...during a lightning storm you have many electrons that have a certain charge that are streaming at the Earth faster than almost any particle other than the other one currently being debated...
<br>Lightning 'strikes' from the ground upward. The excess of electrons comes down on the raindrops. When the electric strain becomes too great, electrons are drawn back into the clouds as lightning. I'd quote the Scientific American article but it was decades ago and only those with compilations on CDs will be able to find it.
I have personal anecdotal experience of this fact, but this isn't the place for it. If someone wants to read it, say so, and I'll post a web page and leave a link here.
_______
YES! Kudos and hearty thanks to Mssrs. Reed and Deasy for your unflinching efforts!
No, NeoNo.1, read further up on this page. (Zarabtul @ 12:47 PM)
NeoNo.1
7th September 2007 - 12:44 AM
* I think you might have this in the wrong thread mate...
elarne
7th September 2007 - 07:30 AM
QUOTE (bprager+Sep 6 2007, 01:30 PM) Just out of curiosity:
Does anybody have an idea how the event of entering Heim space would look like for an observer nearby?
Does a space ship just disappear when a certain change in gravity is achieved? I think, the more important question - if the superluminal travel is considered possible - will be the following: IIRC, you have to exceed a special threshold in field strength to achieve the effect. Is it practicable to exceed the threshold simultaneously for the whole space ship? I mean, if the field strength can not be increased homogeneously - even within time frames of a few microseconds - wouldn't the space ship be atomised?  @hdeasy & jreed Excellent work! Jreed, I'm really glad to see you staying tuned!
Astepintime
7th September 2007 - 09:18 AM
QUOTE (jreed+Sep 5 2007, 12:38 PM) The mass numbers don't lie, however.
Yea, when I first heard about this theory the rumors that EHT could obtain the masses of all the elementary particles and their excited states (plus lifetimes) definitely got my attention. But I also heard claims that the theory also predicted lots of unobserved particles -- is this true or just BS? Finally, has anyone checked how the mass formulas are extracted from the theory? Remember that even back as far as 1969 (an perhaps even earlier) there were many attempts to write mass formulas (input quantum numbers and get output mass and lifetimes) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969PThPh..41..473MThere is a huge difference between a super fancy fit and an extraction of masses and lifetimes from the geometry of H-8. But if it is all real then it would seem that even with no anti-gravity effects, the understanding of elementary particle mass and lifetime would heavily impact high-energy physics and cosmology. Huge impact for sure.
Maxwell's Demon
7th September 2007 - 10:51 AM
I agree, a transparent derivation of the mass formula from the theory is crucial now. But it's thrilling to consider that if the theory reflects a sound model of particle masses, then the exotic gravitational phenomena may be equally intrinsic to the theory. Heim certainly thought so.
This is all very exciting news, and I have to join the chorus of gratitude for the tenacious efforts of Dr. Deasy and Dr. Reed: terrific work gentlemen.
But let’s not forget all the unsung heroes who helped work out the code on the first mass spectrum programs. That global collaboration to investigate this theory remains the most exciting realization of the potential of the internet that I’ve had the privilege to witness. I think it may have been the first high-caliber grass-roots theoretical physics movement, and it’s a shame it stalled. Let’s see if we can get it back on track.
Clearly the mass formula is a pivotal step in the right direction. Barring any further nasty mathematical unforeseeables, I think there are three directions we can take from here which will move us ahead in the near-term:
1.) We’re going to need further independent verification of the mass formula implementation in computer code form, just as we had last year, with open-access links to anyone who wants to check it out. That will turn heads, and bring bright new minds into the game. Eventually, if the math continues to check out, I think we’ll see some interest from some of the world’s most renowned theoretical physicists. Which is good, because it means help with the other steps in terms of brainpower and funding.
2.) As Dr. Reed pointed out, there’s a lot of work to be done on interactions, and we’re going to need qualified folks to help out there. This isn’t going to be easy, due to both the language barrier and the complexity of the mathematics, the notation of some of which, as I understand, is somewhat unconventional. I know the Heim theory group is doing their best to move the theory ahead, but it’s going to take more than a handful of theorists working in their spare time to elucidate the essential facets of this theory. So let’s see if we can get some help on translations of Heim’s books, and translations of the mathematics into convention notation form, especially the derivations. The more accessible the math and language is, the more people can contribute.
3.) And I keep hammering this point because it’s the most expedient and definitive mechanism to launch this theory into center stage with the physics community: a clear, comprehensive, and cost-effective experimental prediction of the gravitophoton lift effect. No more of this ‘special material’ business – we need precise technical specifications or nobody’s going to try it. Verified experimental evidence is the only -proof- in physics, and we’re *this close* to having what we need to get some experimental tests going. The last paper, which described a test along the lines of Tajmar’s work, -almost- fit the bill. If anyone has any pull on the Heim group, now would be a great time to use it to get the specs to build a test rig.
The sooner we can get to Step 1 of Dr. Deasy’s Interstellar Launch Program, the sooner we might be able to turn off the TV’s and start star trekking with our own two feet. Let’s make it so ;P
DEK46656
7th September 2007 - 11:44 AM
I believe we need to add to the list hdeasy made; determine the source of difference between the predictions and the measured values for particle masses. Though there is a lot of potential interest in this aspect of the theory, if it doesn't get it right, it may result in a "nice try" response from the physics community. So the question would be "why the difference". Operating on the assumption that the measured results are accurate (seems reasonable to me), either the formulas have something "small" missing from them (possible, but not likely), or the values for the constants are off by a small amount. I think this is the most likely, especially if the value are derived from an earlier, non-unified model. Admittedly the idea that the constants need to be "addressed" operates on the assumption that EHT, the mass formulas, and the program, are correct. However... EHT does propose 2 additional forces (Ggp and Gq), no dark matter, etc. So the idea that the constants need adjustment may not be as far fetched as it seems. Anyone care to take the revised program, tweak the values for the constants, then see see what happens? I would think the constant for G would be the most likely candidate. This would make for some interesting predictions (as if there weren't enough interesting predictions in Heim Theory); a prediction that the speed of light is in fact X m/s faster (or slower) than measured, or that G is off by #*10^11. Just imagine the response from the wikipedia naysayers over something like that  .
Tim
7th September 2007 - 01:51 PM
QUOTE (DEK46656+Sep 7 2007, 11:44 AM) Anyone care to take the revised program, tweak the values for the constants, then see see what happens? I would think the constant for G would be the most likely candidate. <a href='http://www.daimi.au.dk/~spony/HeimMassFormula/' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>Spony created a java based mass calculation program with the help of the forum back in January or February of 2006. In Spony's calculator you can adjust the gravitational constant and see how it effects the particle masses. Unfortunately, I think Spony was inadvertently using the A matrix in his program rather than deriving the masses directly from the constants as was his intention. I agree with DEK46656 that a revised program with some tweaked constants could be both interesting and informative. QUOTE (jreed+Aug 31 2007, 01:42 PM) The Heim Group has given me the Fortran code for the newer Heim version. I'm coding it up in Mathematica so I can get a better understanding of what it involves. So far, it looks like the A matrix is not used in finding the masses. The new version is able to find the quantum numbers n, m, p and sigma with an algorithm. It all looks very promising. <!--QuoteBegin-hdeasy+Aug 31 2007, 09:01 PM--> QUOTE (hdeasy+Aug 31 2007, 09:01 PM) Yes, I have got a fair way to converting the Fortran to F95 - it was in F77 or similar: problem is that F95 is code sensitive etc. So I have to correct some of the code to get it to run. Nearly there - got through initital setup: just a problem in the main loop. I agree that as yet I see no sign of A being used and it looks encouraging. Can the Mathematica and/or Fortran codes be used for this type of value tweaking or not?
Zarabtul
7th September 2007 - 08:11 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Sep 6 2007, 04:50 PM) @Bprager
That's the most speculative side of the theory. So it's anyone's guess if the hyperspace effect would really happen. First the gravito-magnetic thing has to be fully proven - i.e. the good old fashioned anti-gravity. The plan should have several phases:
(1) The EHT modification to Tajmar's setup is constructed and shown to give a vertical acceleration, though still small (0.0001 Earth's gravity, g), for superconductors.
(2) This success is used to justify building the more expensive 20 Tesla fermionic engine that should then allow a small test craft to lift off.
(3) Then a full scale spaceship is constructed and launched on a trip round Earth or the Moon, showing that this is possible without chemical fuel.
(4) Once confidence in Heim craft in the vicinity of the Earth is achieved, they can start testing out the hyerspace hypothesis. Will the observer see it fade from view, or will it just explode?
It would be great already to have (3). After that, (4) would be a delightful bonus. We need to skip to 3.... Can I also suggest working with the number of Fermionic possibilities you will have available to you. Crush is the worst case scenario.
bprager
7th September 2007 - 08:31 PM
QUOTE (Zarabtul+Sep 7 2007, 08:11 PM) We need to skip to 3....
Can I also suggest working with the number of Fermionic possibilities you will have available to you.
Crush is the worst case scenario. Why wasting time. Let's do 4! I volunteer pushing the launch button. And if it is the last thing I do.
Zarabtul
7th September 2007 - 08:35 PM
Then again you might like to know how to steer your car once in awhile too. I'm not real smart. Okay yes I am I am a smart @$$!!!!!!
bprager
7th September 2007 - 08:53 PM
Ok, serious again:
If we don't know which gravity thresholds could possibly cause "space switches", how can measurable values indicate possible anomalies and warn us to prevent nasty accidents?
Could experiments even on little scale (like M.Tajmar) cause measurable change in known constants like c? D&H speculated that Heim space could have different c values. Did I understand that correctly?
pbelter
8th September 2007 - 12:29 AM
Hdeasy,
If the talks were classified it might be good news by itself...
Zarabtul
8th September 2007 - 01:10 AM
QUOTE (bprager+Sep 7 2007, 08:53 PM) Ok, serious again:
If we don't know which gravity thresholds could possibly cause "space switches", how can measurable values indicate possible anomalies and warn us to prevent nasty accidents?
Could experiments even on little scale (like M.Tajmar) cause measurable change in known constants like c? D&H speculated that Heim space could have different c values. Did I understand that correctly? I cannot and will not answer that question in a complete form or even probably much less give much more insight other than keep working on trying to figure out the mathmatical meanings of the symbols................. From there I will also be more than willing to share what I have though at present I am personally restricted to The Untied States V.I.A. being a P.O.W. inside the boundaries of The United States due to a cival War on Drugs that they continue to hold me prisoner in the country though time spent in jail for my so called crime even though just healing myself when they couldn't or wouldn't. I personally am dying and have little time left and really could care less if you ever make it to space with the ideas that make the most sense from what I have gleaned. I'm still as a human being being treated with predjudice due to having disabilities that I had to figure out how to fix myself. This is why I am held hostage in this fine country where are you from? Oh my wife and I make a great wage of about 25k a yr. too personally I get 670 bucks a month from the govt.
DEK46656
8th September 2007 - 01:53 AM
QUOTE (bprager+Sep 7 2007, 04:53 PM) If we don't know which gravity thresholds could possibly cause "space switches", how can measurable values indicate possible anomalies and warn us to prevent nasty accidents? I will attempt to answer this, but I'm not the physicist (mostly a reasonable well informed laymen). I believe the answer to the "gravity thresholds" is related to discreet units in quantum physics. In that sense you have to have a distinct "value" (>=) to achieve a certain state. The best example I could offer is valence shells. Electron(s) orbits are at discreet levels of energy, so that an electron "jumps" from one energy state (shell) to the next. My knowledge in this is obviously limited, but I do remember this in reference to "classic" lasers; photon absorption would cause electrons to go to a higher energy shell, and then (later) would "collapse" into a lower energy shell, releasing the energy in the form of photons (in phase, coherent, etc). {NOTE: to any physicist out there, please be gentle, I'm not claiming expertise here, just an attempt at an analogy} So, with quantum physic's working (in a manner of speaking) at discreet levels, there are specific field effect values that need to be obtained to achieve a transition. If the craft hasn't reached them yet, it can't do the transfer into the parallel universe. Actually, this was an area of questioning I brought up in an earlier part of this forums thread. The implication from some of the writings were that the craft would accelerate to a certain velocity and then just "switch" into the parallel universe. I was curious what event caused the switch. It seems to me that certain field effect values would automatically cause a transition into the parallel universe and could not be avoided, but by reading the proposals in the AIAA papers, that didn't seem to be the case. They indicated that a transit to Mars was a few hours, switching into and back out of the parallel universe with certain values, but the example of inter-stellar travel indicated a long buildup of speed (~34 days @ 1G acceleration to achieve .01C) and then "flipping the switch" to jump up in relative speed. My questions had been, what event causes the transition? By the examples presented, it was always just "it happens", not a specific action, field effect, or similar. QUOTE (bprager+Sep 7 2007, 04:53 PM) Could experiments even on little scale (like M.Tajmar) cause measurable change in known constants like c? D&H speculated that Heim space could have different c values. Did I understand that correctly? As to your question about C values, the AIAA papers cover that in some detail (which was beyond me), but they indicate that the value of the C constant changed in the parallel universes, and that the crafts speed (in relation to C constant) proportionally increased. As an example, if you were traveling at .01C and switched into a parallel universe where C constant was 1000 C (of our universe), then the relative speed of the craft would increase to (.01*1000) 10C. {NOTE: I'm just pulling these numbers out of a spare orifice, the AIAA paper covers this in more specific detail} Anyway, I hope this helps without butchering physics too much. Later...
