It concerns me a little that the value that works the best in the mass formula is right on the 1982 measurement, but on the low end of the error range for the currently accepted best value (range 6.6732- 6.6752 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2). But, the value that works the best in the formula is in the error range of the modern value accepted by the National Bureau of Standards, it seems.
<br>I've only tried the values 6.674 and 6.673, so it's possible values are better using for example 6.672.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
It concerns me a little that the value that works the best in the mass formula is right on the 1982 measurement, but on the low end of the error range for the currently accepted best value (range 6.6732- 6.6752 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2). But, the value that works the best in the formula is in the error range of the modern value accepted by the National Bureau of Standards, it seems.
<br>I've only tried the values 6.674 and 6.673, so it's possible values are better using for example 6.672.
1. Remark: Hmm, what about turning the problem upside down ?
As far as i understand, the value of the particle masses are 'known' with smaller error margins than the value of G. So i'm curious about the results if you run your implementation of Heim's mass formula with different values of G, e.g. from 6.66 until 6.68 (which i guess are far lower / higher than the true value of G) with a stepping of 0.001 or even 0.0001. Then, for every value of G, look what happens to the individual differences of the calculated versus 'known' particle masses.
<br>You'll find this little tidbid very interesting then:
CODE
2003 - G = 6.6733082 (HT group 2003)
2002 - G = 6.6733198 (Droescher 2002)
It seems the Heim Theory Group has already had that idea.
| QUOTE |
It would be interesting if the value found then was closer to 6.673.
<br>That would indeed be very interesting.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
It would be interesting if the value found then was closer to 6.673.
<br>That would indeed be very interesting.
Spony, will your new code have a particle_fortran or something like that? It would
be nice to maintain the particle82/89 code based on papers so that we can easily
compare with the newer results and theories.
<br>So far the new code simply uses particles based on the 1982 theory as I think that this the formula they are using with regard to determining q.
With regard to this I would love to get my hands on the equations used to determine m, n, p and sigma but they can't seem to be found anywhere. There is a manuscript from the 1980's that Heim wrote as far as i understand it?
| QUOTE |
I'm sure you are aware of the sad fact, that floating point numbers on computers and mathematical real numbers are two very differents beasts, because floating points numbers sooner or later cut or round off digits so that they still fit in limited memory.
As far as i know, Java offers 32 and 64 bit floating point numbers. In C++, 80 bit floating point numbers are available, maybe in Java too. But even when using the most bits available, the sequence of calculation is sometimes important, because all intermediate results have to fit into x bits.
<br>Yes I'm very much aware of the problem, currently though I'm preoccupied with using the correct equations more so then precision problems in those equations. I have also pondered the fact that the equations I'm seeing in the code may just have been restructured for effeciency, precision. But in most cases we are simply talking about different equations that give different results. For example the main mass function is different in the Heim Theory code.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
I'm sure you are aware of the sad fact, that floating point numbers on computers and mathematical real numbers are two very differents beasts, because floating points numbers sooner or later cut or round off digits so that they still fit in limited memory.
As far as i know, Java offers 32 and 64 bit floating point numbers. In C++, 80 bit floating point numbers are available, maybe in Java too. But even when using the most bits available, the sequence of calculation is sometimes important, because all intermediate results have to fit into x bits.
<br>Yes I'm very much aware of the problem, currently though I'm preoccupied with using the correct equations more so then precision problems in those equations. I have also pondered the fact that the equations I'm seeing in the code may just have been restructured for effeciency, precision. But in most cases we are simply talking about different equations that give different results. For example the main mass function is different in the Heim Theory code.
Use a data type with unlimited precision.
<br>Atm. I'm using doubles which have 64 bit precision. Use of unlimmited precision is infact supported by the java standard library (BigInteger/BigDecimal). Infact i'm already using BigInteger in my factorial and combination methods to ensure they don't overflow. This is a possibility in the future although I'm not sure when i can find the time to do that (perhaps someone else might).
Martin
Vilvi
15th February 2006 - 03:33 PM
Hi spony
"With regard to this I would love to get my hands on the equations used to determine m, n, p and sigma but they can't seem to be found anywhere. There is a manuscript from the 1980's that Heim wrote as far as i understand it?"
