Max the dog). But somehow Pjacobi could only stir one other judge to condemn Droscher - 5 or 6 others gave him the thumbs up. A more muted affair than the Heim-theory debate, which drew dozens of voters. But still, a quiet victory was achieved - one more in the eye for the anti-Heim crowd !!

I don't understand it, but I think this may be what you're looking for:

Starting from Equation (XII)
in http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/E_Hei...ormula_1982.pdf

He uses a different notation there, but it describes how the configuration zones are sequentially filled. I seem to remember that there was a transcription error in this formula - probably in the 1982 version that I linked to.

It’s a pretty convoluted algorithm, but you already coded it in the Mathematica mass calculator, didn’t you? Or does that calculator just take the numbers n,m,p and sigma as input?

My general feeling is that these numbers depend on k and N. The correlation with observed particles is done post-facto, by matching the observed mass, spin and charge to one of the results that pops out of the mass formula. I think that the best you can do is search for "allowed" masses matching the measured properties. That certainly does not sound like a "prediction", does it? Probably I just don't understand...Jim

I programmed both the 1982 and 1989 versions. I haven't been able to completely see the connection between the two. The 1982 version doesn't input quantum numbers n,m,p and sigma, just baryon number, isospin, spin and doublet (kappa) (I don't know what kappa refers to), but the 1989 version needs these as well as the others. As far as searching for resonances that might match the new particles, I'm sure I could find some that are close because there are a great number of them, but that doesn't seem very satisfying from a theoretical point of view.

To say it's a convoluted algorithm is putting it mildly. Actually both the 1982 and 1989 versions are that way.

jreed

Thanks to Darrin Shrout, we have some translations of Olaf's illustrations in the MBB Presentation. I've updated the first section with these illustrations, and also incorporated Olaf's corrections and a few more comments from John Reed.

I contemplated highlighting the changes, to make it easier to scan for differences, but there have been so many minor changes, it would be very confusing. I don't think that any of the changes to this section would alter your understanding of the previously published version.

I've also started increasing the font size for the formulas. I found them difficult to read, especially when "k" and kappa were used in the final section.

The rest of the sections will be revised without announcement here. I'll let you know when Hugh Deasy's comments are included...Jim

Heim Translation

I think Olaf may have the right idea - an Excel spreadsheet might allow you to see how the "configuration zones" are sequentially occupied. This seems to be a discrete process, like the filling of electron orbitals. It may not help us to understand why the behavior is this way, but it would help develop an intuition about how such differences between the proton and neutron occur.

Unfortunately I don't have Excel at home. Maybe I'll buy it (this hobby is getting expensive)...Jim

Hi folks,


Keep up the good work! It sounds like real progress is being made.




The question, as to the "latest particle" discovery seems to be in the hardest direction. (smaller)

I am wondering if anyone has tried to extend the predictive "pattern" into the elements? It would seem probable that, if a theory could produce the fundamental particles, then the same "mechanics" would take it right into the Hydrogen atom and up.


any comments?


regards,

T.Roc

<br>Heim actually describes all levels of complexity in his broader theory. For example in Von Ludwiger's new book "Das neue Weltbild des Physikers Burkhard Heim", in Skizze 8 (Figure 8) he shows Heim's 'Metroplex cascade' of organisation levels 1 - 7, which correspond to Prototrope, Protosimplexes, elementary particles, atoms, molecules, 'macro-molecules', 'biophores' . But the hierarchy goes up through further levels of complexity all the way up to Psyche and 'pneuma'. I must admit I haven’t yet grasped how quantitative is the transition from particles to atoms.

Has any one stopped and given some thought what actually defines said particles?

Of course at whatever level or relative magnitude we consider, it has been agreed that a direction of momentum is responsible for its definition, my question is what was the cause of this?

Understandably most of the current theories being presented suggests that the majority are still under the misconception some Big Bang is responsible for our Universe..

Unfortunately the latest findings either suggests we are still at the onset of a Big Bang or some where in our Universe we have an increasing source of energy due to our increasing rate of expansion..

So what has this to do with the current topic?

what if the Universe was somewhat stable and this expansion was being perceived the wrong way around?

what if our universes cold and or dark Matter was actually stuffing our galaxy into its Core!? {Black Hole}

for many this may be hard to conceive or imagine that our local area is being compressed and as we are compressed distant bodies that are not being compressed will seem to...

A/. Distance from us... {Red Shift measurements}
B/. Seem to expand to our relative size..
C/. Our momentum and time rates will decrease, So our relative speeds to distant bodies decreases so we perceive these distant bodies to increase in velocity..

I know in this century most individuals still reason the magical attractive force is possible, and well lets face it~ this is possible only to those that dont fully understand force.

As Physists we should know the reality of the whole situation in that if attraction is to be facilitated, we must rely on either two velocities and or two converging directions of force!

If we now apply this same simple rule to some of our defined theoretical particles and theoretical Sub Subatomic Particle, only then, will we make significant advances as to fully understanding what a particle really consists of...

Lets start with the Electron because a protons outward {positive} exertion is self explanatory..
"<-" left or right "->" would be possible directions if an opposing direction was evident to faciliate it as would up or down or any other direction for that matter!

In our latter depiction "o" would be our footing area or impact area if the forces were at an opposite direction and or velocity..

<-o-> Here is a proton for reference, but how can an Electrons force be depicted?
>< ???? If the protons direcection of force was outward {positive} How would an inward direction or negative force be possible?

If we had a vast number of protons that occupied areas throughout our universe we would have in all directions the following possible forces..