Zarabtul
8th September 2007 - 02:27 AM
Oh yeah and don't leave your state either....We don't like your viewpoints so we'll make up lies and drag you through court on bogus charges....Thx Dek good explanation of laser technology my gosh what a breakthrough in thought.....
Javier.707
8th September 2007 - 06:13 AM
First of all, this is my first post on a forum -ever-, so Hi everyone.
Second, my most sincere and heartfelt congratulations to jreed and hdeasy for having invested so much time, patience, and hard work ( not to mention all of those who worked equally hard on implementing code on such a difficult subject as this one, and whose names -sorry, usernames- I can´t exactly remmember right now...). Enough to have me hooked for two straigth days reading the thread history, almost a year and a half now, back when there where only like 50 pages or so !!
Well, that´s enough for an introduction. On to my post:
I´d like to adress bprager´s question, ´cause that´s something I also thought about a long time ago... My guess is (and that´s taken from the standpoint of a college drop-out whose orientation was physics) that with a 20-30T magnetic field near Earth, you´re gonna get a huge whole mean bunch of charged particles from the solar wind bumping into your ship. That should cause quite a nice aurora borealis-like effect surrounding it. And since Earth´s own magnetic field is like a meager fraction of a Tesla ( can´t remeber the exact value, so feel free to chew me out...), and enough to channel solar wind particles into the poles to create the effect, I´d dare say that with the above field intensity mentioned above, the effect should be much more,let´s say...noticeable.Also, if the ship is moving (I was thinking in the stationary case above) you should also get a nice comet-like tail...
I´m making a lot of big assumptions here regarding a lot of things (maybe the field is pulsed, and only lasts a few microseconds-and maybe not that long-who knows), but I don´t think that turning such monstruosity in Earth´s vicnity is going to go unnoticed!
Now, whether the ship is going to simply "fade" or "bang-zoom" its way to eternity, is a more tricky issue, and I´m certainly not qualified to give a proper answer. But from what I gleaned from the AIAA paper, and the other sources regarding Heim theory, in using the H-Drive you`re altering subsets of relationships between the different forces that end up conforming the way we see end results in our 4D space ( gravity,electromagnetism,weak, and strong forces, plus the two new ones). So you alter the way in which space itself perceives your presence, and you transform your inertial mass into something else (gravitophotons-I believe- in this case). Now, I´m not quite sure whether the entire ship is transfered into parallel space, or just the bubble of empty space surrounding it, if you can actually survive such a thing or whatever. Bottom line is, I believe you would be there [/i]and[I] not be there to be seen, moving unusually fast towards your destination (how do you steer, navigate, or where you pop out is beyond me).
Sounds like a lot of gibberish from my part, but is the best I can do for now. I´m still catching up on a crash course of matrix mechanics from the bottom up on Wikipedia, to better understand what am I reading when math is beyond my level!
Hope I was useful. Please point out any mistakes I might´ve made. I know learning science takes a lifetime of study and dedication, which, unfortunately, I cannot possibly pursue right now. But I`d thankfully appreciate any help I can get in this area from those who have spent the time and made the effort to do so.
Best wishes to everyone.
Javier
Zarabtul
8th September 2007 - 09:19 AM
QUOTE (Javier.707+Sep 8 2007, 06:13 AM) First of all, this is my first post on a forum -ever-, so Hi everyone.
Second, my most sincere and heartfelt congratulations to jreed and hdeasy for having invested so much time, patience, and hard work ( not to mention all of those who worked equally hard on implementing code on such a difficult subject as this one, and whose names -sorry, usernames- I can´t exactly remmember right now...). Enough to have me hooked for two straigth days reading the thread history, almost a year and a half now, back when there where only like 50 pages or so !!
Well, that´s enough for an introduction. On to my post:
I´d like to adress bprager´s question, ´cause that´s something I also thought about a long time ago... My guess is (and that´s taken from the standpoint of a college drop-out whose orientation was physics) that with a 20-30T magnetic field near Earth, you´re gonna get a huge whole mean bunch of charged particles from the solar wind bumping into your ship. That should cause quite a nice aurora borealis-like effect surrounding it. And since Earth´s own magnetic field is like a meager fraction of a Tesla ( can´t remeber the exact value, so feel free to chew me out...), and enough to channel solar wind particles into the poles to create the effect, I´d dare say that with the above field intensity mentioned above, the effect should be much more,let´s say...noticeable.Also, if the ship is moving (I was thinking in the stationary case above) you should also get a nice comet-like tail...
I´m making a lot of big assumptions here regarding a lot of things (maybe the field is pulsed, and only lasts a few microseconds-and maybe not that long-who knows), but I don´t think that turning such monstruosity in Earth´s vicnity is going to go unnoticed!
Now, whether the ship is going to simply "fade" or "bang-zoom" its way to eternity, is a more tricky issue, and I´m certainly not qualified to give a proper answer. But from what I gleaned from the AIAA paper, and the other sources regarding Heim theory, in using the H-Drive you`re altering subsets of relationships between the different forces that end up conforming the way we see end results in our 4D space ( gravity,electromagnetism,weak, and strong forces, plus the two new ones). So you alter the way in which space itself perceives your presence, and you transform your inertial mass into something else (gravitophotons-I believe- in this case). Now, I´m not quite sure whether the entire ship is transfered into parallel space, or just the bubble of empty space surrounding it, if you can actually survive such a thing or whatever. Bottom line is, I believe you would be there [/i]and[I] not be there to be seen, moving unusually fast towards your destination (how do you steer, navigate, or where you pop out is beyond me).
Sounds like a lot of gibberish from my part, but is the best I can do for now. I´m still catching up on a crash course of matrix mechanics from the bottom up on Wikipedia, to better understand what am I reading when math is beyond my level!
Hope I was useful. Please point out any mistakes I might´ve made. I know learning science takes a lifetime of study and dedication, which, unfortunately, I cannot possibly pursue right now. But I`d thankfully appreciate any help I can get in this area from those who have spent the time and made the effort to do so.
Best wishes to everyone.
Javier you guys really don't have a clue do you.... How many of your "engines" are you putting on this thing??? Also how many breakers have you included for this contraption..... "bang-zoom" There is only one way to survive it and that's to build it right the first time...
jreed
8th September 2007 - 01:26 PM
QUOTE (DEK46656+Sep 7 2007, 11:44 AM)
So the question would be "why the difference". Operating on the assumption that the measured results are accurate (seems reasonable to me), either the formulas have something "small" missing from them (possible, but not likely), or the values for the constants are off by a small amount. I think this is the most likely, especially if the value are derived from an earlier, non-unified model.
Admittedly the idea that the constants need to be "addressed" operates on the assumption that EHT, the mass formulas, and the program, are correct. However... EHT does propose 2 additional forces (Ggp and Gq), no dark matter, etc. So the idea that the constants need adjustment may not be as far fetched as it seems.
Anyone care to take the revised program, tweak the values for the constants, then see see what happens? I would think the constant for G would be the most likely candidate.
It's real easy to change the constants and look for a difference. The problem with this is some of the particle masses agree up to six figures, and others only agree to 3 figures. If I change one of the input constants it will change all the mass values. The ones that are close (most of them) will be farther off while I try to make the few that are off agree better. What the theory needs now is more understanding of how the equations were derived and what they represent. I don't have much of a clue as to how Heim came up with those equations. All I know is he starts with the Christoffel symbols from General Relativity and quantizes them. We used to call the Christoffel symbols "Christ-awful" symbols because they were so hard to work with. I think we are missing something in the equations. As far as the number of excitation levels, on looking at these it does appear that for a given particle there are too many values. However I found that the Rho meson is an excited state of the pion, and the excited states of the Rho must be added into the excited states of the pion. There may be many more cases of this happening. The classification of particles and their excited states will undergo many changes if Heim Theory is correct. For example, the Rho meson will no longer be considered an independent particle. John Reed
freethis
8th September 2007 - 02:57 PM
QUOTE (jreed+Sep 8 2007, 01:26 PM)
What the theory needs now is more understanding of how the equations were derived and what they represent. I don't have much of a clue as to how Heim came up with those equations. All I know is he starts with the Christoffel symbols from General Relativity and quantizes them. We used to call the Christoffel symbols "Christ-awful" symbols because they were so hard to work with. I think we are missing something in the equations.
 the meaning of a smile with a tongue has many implications, the determination as too what is missing is a result of the brain, having a notion of understanding too what you are missing. the sudden click for the answer will be evident when a relationship is drawn... 
hdeasy
8th September 2007 - 06:15 PM
QUOTE (jreed+Sep 8 2007, 01:26 PM) What the theory needs now is more understanding of how the equations were derived and what they represent. I don't have much of a clue as to how Heim came up with those equations. All I know is he starts with the Christoffel symbols from General Relativity and quantizes them. We used to call the Christoffel symbols "Christ-awful" symbols because they were so hard to work with. I think we are missing something in the equations.
As far as the number of excitation levels, on looking at these it does appear that for a given particle there are too many values. However I found that the Rho meson is an excited state of the pion, and the excited states of the Rho must be added into the excited states of the pion. There may be many more cases of this happening. The classification of particles and their excited states will undergo many changes if Heim Theory is correct. For example, the Rho meson will no longer be considered an independent particle. Hi John: You are indeed quite right that we need to understand the derivation of hte mass formula better in order to explain the differing accuracy. One factor is that for charged particles there is a somewhat different implementation of the formula, which might be a factor in the lower accuracy of the Neutron mass. Much more subtle factors may also play a role. E.g. at some points there may have been approximations made which affected the outcome. These approximations might be improved on by numerical techniques etc. It is indeed also exciting to think that something new about the resonances might be found if Heim's theory is found to be correct.
Laidback
8th September 2007 - 11:20 PM
QUOTE (jreed+Sep 8 2007, 11:26 PM) It's real easy to change the constants and look for a difference. The problem with this is some of the particle masses agree up to six figures, and others only agree to 3 figures. If I change one of the input constants it will change all the mass values. The ones that are close (most of them) will be farther off while I try to make the few that are off agree better.
What the theory needs now is more understanding of how the equations were derived and what they represent.
John Reed Hi there again, With the above conundrum, our suggestion would be to treat our objective test area as a closed area, much like how we work with a theoretically closed system. Our next step would be to assign our test or objective area to it's total Energy or better expressed as our single dimension "E", So by Knowing our quanta of energy we can use our most basic equation E=MC^2 being mindful the theoretical area is closed to changes only as long as we use less than four dimensions and or variables on assigning further sub-divisions.. Put simply "c" must not represent a time dimension or division, but rather referred to as a relative reference as per relativity theory and or methods. Our reasoning has us convinced almost any mass no matter what its density and no matter how relative, it can all be worked out to an exact figure or quanta simply by adhering to strict rules or guidelines. It should be pointed out though, one MUST be competent in converting two or more dimensions and or variables into a single dimension and or vice Vs from its single dimension to as many dimensions one cares to express Physics.. Put simply if your skills in calculus is in need of improving, its time to grit ones teeth and sink them into improving your skills. Having sharpened ones mathematical skills, my guess is physics will become clearer, because when an equation is presented to you, you should immediately be clear on its variables and or dimensions and it's purposes, and further more wether the equation adheres to strict guidelines and or rules. Having said this let us ensure all readers are mindful that if one works with more than four dimensions or sub-divided variables to more than four via the equation E=MC^2, your equation is NOT strictly referring to a closed system anymore. We don't expect anyone at this time to immediately understand why this is so, and it is this reason as to why this post has been posted... Should anyone understand why this rule is an important consideration, please advise me via my inbox with your reasoning. Thank you for your attention, cheers to all. Peter J Schoen.
Guest_unclematt
10th September 2007 - 02:38 PM
When you say "we", who are you talking about, you and the mouse in your pocket? I took a look at the feedback you have gotten from other members, and I think it speaks for itself.
Laidback
10th September 2007 - 10:45 PM
QUOTE (Guest_unclematt+Sep 11 2007, 12:38 AM) When you say "we", who are you talking about, you and the mouse in your pocket? I am referring to all those here that are competent enough in basic physics AND calculus to prove to themselves what is being stated is feasible, unfortunately anyone who doesn't understand will come up with comments such as yours, and if one is a coward will Even resort to making comments not using their proper "User name."  | QUOTE | I took a look at the feedback you have gotten from other members, and I think it speaks for itself.