It`s easy to calculate n, m, p, sigma. In fact, in an excel table I have calculated these values. I found all the values are right, excep for delta++ and delta+. The process is described in page 9 of Heim`s Mass Formual 1982. The W1 they put in that page refers to WN=0, due we are using basic states Wnx(1+f(N))=W1 becames in WN=0 (cause f(N=0)=0).
Taking into account this, we calculate K1 from equation W1-(alfa1*K1^3)=0; K1 must be an integer, so in consecuence, you must truncate the value obtained in the previous equation. After that, you put the integer value of k1 in equation:
W1-(alfa1*K1^3)=W2, and you will have W2, and calculate K2 in equation:
W2-(alfa2*K2)=0, and so on.
It's easy, if you want I'll send to your e-mail my excel table.
But I'm concerned in (my opinion) one important problem, the mass formla does not predict (at least is not calculated) the mass of lepton tau; for me this is basic, and no further steps will be done until have the solution of this issue.
Bye.
Vilvi
15th February 2006 - 03:41 PM
I forgot:
n=K1-Qn
m=K2-Qm
p=K3-Qp
sigma=K4-Qsigma
all is clearly descibed on that page.
spony
15th February 2006 - 05:20 PM
| QUOTE |
It`s easy to calculate n, m, p, sigma. In fact, in an excel table I have calculated these values. I found all the values are right, excep for delta++ and delta+. The process is described in page 9 of Heim`s Mass Formual 1982. The W1 they put in that page refers to WN=0, due we are using basic states Wnx(1+f(N))=W1 becames in WN=0 (cause f(N=0)=0).
<br>Ahhh, I see. I missed that one. Frankly i never understod that page. 
I'd apreciate you sending me the excel tabel, so I don't have to spend a lot of time figuring out the details.
Regards Martin
jess tauber
16th February 2006 - 11:27 AM
Hi, folks. Ok, so I just discovered my first references to Heim's work ooh, about three hours ago, and Googled my way to your forum thread. Very interesting, to say the least.
Question- anyone know how many people with solid physics backgrounds follow developments with regard to Heim, as opposed to pure outsiders (such as myself) with pretentions of grand unification?
I guess what impressed me was the claim to be able to calculate particle masses with relatively good accuracy. I'm also drawn to the notion of Heim's being a nearly purely geometrical theoretical position. Frankly I'm obsessed with 3+1 splits in dimensional behaviors which seem to be found at every level of material reality. As such I'm hoping someone might give some consideration to trying a 16D version of Heim.
After all, one still has a good number of particles whose masses need calculation- including perhaps a fourth family of fermions, magnetic monopoles, and who knows, maybe an entire set of 3/2 spin elementary particles (i.e. NOT supersymmetric gravitinos, etc.). The neutral electron might be a nice example of a fourth family fermion.
Jess Tauber
hdeasy
16th February 2006 - 12:35 PM
QUOTE (jess tauber+Feb 16 2006, 11:27 AM) Question- anyone know how many people with solid physics backgrounds follow developments with regard to Heim, as opposed to pure outsiders (such as myself) with pretentions of grand unification? ...
IAs such I'm hoping someone might give some consideration to trying a 16D version of Heim.
At this stage the number of physicists is not so large - Droscher & Hauser, Von Ludwiger and 5 or 6 others in the Heim theory group, myself, a few of the physicists contributing to this forum etc. Then there are those involved with judging the AIAA prize and who were impressed with it - another 10 or so at least -so in total about 30 or 40 professional physicists and many other scientists - chemists, computer scientists, engineers etc. The number is growing all the time as publicity from the prize and the New Scientist article grows. On a 16D version - we already discussed the Dimension Law of Heim, where p space dimensions are embedded in an n-dim hyperspace. The equation n = 1 + sqrt(1 + p.(p-1).(p-2)) only has integer solutions (p,n) = (4,6), (6,12), (57,420) and then huge ones with millions of dimensions. Other resrictions rule out more than 12 dimensions. But you don't need more to get new particles - Heim's resonant solutions (N > 0) give many particles with high energy - some of which correspond to observed resonances. His mass equation can handle tehm as well as the 'ground state' particles like the proton and electron.
UncleMatt
17th February 2006 - 06:58 PM
Hi Everyone,
I am new here, but have been following your efforts for many weeks and find it engaging and fascinating. Though some of the math is beyond me, I have been studying everything I can find regarding Heim and his theories.