<-o-><---o-----><-------o------><----------o----------><--------o--------><----o---><-o><-o-> Notice how I have depicted some protons line of force with less potential occupying vast areas {near vacuum} while some have a higher potential more dense {solid} or with out having some quanta defined, we could be inferring different Atoms from our periodic table and or that are propagating electron flow for all we know{as in solids} or we could be depicting electromagnetic waves {Light} if our magnitudes or our medium were inferred as a near vacuum {see speed of light in vacuum compared to speed of light{electron flow} in a solid for confirmation} also consider sea level and upper atmosphere for relativity via the use of E=MC^2.

But if our whole universe consisted just of protons how did all our previous experiments infer Electrons and Neutrons and further more all the sub atomic particles pertained to our standard model?

If we take a look at the above line of forces and ask where could we have neutralized areas? and where could we have a perceived area of attraction for our electron you should hold a better understanding as to how and why the electron has been a key part of physics..

If you chose the area where we have one protons outward exertion meeting its neighboring proton we can satisfy the conditions for our theoretical electron >< and whats more where each protons forces meet with another protons we have the forces being neutralized!.. So take a guess what theoretical component that is?

Let me point out also that if it were not for the two protons exertions we wouldn't have an attractive force nor the theoretical neutrons!

For Decades !? Nay Centuries! This small over sight has given cause for science to introduce all these fancy theories with out considering possible direction of force, {Gravity is with the same problem} where every experiment can only do so much the rest is speculative theory and that's why this small over sight has never been addressed and may even be scoffed away with this post..

My Dawg! we are in the 21st century! and we are still coining Attraction on its own merit!
"Attraction" for far to long has been treated as a force via theory as a given force via its own merits.
I say it is Time to get real and rule out attraction or at least consider it how it is facilitated! And let me say if we do this now many advances are about to unfold in your life time..

The only problem now is, so many individuals have all this fancy theory explaining small sub components of said particles with given velocity and trajectories based on pages and pages of so much calculus that no one can put an image to the actual reality of the greater picture, ask any one here and they will blurt out some theory or take that doesnt rely on proper basics.

So lets change this now and lets confront our lectures as to how attraction is possible on its own Merritt.

The Heim's theory is impressive & monumental work, indeed, but by AWT the Universe is based on much more simpler principle.

<br>I concur zeph..

Most physicists are over looking the basics, in particular basics on force..

You would not believe how many don't have a clue..

Take a look at all my negative feedback and we can get a good idea who has problems with the basics..

BTW ZEPH, Have you been informed yet that your Internet browser doesnt conform to the Java used by this website?

I was looking at comparisons between the 1982 and 1989 Mathematica mass formulas. The 1982 formulas came from Olaf's Pascal implementation, and the 1989 program from the Heim theory group fortran. Here are a couple of questions that came from this:

In the 1982 version you will see mass calculations for the delta++, delta0 and delta- isospin multiplet. Then in the 1989 version you will see mass calculations for the theta- and theta0 multiplet, but not the delta family. Conversely there is no delta calculation in the 1989 formula. If I want to calculate the delta mass values with the 1989 formulas, or the theta mass values with the 1982 version, how can I do this? How do I come up with Heim quantum numbers for these particles? Since the 1989 equations must be directly related to the 1982 equations this should be straightforward.

jreed

Yes, I confirm to John. There must be a very strong correlation between the 1982 formula and the 1989 version.
As far as I know one of the reasons for putting out a 1989 version are those funny coefficients Aik that are used as geometrical weighting factors in the 1982 formula. In "elementary structures" this coefficients are not derived explicitly. So it gives a weak touch to the whole thing.

Currently we are not absolutely sure about the equations in both versions. I have found more than 20 errors in the formerly document E compared to the DESY program from 1979. Currently the Heim Theory group is re-checking these equations. (But they put more effort in writing a newer version of document D.)

A similar thing happened with the 1989 formulas where some brackets were missing in the type writer script distributed by Burkhard Heim. (The HT group just gave me a paper copy if this script). This has been a reason for me dealing not with the 1989 version until the 1982 formula is absolutely checked and sure. Otherwise we would have nothing to compare with. Currently we are not at this point.

So we have to work in two steps:
1. Checking and correcting the 1982 version and the 1989 version.
2. Comparing both versions to identify changes in the descriptions of some phenomena.

The second step somehow needs the first.

***

Here comes a sad thing. The wife of Burkhard Heim died in the end of September. There is not any money to hold the house any longer which served as institute in the better days. The HT group is corresponding with the inheritress to make sure that nothing of the books, tapes and so on will get lost.
This is a situation where every one of us may do some prayers to support the idea of conserving those treasures.

Do you mean Java or JavaScript, exactly? Where is the Java used in this site?
As far as know, the new Ajax version of PhysOrg doesn't work with MSIE. Ajax is JavaScript technology.

Here's part of the answer:

The masses for the theta particle can be generated in the 1982 program. All that needs to be done is to put the quantum numbers k, P, Q. charge and kappa for these particles (theta- and theta0) into the 1982 program and you will get the masses for these particles.

It is not true, however, that the quantum numbers n, m, p and sigma used in the 1989 program are identical with the variables n1, n2, n3 and n4 in the 1982 program. I was hoping this would turn out to be the case. Now comes the hard part of trying to unravel the equations.

jreed

Hmmm???

What ever the page error, it was only evident when I tied to quote one of your posts..

And mind you it rarely happens but mainly when I quote one of YOUR posts that has more than one image to it.

Eh! I am sure my crow soft will work it out..