Now I don't know what rock you have been hiding under, but think of this..
All statements in these forums are made by individuals with much knowledge in Science and Physics, some more than others, the wiser ones here if they read a statement that is in error correct the statement, and so the debate goes on, unfortunately we have losers that now and then come along and have a field day in an attempt to bolster their ego's, and well if you have taken any notice these losers are the ones who resort to giving bad feedback.
And yes I admit I have resorted to using a tool that really does not give rise to concern as my reputation HERE is based on my statements and NOT from those losers and or dim wits who resort to the feedback, And the way I see it is, if someone resorts to a certain method then that method must have some hefty weight to it by their reasoning, now I know this gives me an unfair advantage over those losers who resort to a method that doesn't make me squirm but more than likely make them squirm, But that's their own fault if I return the favour
Now lets move on and put your Oceanic mouth to good use and point out where I am in error!
If you cant! Then ALL of YOUR statements have spoken loud and clear as to who YOU really are! 
Until then,
2~Duh~Loo! and I don't mean good~bye!
Cheers to all other readers,
Peter J Schoen.
Zephir
10th September 2007 - 10:56 PM
QUOTE (Laidback+Sep 11 2007, 01:45 AM) Cheers to all other readers,
Peter J Schoen The interesting question is, why so many people here are using anonymous nicknames, while spending lotta effort in repetitive signature.
UncleMatt
10th September 2007 - 11:15 PM
QUOTE (Laidback+Sep 10 2007, 04:45 PM) I am referring to all those here that are competent enough in basic physics AND calculus to prove to themselves what is being stated is feasible, unfortunately anyone who doesn't understand will come up with comments such as yours, and if one is a coward will Even resort to making comments not using their proper "User name." Now I don't know what rock you have been hiding under, but think of this.. All statements in these forums are made by individuals with much knowledge in Science and Physics, some more than others, the wiser ones here if they read a statement that is in error correct the statement, and so the debate goes on, unfortunately we have losers that now and then come along and have a field day in an attempt to bolster their ego's, and well if you have taken any notice these losers are the ones who resort to giving bad feedback. And yes I admit I have resorted to using a tool that really does not give rise to concern as my reputation HERE is based on my statements and NOT from those losers and or dim wits who resort to the feedback, And the way I see it is, if someone resorts to a certain method then that method must have some hefty weight to it by their reasoning, now I know this gives me an unfair advantage over those losers who resort to a method that doesn't make me squirm but more than likely make them squirm, But that's their own fault if I return the favour Now lets move on and put your Oceanic mouth to good use and point out where I am in error! If you cant! Then ALL of YOUR statements have spoken loud and clear as to who YOU really are! Until then, 2~Duh~ Loo! and I don't mean good~bye! Cheers to all other readers, Peter J Schoen. Would the mental health professional in charge of this guy PLEASE make sure he takes his medications so he is not a danger to himself and others? Thanks! And by the way, I had just deleted all my cookies, and that is why I was posted as a guest before I realized it.
makuabob
11th September 2007 - 12:44 AM
In re-reading the D & H paper, "Current Research in Gravito-Electromagnetic Space Propulsion", a curious thought occurred concerning the photon-to-gravitophoton conversion process: Where will the photons being converted to gravitophotons actually be coming from?
Heim's original idea was, as I recall, that 'virtual' electron-positron pairs would annihilate one another ("mixing" is the term used), thus producing a photon with an energy that is the sum of the two leptons (fermions,... whatever!). This, it seems, would be trasmuted into a gravitophoton by way of the intense (>30 Tesla) magnetic field suppressing the T^1 sub-space component of its H7 Hermetry form (T^1 ×S^2 ×I^2).
Where will the photons to be converted to gravitophotons really come from? Someone gonna shine a flashlight onto the 'special' disc inside its 30+ Tesla field? I don't think so. Heim seems to have preferred electron-positron pairs, conjured up from the vacuum itself. What sort of control mechanism would Heim have been thinking of? It seems that a reservoir of each, electrons and positrons, would be in order. Of course, can't let them get too close in the mean time, so a "matter-antimatter shield" would be called for,... along with some kind of electromagnetic conduit to stream the anti-particles into the high-Tesla engagement zone
("Don't cross the streams! That would be bad!").
So, where does that leave the gravity-abatement engine? Annihilations of electron/positron pairs, each liberating a virtual photon of ~1 MeV, each photon morphing into a gravitophoton, which decays into -???- after -??- nanoseconds. How do we get those non-Newtonian forces to line up in a direction that is important? Things are getting grayer and grayer,... fading to black,... hard to see ahead,... .... .. LOOK OUT!!
(Damned asteroids!)
Anyhoo,... Heim probably chose positrons because they seem the most easily obtained AND controlled anti-particles. Let's face it, though; just WHICH photons will get "mixed" into gravitophotons. Cosmic rays are photons. What happens if one wanders into the di-lithium crystal at the wrong time? Do we get a really MASSIVE gravitophoton in its place? Too massive? Can the feedback circuits react in time? ("Cap'n! She kannah take any more!")
Yes, we need a proof-of-concept but I hope there's been more thought given to how this thing will be harnessed and how thick of a leather strap is gonna hold it back.
Don't look at me! Hell, there are mornings I can't get the coffee-maker to work right!
Laidback
11th September 2007 - 03:01 AM
QUOTE (UncleMatt+Sep 11 2007, 09:15 AM) And by the way, I had just deleted all my cookies, and that is why I was posted as a guest before I realized it. OK then Unky matt  I forgives ya~ QUOTE Would the mental health professional in charge of this guy PLEASE make sure he takes his medications so he is not a danger to himself and others? Thanks! why are you resorting to childish remarks? I mean just because you have some mental health individual controlling you, doesn't mean every one else is controlled by one also.. Anyway I hope you come to your sensors real soon, Best wishes, Peter J Schoen.
Laidback
11th September 2007 - 03:04 AM
QUOTE (Zephir+) The interesting question is, why so many people here are using anonymous nicknames, while spending Lotta effort in repetitive signature. <br>yes I wonder about that too! Cheers, Peter J Schoen.
hdeasy
11th September 2007 - 08:30 AM
QUOTE (makuabob+Sep 11 2007, 12:44 AM) In re-reading the D & H paper, "Current Research in Gravito-Electromagnetic Space Propulsion", a curious thought occurred concerning the photon-to-gravitophoton conversion process: Where will the photons being converted to gravitophotons actually be coming from?
Heim's original idea was, as I recall, that 'virtual' electron-positron pairs would annihilate one another ("mixing" is the term used), thus producing a photon with an energy that is the sum of the two leptons (fermions,... whatever!). This, it seems, would be trasmuted into a gravitophoton by way of the intense (>30 Tesla) magnetic field suppressing the T^1 sub-space component of its H7 Hermetry form (T^1 ×S^2 ×I^2).
Where will the photons to be converted to gravitophotons really come from? Someone gonna shine a flashlight onto the 'special' disc inside its 30+ Tesla field? I don't think so. Heim seems to have preferred electron-positron pairs, conjured up from the vacuum itself. What sort of control mechanism would Heim have been thinking of? It seems that a reservoir of each, electrons and positrons, would be in order. Of course, can't let them get too close in the mean time, so a "matter-antimatter shield" would be called for,... along with some kind of electromagnetic conduit to stream the anti-particles into the high-Tesla engagement zone
("Don't cross the streams! That would be bad!").
So, where does that leave the gravity-abatement engine? Annihilations of electron/positron pairs, each liberating a virtual photon of ~1 MeV, each photon morphing into a gravitophoton, which decays into -???- after -??- nanoseconds. How do we get those non-Newtonian forces to line up in a direction that is important? Things are getting grayer and grayer,... fading to black,... hard to see ahead,... .... .. LOOK OUT!!
(Damned asteroids!)
Anyhoo,... Heim probably chose positrons because they seem the most easily obtained AND controlled anti-particles. Let's face it, though; just WHICH photons will get "mixed" into gravitophotons. Cosmic rays are photons. What happens if one wanders into the di-lithium crystal at the wrong time? Do we get a really MASSIVE gravitophoton in its place? Too massive? Can the feedback circuits react in time? ("Cap'n! She kannah take any more!")
Yes, we need a proof-of-concept but I hope there's been more thought given to how this thing will be harnessed and how thick of a leather strap is gonna hold it back.
Don't look at me! Hell, there are mornings I can't get the coffee-maker to work right! Heim knew, from Quantum Electrodynamics, That the quantum vacuum has a sea of virtual particles all living borrowed existences a la Heisenberg. Electron - positron pairs are just more likely than most (e.g. proton - anti-proton) as their energy is lower. I believe Heim did the probability calculations to estiimate the cross-section for the reactions that would convert virtual photons to gravito-photons by absorbing energy from the magnetic field. I.e. you pump energy into the vacuum from the magnetic field and so liberate virtual photons, in the process convering to gravito-photons. However that could be a thought about shining a light on the system... though in that case you are feeding in light energy (electromagnetic) as well as magnetic energy. As for how to get the gravitophotons to align - they are aligned by the magnetic field . E.g. in Tajmar's experiment they align tangentially to the rotating disk, whereas in DH's modified set-up the field geometry channels the force vertically.
1-Curioso
11th September 2007 - 01:35 PM
| QUOTE | E.g. in Tajmar's experiment they align tangentially to the rotating disk, whereas in DH's modified set-up the field geometry channels the force vertically.
(1) right now Tajmar has a river-boat wheel, he needs a propeller instead.
One has to appreciate HDeasy, 'cause he really lays it out for you.
The more I hear about the 'drive' the more it sounds like a turbine, or propeller if you will, for the 'vacuum' of space. The rotating ring being the turbine, which still needs to be optimized for shape and pitch and even for the direction of the 'blades', as it is often said about Tajmar's setup (1); fluid molecules being analogous to the 'sea of virtual particles' for the ring; the effect of converting virtual photons to gravito-photons being the energy imparted onto fluid molecules. Well it is not a perfect analogy but play with, it is fun.
uh oh too much caffeine this morning.
Y'all have a good one!
Zarabtul
11th September 2007 - 06:26 PM
Did you come up with an answer to Delta yet no you just change dates and on top of that you actualoly have the gall to take that blok back off my 80% and still leave these worthless schmucks around ruining the scientific community.... Not giving a bit of thought to what they are saying.
Zarabtul
11th September 2007 - 07:34 PM
QUOTE (1-Curioso+Sep 11 2007, 01:35 PM) (1) right now Tajmar has a river-boat wheel, he needs a propeller instead.
One has to appreciate HDeasy, 'cause he really lays it out for you.
The more I hear about the 'drive' the more it sounds like a turbine, or propeller if you will, for the 'vacuum' of space. The rotating ring being the turbine, which still needs to be optimized for shape and pitch and even for the direction of the 'blades', as it is often said about Tajmar's setup (1); fluid molecules being analogous to the 'sea of virtual particles' for the ring; the effect of converting virtual photons to gravito-photons being the energy imparted onto fluid molecules. Well it is not a perfect analogy but play with, it is fun.
uh oh too much caffeine this morning.
Y'all have a good one! you are correct he has figured out one simple part just not a very good way of moving a ship.... And yes just like when you give back Nukes you get oil, I'll think about giving you steering for hrm....
DEK46656
11th September 2007 - 11:48 PM
QUOTE (1-Curioso+Sep 11 2007, 09:35 AM) One has to appreciate HDeasy, 'cause he really lays it out for you. I would add olaf to that list, along with jreed, Tajmar, Droscher, Hauser, and of course B. Heim (along with his wife). Gee, should we add Einstein? I'm presently reading his Relativity book (the laymen version) and can follow along without too much head scratching.
makuabob
12th September 2007 - 01:15 AM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Sep 11 2007, 04:30 AM) Heim knew, from Quantum Electrodynamics, That the quantum vacuum has a sea of virtual particles all living borrowed existences a la Heisenberg. Electron - positron pairs are just more likely than most (e.g. proton - anti-proton) as their energy is lower. I believe Heim did the probability calculations to estimate the cross-section for the reactions that would convert virtual photons to gravito-photons by absorbing energy from the magnetic field. I.e. you pump energy into the vacuum from the magnetic field and so liberate virtual photons, in the process convering to gravito-photons.
However that could be a thought about shining a light on the system... though in that case you are feeding in light energy (electromagnetic) as well as magnetic energy.
As for how to get the gravitophotons to align - they are aligned by the magnetic field . E.g. in Tajmar's experiment they align tangentially to the rotating disk, whereas in DH's modified set-up the field geometry channels the force vertically. Too easy, Mr. Deasy. If one is going to cook up virtual pairs from the quantum 'soup-pot,' just what's going to pop up,... and how fast (e.g., how many, how will they be controlled)? Heim's unobserved neutral electron and its anti-particle have nearly the same energy level as the electron and positron. How many Teslas are too many, thus opening a flood gate of virtual particle annihilations with ensuing virtual photons? Will the field have too much energy drawn from it before ALL of the photons have been 'mixed?' What happens if there's an excess of photons? Just let 'em decay into quarks, anti-quarks and gluons? Most of us are well aware that the response of a feedback mechanism (electronic, presumably, and unaffected by the nearby power source) is VERY critical. If it responds too quickly (over-sensitive), an oscillator is created. With enough regeneration, things get out-of-hand quickly and,... the universe EXPLODES (again, if you buy into the Big Bang)! Too little feedback and the magnetic field may drop below a critical point and the spaceship,... What? Materializes in an asteroid? (Sorry, been playing an Asteroids redux. Got 'em on the brain.) Sags dangerously toward the sun? The point being, photons are photons (and, by definition, ARE electromagnetic energy), but it is assumed Heim's gravitophoton is going to need "X" amount of Mega electron Volts to (virtually) materialize. (Since Heim has assumed that electron-positron annihilation is adequate, is the gravitophoton mass ~1MeV?) As for lining up the gravitational forces,... Heim's non-Newtonian gravity is coupled to the electromagnetic force? How will that work? Let me add here, that I'm merely inquiring about vague concepts that have been left aside while the actuality of non-Newtonian gravity was becoming established. Now that it seems to be so, I'm wondering if--like my elementary school training in the '50s where, in the event of a nuclear attack, we walked calmly into the halls, got on our knees, put our heads between our legs,... and kissed our asses Good-Bye--if the first attempt at lifting a spaceship off of the earth will be the start of a new universe. Other than that, I'm cool with what's goin' down! If it goes right,... Wow! Watch out Universe! Here comes humans! And, if it goes terribly wrong, maybe it'll be like standing under a 20 megaton thermonuclear warhead as it goes off. Cool!
Zarabtul
12th September 2007 - 04:25 AM
I just hope they don't plan on doing it from earth when they do do it.... to start off with.... I think I'd work with a lot bigger components in road testing the vehicle before I made it tiny....
I would do it from up there if I were to do it and I would do it completely different than any design that is currently funded.
If you did it in this way it would be very unlikely to survive certain things that would need to be navigated about. You can just jump into warp and go you have to navigate about it. Thankfully on Star Trek their computers figure that stuff out for them...
kevin143
12th September 2007 - 07:41 AM
Have you guys come to a consensus regarding Heim's Theory?
117 pages is a little overwhelming, you should consider putting up a wiki and writing a collaborative paper. It'd get published all over the place online, if nothing else.
metronmike
12th September 2007 - 01:06 PM
Hello,
I agree to kevin143, a WIKI dedicated to the Heim-Theory is a good idea. All the knowledge which has been gathered about the theory so far could be written there in a compact form.
Mediawiki (used for Wikipedia) as platform would be good, because of the nice display of formulas (based on TeX).
For example: Every step of a derivation of a formula could be discussed. For the beginning, it might be useful to try the derivation of the electron charge which is described in the presention to MBB engineers (Can be found on www.engon.de/protosimplex/downloads/02 heim - mbb 1.2en.pdf, page 71, btw. JReed helped to translate it).
The WIKI entry could start with input parameters like pi, impedance of empty space, h-bar, etc. and results in the final formula expressing the charge of an electron.
Maybe this is "easier" than getting behind the theory of the 1989 calculation of particle masses and could be the basis to understand other parts of the theory.
I think the talk about traveling in space, hyper-jump etc. is nice and exciting but useless if it turns out that the basics of this theory are wrong.
hdeasy
12th September 2007 - 02:50 PM
@Makuabob
Pair producton from a photon (electrons and positrons) is much more likely in free space than other transitions: that is the case in QED and EHT is consistent with the standard model . In any case, pair production is one thing, and the coupling coefficient between photons and gravitiophotons another. Though this coupling accurs near a virtual electron in fermionic coupling, this is not needed in
the case of rotating superconductors.
The latter is more relevant in EHT in the presence of ' frame dragging' type setup with rotating magnetic fields. Heim was able to calculate the coupling coefficients in the mid 90's - in a procedure similar to esimating transition probabilities in QED using Feynman diagrams etc. It is these coefficinet that can be used without change to give the size of the force in the Tajmar setup. There is no arbitrary chaos of different particles: exotic cominatrions are ruled out by selection rules - i.e. the assoiciated probabilities or cross sections are negligible.
Don't worry about massive bombs exploding - the first few years will involve Tajmar sized rigs in the lab.
Only later will the larger version be tried, presumably with appropriate safety measures.
@metronmike, Kevin143:
Yes, a Heim-theory wiki might be a good idea. The page in Wikipedia is about as big as it is allowed to be - referees are consantly pruning it. But a dedicated wiki could grow at will.
bm1957
12th September 2007 - 02:53 PM
QUOTE (metronmike+Sep 12 2007, 01:06 PM) For the beginning, it might be useful to try the derivation of the electron charge which is described in the presention to MBB engineers (Can be found on www.engon.de/protosimplex/downloads/02 heim - mbb 1.2en.pdf, page 71, btw. JReed helped to translate it). WOW! I've been following Heim Theory for a while and hadn't seen this paper. Well worth reading... http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/downloads...mbb%201.2en.pdf
Jossarian
13th September 2007 - 08:33 AM
QUOTE (Zarabtul+Sep 12 2007, 04:25 AM) If you did it in this way it would be very unlikely to survive certain things that would need to be navigated about. You can just jump into warp and go you have to
navigate about it. Thankfully on Star Trek their computers figure that stuff out for them... <br>Some thoughts come to my mind regarding "warping" described in AIAA paper. First one is if spaceship and its crew will be able to survive moving into other "parallel universe". Notice that according to EHT speed of light is different in this other "dimension" so other physical constants might also be affected as well. For example all neutrons my become highly unstable and will decay shortly after appearance in this strange place or some chemical components like proteins of which human body is made may also decay spontaneously. I'm afraid that these other "universes" will remain unavailable for humankind for long time if not forever.  My second thought is about how the said spaceship's navigation systems will be able to determine if "jump" into other dimension is safe. I mean here how we can check if our destination in n-th dimension is empty? Jumping into remains of super nova or close to black hole isn't an option. Maybe some kind of reconnaissance drone shall be considered? Finally the last issue. How about constructing the FTL Radio? We know that in our universe speed of radio communications is limited to speed of light. Now consider "warping" both transmitter and receiver into n-th order dimension during the transmission. Imagine autonomous long range space probes gathering information in other stars planetary systems and delivering it to Earth in reasonable time thanks to such concept. /Joss
MichaelB
13th September 2007 - 10:58 AM
QUOTE (Jossarian+Sep 13 2007, 08:33 AM) First one is if spaceship and its crew will be able to survive moving into other "parallel universe". Notice that according to EHT speed of light is different in this other "dimension" so other physical constants might also be affected as well. For example all neutrons my become highly unstable and will decay shortly after appearance in this strange place or some chemical components like proteins of which human body is made may also decay spontaneously. I'm afraid that these other "universes" will remain unavailable for humankind for long time if not forever. My second thought is about how the said spaceship's navigation systems will be able to determine if "jump" into other dimension is safe. I mean here how we can check if our destination in n-th dimension is empty? Jumping into remains of super nova or close to black hole isn't an option. Maybe some kind of reconnaissance drone shall be considered? Even though this doesn't really help regarding your thoughts, I'd add that EHT plays in a 6 dimensional world (neglecting the upper purely informational 6). So Heim derived/put the constants in a 6 dimensional space, where these possible parallel dimensions belong to. It's the same 6 dimensional space we live in (according to the theory) and not 4 here and another 4 somewhere else and so on. We just have no glue what it means to switch to some parallel space, but IMO this doesn't necessarily have to mean the whole physics has to change as all physics is anyway 6 dimensional. Of course this doesn't have to say otherwise either, I just wouldn't be pessimistic about that. :-) Michael
DEK46656
13th September 2007 - 11:44 AM
QUOTE (Jossarian+Sep 13 2007, 04:33 AM) Some thoughts come to my mind regarding "warping" described in AIAA paper. First one is if spaceship and its crew will be able to survive moving into other "parallel universe". Notice that according to EHT speed of light is different in this other "dimension" so other physical constants might also be affected as well. For example all neutrons my become highly unstable and will decay shortly after appearance in this strange place or some chemical components like proteins of which human body is made may also decay spontaneously. I'm afraid that these other "universes" will remain unavailable for humankind for long time if not forever. As I understand it, the various constants used in the mass calculations have a certain "balance" if you will in relation to each other. The transition into the parallel universe is achieved due to the superimposing a different value (Gg) within the field effect of the propulsion system. That altered (constant) value causes the rest of the constants to realign and BAMF you are not in Kansas anymore. I might have a chicken / egg factor going here: does the other values change first to cause the transition, or does the transition occur (due to the one constant value changing) and then all the other values adjust due to parallel universe. Now in theory (pun intended) the mass formulas are still in effect, so that if you plug in the new constants, you will get some values for the various particles. This would be the base components of anything in that parallel universe. The environment the craft transitions into could be pseudo-predicted based on that. With all the new constants in place, and all the new particles masses (and in essence their properties) predicted, certain factors about the parallel dimension could be inferred: size of the universe (Hubble constant), density of baryonic matter, whether there was ever star formation, etc. Of course, the concern then becomes can anything from outside that universe maintain its state while in the universe? That also goes the other way: what if some life form from a parallel universe built it own propulsion system and jumped into ours?
Neil Farbstein
13th September 2007 - 12:21 PM
QUOTE (MichaelB+Sep 13 2007, 10:58 AM) Even though this doesn't really help regarding your thoughts, I'd add that EHT plays in a 6 dimensional world (neglecting the upper purely informational 6). So Heim derived/put the constants in a 6 dimensional space, where these possible parallel dimensions belong to. It's the same 6 dimensional space we live in (according to the theory) and not 4 here and another 4 somewhere else and so on. We just have no glue what it means to switch to some parallel space, but IMO this doesn't necessarily have to mean the whole physics has to change as all physics is anyway 6 dimensional.
Of course this doesn't have to say otherwise either, I just wouldn't be pessimistic about that. :-)
Michael Bull Michael.
Zarabtul
13th September 2007 - 01:04 PM
QUOTE (Jossarian+Sep 13 2007, 08:33 AM) Some thoughts come to my mind regarding "warping" described in AIAA paper. First one is if spaceship and its crew will be able to survive moving into other "parallel universe". Notice that according to EHT speed of light is different in this other "dimension" so other physical constants might also be affected as well. For example all neutrons my become highly unstable and will decay shortly after appearance in this strange place or some chemical components like proteins of which human body is made may also decay spontaneously. I'm afraid that these other "universes" will remain unavailable for humankind for long time if not forever. My second thought is about how the said spaceship's navigation systems will be able to determine if "jump" into other dimension is safe. I mean here how we can check if our destination in n-th dimension is empty? Jumping into remains of super nova or close to black hole isn't an option. Maybe some kind of reconnaissance drone shall be considered? Finally the last issue. How about constructing the FTL Radio? We know that in our universe speed of radio communications is limited to speed of light. Now consider "warping" both transmitter and receiver into n-th order dimension during the transmission. Imagine autonomous long range space probes gathering information in other stars planetary systems and delivering it to Earth in reasonable time thanks to such concept. /Joss Those are all good questions I'm not answering at present though yes i have thought all of those through thoroughly and will continue to do so as i continue to gain better understandings of the workings myself. I am having some trouble now though as they realized that i can't read pages where you switch colors back and forth due to my epilepsy i tried.... sorry guys they don't want my help....
Tim
13th September 2007 - 02:11 PM
QUOTE (DEK46656+Sep 13 2007, 11:44 AM) Now in theory (pun intended) the mass formulas are still in effect, so that if you plug in the new constants, you will get some values for the various particles. This would be the base components of anything in that parallel universe. The environment the craft transitions into could be pseudo-predicted based on that.
With all the new constants in place, and all the new particles masses (and in essence their properties) predicted, certain factors about the parallel dimension could be inferred: size of the universe (Hubble constant), density of baryonic matter, whether there was ever star formation, etc. So are we really talking about a many worlds/multiverse interpretation of EHT? I suppose it stands to reason that if the only differences between/seperating the universes are the constants, then changing the constants within a localized field might effect some type of transdimensional jump... Is that what a Heim Drive does? Is it actually altering the gravitational constant within a localized field? Would the Heim Drive function in the same manner in an alternate dimension with alternate constants? I seem to recall that the AIAA paper mentioned something about simply turning the drive off in order to return to our dimension/normal space/universe... Would we pop right back or would we have to fire up the drive again to get back home? Would the drive need to be re-calibrated to reproduce our universe's constants in order to return to the correct universe? Alternatively, is this a universe rather than a multiverse and something more along the lines of what MichaelB was discussing would occur (though I believe EHT has 8 dimensions while the original theory only included 6 dimensions)? If the constants are being changed within the field generated by the Heim Drive, could the speed of light within our universe be altered, but only within this localized field, enough to allow for a Star Trek warp drive type scenario? The ship is not in violation of the speed of light within it's local space, but from a stationary perspective it appears to be FTL. I think I like this idea better... It would follow with the AIAA paper's claim that all one need do is shut down the drive and you're back in normal space traveling below the speed of light (i.e. the field disappears and the constants return to normal). I suppose that the same concerns regarding how the changing constants effect matter apply too both scenarios...
MichaelB
13th September 2007 - 08:31 PM
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Sep 13 2007, 12:21 PM) Bull Michael. ???
bprager
13th September 2007 - 08:55 PM
QUOTE (Jossarian+Sep 13 2007, 08:33 AM) Finally the last issue. How about constructing the FTL Radio? We know that in our universe speed of radio communications is limited to speed of light. Now consider "warping" both
transmitter and receiver into n-th order dimension during the transmission. Imagine autonomous long range space probes gathering information in other stars planetary systems and
delivering it to Earth in reasonable time thanks to such concept.
/Joss Doesn't that come back to the "observer" issue? We don't really have a good idea if an interaction between objects in different spaces is possible and how it would looks like. So how would you listen to a "Heim radio" in a neighbor space? If one could solve that then a navigation system could be designed around that as well that prevents "warping" into a black hole or into other unfriendly environments. I don't think a drone constantly switching spaces is a solution. I did read somewhere that there is a theory that gravity interacts between "parallel worlds" as an explanation why gravity is actually such a weak force in a single space. Does Heim has any references to that?
Jossarian
14th September 2007 - 12:10 AM
QUOTE (bprager+Sep 13 2007, 08:55 PM) Doesn't that come back to the "observer" issue? We don't really have a good idea if an interaction between objects in different spaces is possible and how it would looks like. So how would you listen to a "Heim radio" in a neighbor space?
This one is very simple. Imagine we got pair of identical transceivers with build up Heim field generators and recorders. Look at this algorithm: 1. Send your first transceiver to n-th "dimension" for fixed amount of time. 2. Upon return of the first FTL transceiver send the second one in the same place. 3. Check if first recorder contains any new message 4. Upon return of the second transceiver send the first one back to n-th "dimension" 5. Check if second recorder contains any new message an so on... This idea was about moving radio equipment into n-th "dimension" during the transmission and bringing it back to check for message. /Joss
CalvinHobbes
14th September 2007 - 07:21 AM
These are my first posts here (gonna split it up a little).
I'm german, but to read and understand Heims books the language you need is "mathematics" (and I'm not a mathematician nor any other sort of scientist or engineer - so my contribution here can't be very much). My understanding of Heim theory comes from von Ludwigers latest book (and CDs), that contain the MBB lecture and some additional interviews in written form and as audio. (This book is also in german and is advertised via the "Heim-Theory-Group homepage).
I'm following closely the translation that is being done on the MBB-transscript by Olaf P. and the others. Maybe I'll should transmit some corrections (found some minor typos and a case where "million" is missing etc.).
I think translating Heims work into english is important - but I fear real progress can only be made by mathematicians who can read (and understand) Heims works. (In mathematics it's not uncommon to "read" e.g. proofs, that consist of dozens of pages of pure formulas done by a single man.)
CalvinHobbes
14th September 2007 - 07:23 AM
I'd like to give some comments on Burkhard Heims work as I understood it
(I admit I haven't read all 118 pages in this forum-thread, so I might not be stating very much new):
Heim almost worked like an ancient greek philosopher - he didn't do tests in laboratories to proof his work (left aside some of his plans in the 1950's) - he only worked with his mind and constructed his theories from very basic axioms. As von Ludwiger suggests, this might have come from Heim being a physically disabled person and thus not allowing him to have a career at a university (with funds and people to work for him etc).
But in contrast to ancient greeks, Heim used the whole lot of mathematic tools that were developed during the last 300 years. In addition he himself introduced some new words/vocabulary that hadn't existed before to describe parts of his theory, .
No matter how far his geometric and mathematic modelling lead him, Heim never lost his aim for a unified theory - so he tried to focus on the interesting points in it, that matched either with parts of established theories he thought to be true (GR and QT), or at least with proofen physical observations (in astronomy, particle physics, chemistry, even geology etc.).
I believe Heim used reality to narrow down choices, to leave certain things out of consideration, by intentionally not calcuclating every possible branch of his models to the end, when he had the feeling that it wouldn't lead anywhere useful.
In the 1980s and 90s Heim realized that there were 12 dimensions possible (- as described in Heims book with Dröscher, 8 of them are useful for the description of matter/energy and forces/interactions in classic 4D spacetime, in fact leading to additional interactions that allow this field-drive we talk about here all the time). Heim also realized, that there are things going on, that only exist in higher dimensions without such direct effect on classic 4D spacetime. These things/structures/flux aren't interpreted as simple possibilities of things that don't make it into existance; nor as a parallel/multiverse-thing, but are interpreted as aspects of Live (!) (which is beyond simple physics) - e.g. biological evolution or psyche etc. thus giving possibilities for discussion on "body/soul" problematics, on the way "homöopathie" works, or even the question of "live after death" etc.
CalvinHobbes
14th September 2007 - 07:25 AM
So Heim-Theory is not only about unifying GR and QT - but it's a "theory of everything" - which makes it even more complicated when trying to establish it. We'd not only have to convince the GR/QT (and M-theory etc.) guys, but we would possibly be facing all (!) other branches of science (and pseudoscience) with a theory that's still in some sort of embryo-status. In fact it's an impossible task to talk about philosophy, evolution, medicine etc. when you insist on bringing your (Heims) own (incomplete) language with you, which was derived from mathematics and geometry in the beginning... That Heim-Theory is a "theory of everything" makes it attractive to everybody on the whole planet, who is in need of a "scientific" foundation for his ideas. In fact the strongest and closest supporters of Heim-Theory do have a personal connection to a wide variety of things that could be viewed as "pseudoscience": - Olaf Posdzech not only worked on medical engineering, but also is educated in "complementary" medicine (as you can read on his page: http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/ueber.htm ). - Illobrand von Ludwiger not only worked officially on space engineering projects, but also wrote books about UFO-sightings ( http://www.amazon.de/Unidentifizierte-Flug...89752383&sr=8-5 ) Andreas Resch not only published Burkhard Heims books, but also published his own books about "paranormal" things etc. ( http://www.igw-resch-verlag.at/resch_verlag/index.html ) (I don't know what Heim himself believed - but I'm pretty sure he didn't rule anything out that he couldn't prove wrong.)
CalvinHobbes
14th September 2007 - 07:31 AM
So I fear we won't find the truth about Burkhard Heim's Theory until some sort of Bill Gates comes along who's willing to pay a thousand mathematics and engineers for a few years to work on it.
That's pretty sad, because currently we're stuck with theories that on the hand only explain about 4% of the universe (with 70%+ of "dark matter" and 20%+ of "dark energy" unexplained and need for "singularities" etc.) and on the other hand let "free will" or "intuition" look like mere feelings that accompany some non-linear (or maybe even exactly determined) events that happen only inside peoples (4D) heads...
On the other hand we could have Heim-Theory - giving different explanations about redshift, why the viewable universe is exactly that large, a repulsive force; even explanations why the earths magneticfield shifts polarisation every x-thousand years.
Not to speak of possible solutions to age old problems in philosophy (matter/spirit // body/soul problematics) etc.
1-Curioso
14th September 2007 - 07:43 PM
| QUOTE | So I fear we won't find the truth about Burkhard Heim's Theory until some sort of Bill Gates comes along who's willing to pay a thousand mathematics and engineers for a few years to work on it.
If Dr. Tajmar Et Al were to produce a device even remotely promising there would a Tsunami of funding from the defense industry for further R&D seldom previously seen. I'm stating the obvious when I say the implications of a successful the Heim drive like the one discussed in the IAAA paper of 2005 include another space race and probably another arms race. Let's imagine for a minute that such a device exits. The nation controlling that technology would for all practical purposes control space. Not like the US does today, but in a practical and usable way. History is full of precedents of similar technological leaps and their consequences. The development of aviation and that of nuclear submarine forces during the cold war to name a few. On a lighter note Richard Branson and Paul Allen however would be a better candidates for private funding, at first anyways. I promise to be quiet now and let the real scientists have the floor.
DEK46656
14th September 2007 - 10:03 PM
I would like to attempt answering some of this. QUOTE (Tim+Sep 13 2007, 10:11 AM) So are we really talking about a many worlds/multiverse interpretation of EHT? I suppose it stands to reason that if the only differences between/seperating the universes are the constants, then changing the constants within a localized field might effect some type of transdimensional jump... Is that what a Heim Drive does? Is it actually altering the gravitational constant within a localized field? As I understand it, yes that is what the Heim Drive does. Using some quotes... QUOTE (aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf+ section 3.3) The fundamental fact for transition into parallel space is that the gravitational potential of a spacecraft with mass M is reduced by the interaction of the positive gravitophotons with gravitons and their conversion into (repulsive) vacuum particles. There is an additional conversion
equation, similar to Eqs. (35), for converting the gravitons of the spacecraft together with the positive gravitophotons into the postulated vacuum particles (or quintessence particles), thus reducing the gravitational potential of the spacecraft...
Since absorption of positive gravitophotons is reducing Φ, this would require either the mass of the spacecraft to be reduced in IR4, or the gravitational constant G to become smaller, owing to Eq. (49). As a consequence of a reduced mass, conservation of momentum would require a velocity c' > c in IR4, which has to be ruled out. The decision for a reduced gravitational constant G' < G in IR4 is more difficult. To this end, we refer to quantum gravity theory...
Therefore any physical phenomenon that requires a gravitational constant G' < G or a speed of light c' > c in IR4 has to be ruled out, violating the fact that τ is the minimum surface. On the other hand, because of positive gravitophoton action, Φ actually is reduced, and thus the concept of parallel space (or parallel universe or multiverse) is introduced, denoted as IR4(n)...
It is postulated that a spacecraft, under certain conditions, stated below by Eq.(52), will be able to transition into such a parallel space. For G(n)=G/n, M(n)=nM, and c(n)= nc, the spacecraft would transition into nth-parallel space IR4(n)...
It is worth adding (as best as I can) Eq. 52: n = ( g+gp/ gg)(Ggp/G) with... g+gp = field strength of the gravitophoton field gg = gravitational field strength, Gg, produced by the spacecraft itself... and QUOTE (aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf+ Abstract - Nomenclature and physical constants) G gravitational constant G = Gg + Ggp + Gq = 6.67259 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2,
Gg graviton constant Gg≈G that is Gg decribes the gravitational interaction without the postulated gravitophoton and quintessence interactions.
Ggp gravitophoton constant Ggp≈(1/67)^2Gg .
Gq quintessence constant Gq≈4×10^−18Gg . As to the next questions... QUOTE (Tim+Sep 13 2007, 10:11 AM) Would the Heim Drive function in the same manner in an alternate dimension with alternate constants? I seem to recall that the AIAA paper mentioned something about simply turning the drive off in order to return to our dimension/normal space/universe... Would we pop right back or would we have to fire up the drive again to get back home? Would the drive need to be re-calibrated to reproduce our universe's constants in order to return to the correct universe? I don't remember anything from the papers specifically addressing this. I think a scenario would exist that for the craft to remain in a parallel space, it would have to maintain the field effect. For that to take place, I would think that "normal" space would still have to be maintained inside the craft. Maybe something relativity wise is in play here, in that everything inside the craft would remain "normal", while outside the universe "changes" around the craft? Obviously I am just guessing, but this feels right to me. If that is the case, then "turning off" the drive would remove the imposed IR4(n) space constants and the craft is back in IR4.
pbelter
15th September 2007 - 12:28 AM
Hdeasy,
Did you have a chance to find out if the talks between prof Hauser, NASA and the US Airforce took place as the Scotsman says?
TedRoosevelt
15th September 2007 - 11:26 AM
Hi all,
I'm almost a layman even though personally interested in far out and cutting edge physics and it's the first time I leave a post here.I've been following for some time this debate and the developments of Heim quantum theory finding absolutely interesting the contributions by J.Reed,Hdeasy,Dek,Maxwell's Demons and so on...I apologize for not being able to mention all.
I'd like to have some more details on this topic and I would be very grateful to you if you could answer some questions even though they may seem naive:
a)As for the gravitophotonic interaction,has ever been signalled or could it be conceivable any astrophysical phenomenon that could be connected with the coming into play of that exotic gravity-like force?
b)Since the gravitophotonic interaction would show at average energy levels,if not quite low,why haven't physicists yet found any clues of in experiments of particle physics carried out in the past at well higher energy levels?
c)Since"one can't get anything from nothing"to paraphrase the conservation of energy principle,at which energy's expense,inside or outside the spacecraft,would the gravitophotonic drive and the flight of the craft happen?
d)Is there any connection between this exotic form of propulsion as pointed out in EHT and the "field resonance propulsion concept"as suggested by Alan C. Holt since August 1979 based on the use of huge magnetic fields as well?
My best regards to all.
hdeasy
16th September 2007 - 10:05 AM
QUOTE (pbelter+Sep 15 2007, 12:28 AM) Hdeasy,
Did you have a chance to find out if the talks between prof Hauser, NASA and the US Airforce took place as the Scotsman says? Thanks for reminding me - I was so busy with work etc. in the last week that I hadn't time for this: Tomorrow I will get onto it. @TedRoosevelt a) Hard to say: For normal fermionic matter, which is what you get in all normal stars, since it's too hot to have superconductivity, you would need high rates of rotation and a strong magnetic field. It might happen occasionally: some details of accretion disks of black holes and pulsars, for example, are still unclear and might point to such a force in action. b ) Very few setups in accelerators have had the 20 Teslas needed for the effect with normal matter. That's why the Z machine of Sandia is mentioned so often. Also, it seems you need a rotating solid object like an iron ring or disk to harness the effect, which is why the Z-machine hasn't seen the effect. This may be another reason for the lack of (a) (unless the accretin disk of a black hole could function as required?) c) It seems you need to keep pumping energy into the system: that's also the case with Tajamr's setup - he is not running on empty! The electricity bill of the labs testing this stuff would shoot up. d) Don't know - would have to look into it...
Astepintime
19th September 2007 - 07:20 AM
A very good article was published in Nature this week, "Dragging of inertial frames" by I. Ciufolini, Sept 2007, v449|6 pg 41-47.
A nice summary of the recent satellite measurements and limits on the Lense-Thirring effect. Nothing new here - just a nice summary.
Jossarian
19th September 2007 - 09:57 AM
QUOTE (Astepintime+Sep 19 2007, 07:20 AM) A very good article was published in Nature this week, "Dragging of inertial frames" by I. Ciufolini, Sept 2007, v449|6 pg 41-47.
Hi, For no subscribers. Figures & Tables are accesible without subscription: Nature article's "Figures & Tables"/Joss
Vilvi
19th September 2007 - 11:01 AM
QUOTE (jreed+Aug 31 2007, 01:42 PM) The Heim Group has given me the Fortran code for the newer Heim version. I'm coding it up in Mathematica so I can get a better understanding of what it involves. So far, it looks like the A matrix is not used in finding the masses. The new version is able to find the quantum numbers n, m, p and sigma with an algorithm. It all looks very promising.
John Reed Hello J Reed, In the new Fortran code, the mass of Tau particle is present? Thanks
jreed
19th September 2007 - 11:06 PM
QUOTE (Vilvi+Sep 19 2007, 11:01 AM) Hello J Reed,
In the new Fortran code, the mass of Tau particle is present?
Thanks No. In Heim theory the Tau is an excited state of another particle, the muon I believe. The new Fortran code only deals with ground states, not excited states. I hope to be able to develop the code for excited states, but it will take a while. Most of the information in the pdf files dealing with excited states is incomplete or incorrect and that is the only source. jreed
hdeasy
20th September 2007 - 03:03 PM
QUOTE (pbelter+Sep 15 2007, 12:28 AM) Hdeasy,
Did you have a chance to find out if the talks between prof Hauser, NASA and the US Airforce took place as the Scotsman says? Just to say that I sent some e-mails a few days ago, but have had no response yet. I suspect, though, that the response of Millis was typical - there are so many rival " Brekthrough propulsion" ideas that they need a bit more proof before granting more funding. That could either be a derivation of the mass formula or a successful prediciton of an altered Tajmar experiment.
pbelter
20th September 2007 - 11:03 PM
Thank you for the update Hdeasy,
I would not expect much from the NASA bureaucracy, but Air Force may be a different story.
makuabob
21st September 2007 - 11:37 AM
QUOTE (bm1957+Sep 12 2007, 10:53 AM) WOW! I've been following Heim Theory for a while and hadn't seen this paper. Well worth reading... http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/downloads...mbb%201.2en.pdf"WOW!," indeed! For anyone wanting a brief, guided tour of how Burkhard Heim's work was thought out and implemented, this is the item to peruse. Yes, there are tensors and unitary matrices mentioned, but this is THE MAN himself gving you the straight scoop on how this was done. (And I will add a personal "Thanks!" to JReed for his part in creating this translation.) Until the recording of this lecture by Heim is commonly available, this article is one's best chance to 'hear' a brilliant mind 'speak.' It was a fine idea to include the text in German within the paper (at least, for those of us with some degree of exposure to that language). It is, indeed, a challenge to follow all of the mathematical machinations, but at no point did I get the impression that Heim pulled a rabbit out of a hat,... and that, after all, is what Science is all about. Thanks, bm1957, that is quite a find.
DEK46656
23rd September 2007 - 01:05 AM
Hello everyone; I have a question for the knowledgeable folks on this thread relating to particle mass and cosmology. My wife recently bought me a copy of Astronomy magazine, and it had an article on BBN (Big Bang Nucleosynthesis) which is the linking of observed abundances of the chemical elements to theoretical predictions based on the Big Bang Theory (BBT).
So some preparation; in HT (not sure if EHT is the same), the origins of the universe is tied to this concept called "the trinity of spheres", and in it the interaction of the spheres (for lack of a better description) are the basis for the multiple dimensions, as well as the size of the metron. As the spheres were expanding, the size of the metron would shrink. After a very long time, much longer than the age of the universe based on BBT, the metron size was small enough to permit (again, for lack of a better description) the condensation of the first / initial matter to occur.
While reading this article and transcribing HT to BBT I had this thought; does the existence of matter have a direct affect on the size of the metron in its proximity, or for that matter (oops, pun) the size of the metron in this universe? Though I have not been able to read through all of the available literature produced (and noted in the thread), in what I have read I don't recall anything specifically being noted to indicate that one way or the other.
I'm asking about this in reference to both "the origins of the universe" but also to the minor discrepancies between prediction and measured values as related to EHT and particle masses. I'm wondering if there is an impact between metron size and particle mass, so that more influence of one (or more) dimensions affect the characteristics of a particle, could it have a unexpected influence on the metron (maybe in reference to another dimension) and thereby "throw off" the calculation just enough to give us the current results?
Anyone care to take a stab at this question?
makuabob
24th September 2007 - 12:42 AM
QUOTE (DEK46656+Sep 22 2007, 09:05 PM) Hello everyone; I have a question for the knowledgeable folks on this thread relating to particle mass and cosmology. My wife recently bought me a copy of Astronomy magazine, and it had an article on BBN (Big Bang Nucleosynthesis) which is the linking of observed abundances of the chemical elements to theoretical predictions based on the Big Bang Theory (BBT).
So some preparation; in HT (not sure if EHT is the same), the origins of the universe is tied to this concept called "the trinity of spheres", and in it the interaction of the spheres (for lack of a better description) are the basis for the multiple dimensions, as well as the size of the metron. As the spheres were expanding, the size of the metron would shrink. After a very long time, much longer than the age of the universe based on BBT, the metron size was small enough to permit (again, for lack of a better description) the condensation of the first / initial matter to occur.
While reading this article and transcribing HT to BBT I had this thought; does the existence of matter have a direct affect on the size of the metron in its proximity, or for that matter (oops, pun) the size of the metron in this universe? Though I have not been able to read through all of the available literature produced (and noted in the thread), in what I have read I don't recall anything specifically being noted to indicate that one way or the other.
I'm asking about this in reference to both "the origins of the universe" but also to the minor discrepancies between prediction and measured values as related to EHT and particle masses. I'm wondering if there is an impact between metron size and particle mass, so that more influence of one (or more) dimensions affect the characteristics of a particle, could it have a unexpected influence on the metron (maybe in reference to another dimension) and thereby "throw off" the calculation just enough to give us the current results?
Anyone care to take a stab at this question? It seems that the knowledgeable have defaulted to the dummard(s),... In the quote section of the post above yours (two above this one) is the link to Heim's own explanations of the major points in his work. Starting at page 62 (of 126)--Surface quantization in R6, the explanation of the "metron" begins, although Heim only ever referred to it as (lower case) tau. It does not stay the same but IS always... | QUOTE |
The result is a natural constant τ, which corresponds to the square of the Planck length up to a factor of 3/8.
(Right click on the image in the quote and pick 'View Image' for a full-sized representation.)
The Metron is getting smaller as the Universe ages but the rate of change (dτ/dt) is approaching zero at present, if I read it aright. The answer to the question of the size of τ around matter would seem to be that the metron only changes size as the universe ages.
Then on page seventy-four of the same document, Heim addresses the fact that 'at the beginning of time,' the metron and the diameter of the universe were identical. So, it seems to me, more and more metrons come into existence as the universe expands. Lucky for us!
Sorry, but I don' know nuthin' 'bout no "discrepancies."
makuabob
26th September 2007 - 12:59 PM
And now, for something completely different!... I was mentioning the (painfully slow) emergence of Heim Theory to a co-worker just yesterday, and today I have an e-mail from him about a new piece of information concerning one of the primary atomic particles. In the following article about the internal structure of the neutron ( Research overturns accepted notion of neutron's electrical properties), a prior surmise of Enrico Fermi is validated, but more that expected was discovered. The neutron not only has a negative charge on its 'surface,' but also has a negative charge at its 'core.' This will be a puzzle that EHT will have to clarify. Does the proton also have a negative charge at ITS core but lacks the neutralizing negative 'surface' charge? Or, is the proton positively charged through and through? I recall that Heim assigned four "zones" to the elementary (fundamental) particles and the center-most was the most difficult (as in, basically impossible) to "penetrate." If Heim's concept is valid, are the 'layers' mentioned in the above article the 4th, 3rd and 2nd? It will be curious to see if EHT can achieve a rational explanation of such a curious internal structure.
hdeasy
26th September 2007 - 03:12 PM
Good point Makuabob. I must put this to the HT group.
On the propulsion front, Tajmar & co. are getting some more funding from an American group. Hopefully EHT's extension of the original experiment will be tried out in this study.
STAGGERBOT
26th September 2007 - 03:44 PM
QUOTE (makuabob+Sep 26 2007, 12:59 PM) The neutron not only has a negative charge on its 'surface,' but also has a negative charge at its 'core.' This will be a puzzle that EHT will have to clarify. Does the proton also have a negative charge at ITS core but lacks the neutralizing negative 'surface' charge? Or, is the proton positively charged through and through?
hey makuabob and hdeasy, Charge Densities of the Neutron and Proton
Gerald A. Miller
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1560, USA
(Received 18 May 2007; published 13 September 2007)
A model-independent analysis of the infinite-momentum-frame charge density of partons in the transverse plane is presented for the nucleon. We find that the neutron-parton charge density is negative at the center, so that the square of the transverse charge radius is positive, in contrast with many expectations. Additionally, the proton's central d quark charge density is larger than that of the u quark by about 30%. The proton (neutron) charge density has a long range positively (negatively) charged component.Charge Densities Of The Neutron And ProtonAccording to the abstract that the news article is based on, the proton has a central negative charge (in keeping with expectations) and not a layered charge distribution like the neutron was found to have. I'm not sure what the last sentence of the abstract means though.....anyone? Also, anyone out there read the whole paper?
Astepintime
26th September 2007 - 11:46 PM
QUOTE (STAGGERBOT+Sep 26 2007, 03:44 PM) Charge Densities of the Neutron and Proton
Gerald A. Miller
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1560, USA
(Received 18 May 2007; published 13 September 2007)
A model-independent analysis of the infinite-momentum-frame charge density of partons in the transverse plane is presented for the nucleon. We find that the neutron-parton charge density is negative at the center, so that the square of the transverse charge radius is positive, in contrast with many expectations. Additionally, the proton's central d quark charge density is larger than that of the u quark by about 30%. The proton (neutron) charge density has a long range positively (negatively) charged component.Charge Densities Of The Neutron And ProtonAccording to the abstract that the news article is based on, the proton has a central negative charge (in keeping with expectations) and not a layered charge distribution like the neutron was found to have. I'm not sure what the last sentence of the abstract means though.....anyone? Also, anyone out there read the whole paper? I quickly went through this and I must say it is interesting but understand it is NOT new experimental data but a model independent calculation based upon existing data. It was my understanding that the best current data did not suggest this. The guys in the know are the people at Thomas Jefferson Labs. I did a google search and found: http://www.brightsurf.com/GOV_news_090602.htmlThese guys thought that the data allows one to deduce that there exists a negative outer cloud and a positive excess inside but how deep did they go? To the core? I would be very interested in what those guys think about this paper. What is interesting is Miller states that his analysis gives results (the negative core) that is in contradiction with the gluon-exchange and the old meson-cloud model.
Astepintime
27th September 2007 - 12:54 AM
QUOTE (Astepintime+Sep 26 2007, 11:46 PM) The guys in the know are the people at Thomas Jefferson Labs. <br>I did come across the following (very dense) paper. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/purl.c.../895918-cHke48/I believe Figure 35 is the one to contrast to Miller's charge distributions (note: No negative core) . Chapter 4.3.1 is helpful showing how the charge distribution is extracted via a Fourier-Bessel transform from the form-factors. These form-factors are measured typically at places like MIT-Bates and TJ-labs. If Miller's charge distributions are correct and EHT shows the same then many people will turn their heads.
STAGGERBOT
27th September 2007 - 05:15 AM
QUOTE (Astepintime+Sep 26 2007, 11:46 PM) I would be very interested in what those guys think about this paper.
exactly
auldsj
1st October 2007 - 09:07 PM
We're jones'n for a post guys (hdeasy, jreed, etc)...don't leave us lurkers hangin'.
UncleMatt
1st October 2007 - 09:30 PM
x2
I have been trying to think of ways to create the necessary magnetic fields required for the FTL propulsion concept. I suggested this earlier in the thread, but is it possible that single-wall-carbon-nanotubes might be the kind of conductor that would make a great electromagnet? Armchair quantum wire research was funded to the tune of over a billion dollars this year by GW (glad he at least got that right). This wire is made from billions of SWCNT's, which all act as independent "ballistic conductors". So you end up with almost zero resistance, no energy lost to heat generation, and in the case of long distance transmissions wires, no additional mechanical support is required.
My research has been unable to tell me if a SWCNT creates a magnetic field in the same way a copper wire does when electricity flows through it. Does anyone know the answer and perhaps a measured magnitude? Please post your source so I can follow up.
Jim Graham
2nd October 2007 - 05:15 PM
This is interesting - sounds a lot like Heim's model to me (naive lurker). Do any of you experts think it's related? http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0710/0710.0301v1.pdfIt's a model of the electron, showing how spin, mass and charge can manifest from pure topology...Jim
Tor
2nd October 2007 - 06:55 PM
The total misunderstanding of the term SPIN annoys me. Even in Wikipedia it is described as a “the angular momentum intrinsic to a body”, which it is NOT. Only until the “body” is described in the context of quantum mechanics it becomes “intrinsic”. The "body" itself does not have an intrinsic spin. Even if QM is a well established and USED theory, it is not fully explained, simply; we have only a vague idea what’s going on.
freethis
2nd October 2007 - 09:21 PM
quote
Regarding Nikola Tesla's dream of a "totally new source of power":
Tesla would only say that ".... the apparatus for manufacturing this energy and transforming it would be of ideal simplicity with both mechanical and electrical features." Tesla said, "The preliminary cost might be thought too high, but this would be overcome, for the installation would be both permanent and indestructible."
Of course, the disagreements between Einstein and Tesla over the nature of "atomic energy" are known. What is interesting as a speculation would be Tesla's view (were he alive) on the relationship between his proposed "totally new source of power" and the Three Laws of Thermodynamics and how such would relate to Einstein's concept of E = mc^2. With such a speculation in mind, the following is offered:
NOTE:
The following is "out of context" from the detailed information featuring charts, diagrams, and photographs that are presented in Joseph Newman's fundamental book, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman.
From the Chapter entitled, HEAT & THE THREE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS:
"....Heat is electromagnetic energy (consisting of gyroscopic massergies*). Gyroscopic massergies* (or electromagnetic energy) comprise all Matter. Alterations in the heat (gyroscopic massergies*) of Matter cause a change in the amount of (gyroscopic massergies*) of Matter in accordance with E=mc^2."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Nomenclature note:
It's been said that "learning is a result of understanding which is a result of good communication which is a result of a consistent language which is a result of good NOMENCLATURE."
For over 30 years, Joseph Newman has referred to the fundamental 'entities' creating (electro)magnetic fields as "gyroscopic particles."
Over the past 14 years, some individuals have expressed to their problem with the word "particle(s)." That word sometimes causes them to wonder "to what "particle" the "gyroscopic particle" belongs?" Some individuals have wondered how does the "gyroscopic particle" relate to protons, photons, electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc...
Several years ago, I began substituting the term "masergy" for "particle." More than anything it represents a 'refinement' of one aspect of Joseph Newman's paradigm. To employ a completely new word has the advantage of disassociating its old usage from previously used words and their connotations.... especially when Joseph Newman has described his "gyroscopic x" as being the fundamental unit out of which the larger units and sub-atomic "particles" are constructed.
The new term also immediately suggests the ongoing, simultaneous equivalence between "mass" and "energy" and that the important point (within the context of Joseph Newman's technology) is to focus on the word "gyroscopic," not the word "particle" or even the word "masergy."
A gentleman named Ben (with whom I've had several private email discussions) has acted as a "catalyst" to encourage me to pursue this new nomenclature.
Anyway, I have had a subsequent discussion with Joseph Newman about this issue of appropriate (and perhaps more explicit) nomenclature and he agrees with the new usage, with one slight correction (i.e., the addition of a second "s" to more explicitly indicate the "mass" involved). In other words, this "entity" is simultaneously both "mass" and "energy" --- and that its most important mechanical characteristic is its GYROSCOPIC nature.
So, henceforth, it is suggested that the "gyroscopic particle" be referred to as the:
Gyroscopic Massergy.
THE RESEARCH OF DR. FELIX EHRENHAFT
BACKGROUND:
Regarding lectures concerning Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft's experiments with Photophoresis:
There exists microphotographs of a Photophoresis phenomena for which there is no general explanation. The microphotographs were most interesting in their depiction of the activity of submicroscopic particles suspended in liquids and/or gases.
What is most unusual about the activity of these small particles is the following:
During the course of the experiment, the motion of the particles traced out a "spiral" path. However, upon magnification of a given section of a given spiral, one saw a "spiral" path within the path of the larger spiral. When a section of that second order magnitude spiral path was magnified, one saw an even smaller "spiral" path comprising that second order magnitude spiral path..... and when the third order magnitude spiral path was magnified, an even smaller spiral path was detected.
Continuing "spirals with spirals" paths were detected down to the limits of the magnification technology available to Dr. Ehrenhaft.
Are these "spirals within spirals" are related to the hypothetical motion* of the gyroscopic particle throughout the "shells of force" comprising magnetic fields, as pictured on pages 10/11 of the book, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman? [*spiraling helix and/or 3-dimensional toroid?]
Also curious is the fact that the winding shapes of some of these spirals in the microphotographs reminds one of the shapes described by Nikola Tesla with respect to Plate XLVIII in which Tesla wrote:
"One of the streamers is wonderfully interesting on account of the curiously twisted and curved appearance. It is hard to conceive how a discharge can pass through the air in this way when there exists a strong tendency to make it take the shortest route."
In viewing these microphotographs by Dr. Ehrenhaft, one has the distinct impression that something phenomenal was occurring, but no definitive explanation for the observations is known at this time.
In my opinion, such spinning gyroscopic massergies do provide a qualitative description of electromagnetic phenomena, and his model is useful in understanding complex electrical situations (note that without a pictorial model one must rely solely upon mathematical equations which can become extremely complex).
Given that electromagnetic fields consist of matter in motion, or kinetic energy, Joe decided that it should be possible to tap this kinetic energy. He likes to say: "How long did man sit next to a stream before he invented the paddle wheel?"
Joe built a variety of unusual devices to tap the kinetic energy in electromagnetic fields before he arrived at his present motor design. He likes to point out that both Maxwell and Faraday, the pioneers of electromagnetism, believed that the fields consisted of matter in motion. That is stated in no uncertain terms in Maxwell's book "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field". In fact, Maxwell used a dynamical model to derive his famous equations. That fact has all but been lost in current books on electromagnetic theory. The quantity which Maxwell called "electromagnetic momentum" is now referred to as the "vector potential".
Going further, Joe realized that when a magnetic field is created, its gyroscopic massergies must come from the atoms of the materials which created the field. Thus he decided that all matter must consist of the same gyroscopic massergies.
For example, when a voltage is applied to a wire, Newman pictures gyroscopic massergies moving down the wire at the speed of light (with resistance in mind). Those gyroscopic massergies line up the electrons in the wire. The electrons themselves consist of a swirling mass of gyroscopic massergies, and their matter fields combine when lined up to form the magnetic lines of force circulating around the wire. In that process, the wire has literally lost some of its mass to the magnetic field, and that is accounted for by Einstein's equation of energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light.
According to Einstein, every conversion of energy involves a corresponding conversion of matter. According to Newman, that may be interpreted as an exchange of gyroscopic massergies. For example, if two atoms combine to give off light, the atoms would weight slightly less after the reaction than before. According to Newman, the atoms have combined and given off some of their gyroscopic massergies in the form of light. Thus Einstein's equation is interpreted as a matter of counting gyroscopic massergies. These gyroscopic massergies cannot be created or destroyed in Newman's theory, and they always move at the speed of light.
My interpretation of Newman's original idea for his motor is as follows:
As a thought experiment, suppose one made a coil consisting of 186,000 miles of wire. An electrical field would require one second to travel the length of the wire, or in Newman's language, it would take one second for gyroscopic massergies inserted at one end of the wire to reach the other end. Now suppose that the polarity of the applied voltage was switched before the one second has elapsed, and that polarity switching was repeated with a period less than one second.
Result:
Gyroscopic massergies would become trapped in the wire and, as their number increased, so would the alignment of electrons and the number of gyroscopic massergies in the magnetic field increase. The intensified magnetic field could be used to do work on an external magnet, while the input current to the coil would be small or (operationally) non-existent. Newman's motors contain up to 55 miles of wire, and the voltage is rapidly switched as the magnet rotates. He elaborates upon his theory in his book, and uses it to interpret a variety of physical phenomena.
Coil weight: 9000 lbs.
Coil length: 55 miles of copper wire
Coil Inductance: 1,100 Henries measured by observing the current rise time when a D.C. voltage was applied.
Coil resistance: 770 Ohms
Coil Height: about 4 ft.
Coil Diameter: slightly over 4 ft. I.D.
Magnet weight: 700 lbs.
Magnet Radius: 2 feet
Magnet geometry: cylinder rotating about its perpendicular axis
Magnet Moment of Inertia: 40 kg-sq.m. (M.K.S.) computed as one third mass times radius squared
Battery Voltage: 590 volts under load
Battery Type: Six volt Ray-O-Vac lantern batteries connected in series
Laidback
2nd October 2007 - 11:14 PM
QUOTE (Tor+Oct 3 2007, 04:55 AM) The total misunderstanding of the term SPIN annoys me. Even in Wikipedia it is described as a “the angular momentum intrinsic to a body”, which it is NOT. Only until the “body” is described in the context of quantum mechanics it becomes “intrinsic”. The "body" itself does not have an intrinsic spin. Even if QM is a well established and USED theory, it is not fully explained, simply; we have only a vague idea what’s going on. Agreed - We all must be very mindful of what forces and or better yet what momentum each force which is responsible for what ever form and or structure must conform and comply to with respects to basic physical rules such as Newtons Laws on FORCE and MOTION, and there should be no ifs and no butts! If one doesn't - Then more than likely "Fudging", "Magic" and or "Uncertainty" will become part of ones models, such as it is currently with respects to gravity and the graviton by those who still consider particles are the end all of a solution via there "Oversight", "Misunderstanding" and or easy acceptance of their peers "Oversight", "Misunderstanding" or easy acceptance for want of not having to look foolish should they challenge implied magical perception of attraction, the fact is - "GRAVITY" is a force and all forces are strictly an exertion via its momentum and therefore force can only ever be possible via a repulsion to which BTW can simply be proven by ones self - By simply applying oneself to strict physical laws on force and motion, and yet here we have brilliant minds conceding to a magical attraction and or pull! A particle for that matter should actually be treated as an area that is susceptible to changes - And for such changes, if one considers in detail for whatever force is experienced and or how force simply itself relies on momentum or velocities in its application as a force, "Then" and " only Then" can we begin to piece together a proper accurate working model of what is really going on with respects to Kinetic and Potential Energy I repeat Motion and force and or Mass.. Sadly most Physicists in actioning there theories have not considered boundaries that simply should never be violated because in reality magic simply is not possible, Anti-particles being a prime example of such a coc'k-up!.. Until next time Cheers, Peter J Schoen...
jreed
2nd October 2007 - 11:37 PM
QUOTE (Astepintime+Sep 27 2007, 12:54 AM)
I believe Figure 35 is the one to contrast to Miller's charge distributions (note: No negative core) . Chapter 4.3.1 is helpful showing how the charge distribution is extracted via a Fourier-Bessel transform from the form-factors. These form-factors are measured typically at places like MIT-Bates and TJ-labs.
If Miller's charge distributions are correct and EHT shows the same then many people will turn their heads. This brings up a problem with Heim theory. The leptons (electron, muon, tau and neutrinos) are supposed to be structureless, in other words a point particle. This is known from scattering experiments. Yet in Heim theory they have the same pattern of the four zones as do all the other particles. The other particle groups, hadrons and mesons, have structure, experimentally seen in scattering. Until we understand enough about Heim theory to explain this, the physics community won't believe the theory. jreed
DEK46656
3rd October 2007 - 03:54 AM
QUOTE (jreed+Oct 2 2007, 07:37 PM) This brings up a problem with Heim theory. The leptons (electron, muon, tau and neutrinos) are supposed to be structureless, in other words a point particle. This is known from scattering experiments. Yet in Heim theory they have the same pattern of the four zones as do all the other particles. The other particle groups, hadrons and mesons, have structure, experimentally seen in scattering. Until we understand enough about Heim theory to explain this, the physics community won't believe the theory.
jreed Could this scenario be used to generate a prediction for testing? Admittedly the Tajmir experiments are intriguing, but the real "meat" of that prediction / experiment is some years off. Could something relating to lepton structure be attempted? It seems to me that if the two models (standard model & EHT) have a basic difference relating to the structure of leptons, then some form of experiment could be worked out (based on a prediction) to confirm or refute EHT.
hdeasy
3rd October 2007 - 10:03 AM
Though the electron and other leptons also have this inner structure in Heim Theory, don't be too hasty in seeing this as a point against HT, since the lower energy of the electron may be associated with the inability to detect its strucure. Since in HT all real particles are cyclic processes in 6 dimensions with their 3-d (well, 4-d with time) appearance being a projection from a higher dimensional structure, it may be that the electron's projection is not as large as for nucleons.
Jossarian
3rd October 2007 - 01:00 PM
Hi all, Update. There is a new document by Droscher & Hausner available at HPCC Space (published yesterday): Gravity-Like Fields for Space PropulsionAuthors mention about Gravity-Probe B outcome: | QUOTE | The GP-B experiment uses two pairs of coated, superconducting Nb spheres (gyros) that were spun up from 0 to 4,000 rpm. Now, if the effect, as measured by Tajmar, is real, these rotating gyros must have produced a gravitomagnetic field, too. This field should have caused a spin-spin interaction between the two laser gyros forming a pair (i.e. affecting the orientation of each other’s spin axis). Indeed, substantial gyro precession anomaly was observed in the GP-B experiment. When Tajmar (2007) applied his measured gravitomagnetic field data to calculating the respective precession values of the GP-B gyros, he was able to explain, at least, a large part of this anomaly. Theoretical predictions do also exist. Naturally, this needs to be more closely investigated.
<br>Also it seems that a new paper from M.Tajmar is mentioned about which I didn't know at the moment:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The GP-B experiment uses two pairs of coated, superconducting Nb spheres (gyros) that were spun up from 0 to 4,000 rpm. Now, if the effect, as measured by Tajmar, is real, these rotating gyros must have produced a gravitomagnetic field, too. This field should have caused a spin-spin interaction between the two laser gyros forming a pair (i.e. affecting the orientation of each other’s spin axis). Indeed, substantial gyro precession anomaly was observed in the GP-B experiment. When Tajmar (2007) applied his measured gravitomagnetic field data to calculating the respective precession values of the GP-B gyros, he was able to explain, at least, a large part of this anomaly. Theoretical predictions do also exist. Naturally, this needs to be more closely investigated.
<br>Also it seems that a new paper from M.Tajmar is mentioned about which I didn't know at the moment:
In his recent paper, 25 August 2007, Tajmar
compares his gravitomagnetic field results with those of the Canterbury group and finds good
agreement.
Does anyone seen that document already? I can't find something like this in arxiv and eprintweb.
Cheers,
/Joss
lurker
3rd October 2007 - 02:35 PM
QUOTE (Jossarian+Oct 3 2007, 01:00 PM) Hi all, Update. There is a new document by Droscher & Hausner available at HPCC Space (published yesterday): Gravity-Like Fields for Space PropulsionAuthors mention about Gravity-Probe B outcome: Also it seems that a new paper from M.Tajmar is mentioned about which I didn't know at the moment: Does anyone seen that document already? I can't find something like this in arxiv and eprintweb. Cheers, /Joss hi joss, i think they are refering to this document Search for Frame-Dragging in the Vicinity of Spinning Superconductors(updated 25 August 2007 and 14 September 2007) question to all: does anyone have an idea of how much money would be needed approximately to build the often cited experiment which could generate the AGF along the axis of rotation? greets, lurker
Astepintime
3rd October 2007 - 08:19 PM
QUOTE (jreed+Oct 2 2007, 11:37 PM) This brings up a problem with Heim theory. The leptons (electron, muon, tau and neutrinos) are supposed to be structureless, in other words a point particle. This is known from scattering experiments. Yet in Heim theory they have the same pattern of the four zones as do all the other particles. The other particle groups, hadrons and mesons, have structure, experimentally seen in scattering. Until we understand enough about Heim theory to explain this, the physics community won't believe the theory.
I guess my ignorance of HT/EHT has allowed me to assume that the lepton structure was not really a problem - That is, I assumed that for leptons the four zones would effectively be at the unmeasureable Planck scale. So I saw Heim's idea as being problematic for the hadrons. The quark-gluon model is amazing good and is a component of the standard model of particle physics, which as you know, is both one of the most successful theories AND one with known shortcomings. So it seems that for EHT/HT to be 'totally' successful it must be shown to be isomorphic with the quark model or at the very least it must be able to give as good agreement with the hard-scattering data. But perhaps Heims structure model is only correct for soft interactions (low Q^2, where QCD has great difficulty) and thus yielding good masses and lifetimes. But I have my doubts everything I read on the web just raises more questions. What is needed is a detailed, refereed physics paper on the subject.
Johnver
4th October 2007 - 10:09 AM
Hello all,
As to the anti-gravity field, the following document by Tajmar may temper our and Dröschers enthusiasm:
Hypothecial Gravity Control and Possible Influence on Space Propulsion (if you type this in ni google, you will definitely fnid the PDF-file, because I'm not allowed to post direct links here it seems).
At least, as it is as I with my limited knowledge can interpret it. This is an abstract from the conclusion of the document:
We can summarize our results as follows. Within the context of propulsion devices based on the reaction principle, our study reveals that control of gravity, even if achievable, would not imply in a breakthrough for propulsion, even though it could be of major importance for e.g. possible microgravity applications on Earth.
I must admit that I can't immediately retrace when this document was written (before or after Tajmar's discovery) and if he still backs his conclusions. I'm also very interested on what the Heim group may have to say about this.
Greetings from Belgium!
Jossarian
4th October 2007 - 11:01 AM
QUOTE (Johnver+Oct 4 2007, 10:09 AM) Hello all,
As to the anti-gravity field, the following document by Tajmar may temper our and Dröschers enthusiasm:
This is an abstract from the conclusion of the document:
We can summarize our results as follows. Within the context of propulsion devices based on the reaction principle, our study reveals that control of gravity, even if achievable, would not imply in a breakthrough for propulsion, even though it could be of major importance for e.g. possible microgravity applications on Earth.
I must admit that I can't immediately retrace when this document was written (before or after Tajmar's discovery) and if he still backs his conclusions. Hi Johnver, Most recent version 3 of this document is dated: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:44:15 GMT. This article is a pure theoretical divagation about how gravity control if possible could be utilised. There are 4 different cases discussed: 1. Inertial Mass Modification 2. Gravitational Mass Modification 3. Dipolar Gravito-Electric Field 4. Wire-like Gravitomagnetic Field Heim-Lorentz force being foreseen by Droscher&Hausner (and most likely observed by Tajmar) simply doesn't belong to any of these categories. /Joss
gdaigle
4th October 2007 - 03:29 PM
I didn't realize that the article by Hauser and Dröscher was written on the request of the chairman of the Committee of Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion (NPFF) of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). What is the tie-in with HPCC-Space GmbH?
I ask because if you "get information" on the pdf version of the article it has reference to AerospaceAmerica, which is a currently undeveloped .org site registered by AIAA. The technical contact for that site is www.fry.com, a corporate Web design firm with a decidedly consumer-oriented clientele (Spiegel, Godiva, Whirlpool, etc.) and no noticeable prior nonprofit work on their client list.
So is the AIAA going to launch a consumer-friendlly Aerospaceamerica.org site that has some tie-in to H & D's work? It's puzzling.
Jossarian
4th October 2007 - 05:08 PM
QUOTE (gdaigle+Oct 4 2007, 03:29 PM) I ask because if you "get information" on the pdf version of the article it has reference to AerospaceAmerica, which is a currently undeveloped .org site registered by AIAA. <!--emo&<_<-->  I doesn't got any "better" source of information about this article then other people. This information is available at arxiv.org pages. See here, look for "Submission history". I can't help you with your question about AIAA whereabouts then. /Joss
gdaigle
4th October 2007 - 05:44 PM
Joss, by "get information" I mean hit the keyboard combination of Cmd-I and you get the Document Information popup window which includes Summary/Details/Keywords of the pdf. Under Details I see the following: "Title: Microsoft Word - AerospaceAmericaVers20". One interpretation is that the pdf was converted from a Word doc with the title, "AerospaceAmericaVers20"... or something similar. However, there are other possible interpretations as well. Sorry that I wasn't more clear.
jreed
4th October 2007 - 11:28 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Oct 3 2007, 10:03 AM) Though the electron and other leptons also have this inner structure in Heim Theory, don't be too hasty in seeing this as a point against HT, since the lower energy of the electron may be associated with the inability to detect its strucure. Since in HT all real particles are cyclic processes in 6 dimensions with their 3-d (well, 4-d with time) appearance being a projection from a higher dimensional structure, it may be that the electron's projection is not as large as for nucleons. I found this information about the size of the electron in a Pentagon report. They seem pretty sure about the size of the electron. It appears to really be a point. jreed Abstract: Electron motion paths that exhibit zero radiation in a Maxwells equation solution have been reported. Such paths, require a radiationless model of the electron itself, such as the charged hollow sphere. When the electric- field energy of this model is set equal to the rest mass energy of the electron, the radius of the resulting sphere is called the "classical electron radius." Analysis reveals that the static magnetic-field energy of the classical model is many times the electron rest mass energy when the sphere is given an angular velocity large enough to exhibit the electron magnetic moment. The necessary angular velocity produces a peripheral velocity many times the speed of light. A classical model with a peripheral velocity near the speed of light is a loop whose radius is the Compton wavelength divided by 2ir; such a loop has a very small dimension perpendicular to the loop plane. Experiments reveal point-like electron scattering properties down to at least 1/100 of the classical radius. The small transverse dimensions of the loop model indicate similar scattering results. Recently, a proposal was submitted to investigate the scattering properties of interacting loops. Because of limited proposal length, derivation of loop model equations could not be included. This report contains the details of the analysis.
Tim
5th October 2007 - 04:11 AM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Oct 3 2007, 10:03 AM) Since in HT all real particles are cyclic processes in 6 dimensions with their 3-d (well, 4-d with time) appearance being a projection from a higher dimensional structure, it may be that the electron's projection is not as large as for nucleons. I guess I never really thought about that possibility... I keep forgetting that we're dealing with extra dimensions. Not curled up silly little dimensions, but "real" dimensions that actually have a say in how existence works. I get confused about wave particle duality when I'm completely forgetting that I'm not taking that particle's existence/motion in two (or maybe four) more dimensions into account. I'm looking at it from the side, not from above kind of thing. Or maybe I'm just a complete idiot and should shut up now The actual reason I wanted to post was to bring another article to everyone's attention. Some guys at the University of Michigan have some research that "appears in the October 4 issue of Nature and finds that a form of shimmering superconductivity exists at temperatures well above that at which ordinary superconductivity is destroyed." The physorg article doesn't say much, but could this "shimmering superconductivity" be partially responsible for the fact that Tajmar's effect takes place above the Tc of most of the materials tested?
Astepintime
5th October 2007 - 04:27 AM
QUOTE (jreed+Oct 4 2007, 11:28 PM) Experiments reveal point-like electron scattering properties down to at least 1/100 of the classical radius. <br>Yea, this is consistent with what I found, see below. http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/1988/T22/016Classical electron radius (Compton radius) = ~ 2.8 x 10^-15 m 1/100 of this is ~ 3 x 10^-17 m close to the above reference of 1 x 10^-18 m Still with the Planck length of 10^-35 m there still is a lot of room for structure.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