Recently I began to consider what materials might be used in an experiment to prove Heim's theories about propulsion. The biggest obstacle seems to be producing the required magnetic field over a large enough area. Lately, I have been drawn to carbon nanotubes due to their ability to act as a superconductor at high temps. They also have the potential to to achieve a charge density of 10^7 A/cm^2 to 10^13 A/cm^2. (http://www.pa.msu.edu/cmp/csc/nanotube.html).
Given this, I began to think about what it would take to create either a very long single wall carbon nanotube, or a fiber made up of millions of very long tubes. Either of these would be wound in the form of an electromagnet. Technology doesn't seem to be able to perform this task as of yet, but I think soon that will change.
This is a very preliminary concept, and I am wondering if perhaps a new thread might be started at this site to discuss possible materials and methods to construct an experiment to prove Heim's theeories. I know my shortcomings are many in this field and would welcome expert independent advice on this topic. If there is interest, pelase let me know.
Matt
rshoemake
17th February 2006 - 08:21 PM
I think the approach of using a plasma drive http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop19aug99_1.htmhttp://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/propulsion.htmlMay be sufficient to creat such a magnetic field without the need for wires.
Guest_UncleMatt
18th February 2006 - 12:06 AM
The question is, would the field you suggest be of the power required, not just large in area. http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...004-3700-a4.pdfThis paper describes theoretical Tesla levels that need to be reached, maintained, and projected over relatively large apertures (3m). If a way could be found to create this field without wires, as you sugest, I would be all for it. The Tesla levels mentioned in the links you posted were around .1 Tesla if I recall correctly. Hydrogen gas is used to expand the magnetic field, but it is not in the range of 60 Tesla called for by Droscher to achieve a shift to an alternate dimension and possible superluminal velocities.
Guest_jreed
18th February 2006 - 12:41 AM
QUOTE (leovinus+Feb 7 2006, 01:54 PM)
This is a quick first shot which can be easily improved. Bascially, I have
just taken all mass predictions from Java code, based on either 1989 or 1982 math,
and computed an averaged sqr distance. This gives us some numbers to minimize such as
raw distance and/or percentage deviation compared to mass in the table.
H i This is my first post. Just to introduce myself, I have a Ph.D. in physics (quantum mechanics scattering theory) and also understand some of general relativity. When I saw a posting in usenet about Heim's theory being able to find particle masses, I was very interested. First I solved for the fine structure constant. Great and good agreement with experiment. Maybe there's something here. I'm working my way through the other calculations. I can't say I understand much of the theory. It sounds strange. I thought I could get motivated to work through the theory by seeing more numerical results. I use Mathematica so it is easy to do the programming. I have been able to derive most of the numbers in Selected Examples (G) on page 9. I have some problems with N3, but not serious. Maybe the 1982 formulas were used. Now comes the bad news. In table VI there is a small table for Qn, Qm, Qp, Qsigma, B, H and A as a function of k. These are all computed correctly by my Mathematica program except for A. When I compute A I get 1635., not 2787. This isn't a difficult calculation. If you have these other numbers, you can get A with only a calculator. You can try it yourself. First compute g using B25. You should get 22.716. Now you can solve for A. You should get 1635.5. What's going on here? Has anybody else tried this? John Reed
FOTSGreg
18th February 2006 - 06:03 AM
Greetings.
I'm not nearly on the caliber of most of you here, but I have been interested in Heim Theory since I discovered it a month or so ago. Please pardon what may be a stupid question.
During a recent online discussion with an associate who was dismissing the theory out of hand I was trying to explain how I thought the thing worked. His comment was,
"Well, if that worked we'd see superluminal effects around pulsars."
So, the question arises - if Heim's theory works and magnetic fields rotating at high velocities translate a material object into a dimensional area where c is not the absolute limit and actually allow a material body to accelerate far beyond c - why don;t we see superluminal effects around pulsars (which have very high magnetic fields in the hundreds of Tesla ange and are rotating very very fast (often in the hundreds of rotations per second range))?
Thanks,
Greg (works at LBNL, but not as a rocket scientist)
metronhead
18th February 2006 - 03:03 PM
| QUOTE | "Well, if that worked we'd see superluminal effects around pulsars."
<br>Interesting point. I'm no astronomer (I work as an analytical chemist) but I do seem to remember that there are apparently superluminal jets shooting out of the poles of some high magnetic, rapidly spinning objects. These apparent superluminal jets have been explained as an optical illusion brought about by their angle to the observer, leading to observations that are apparently superluminal, but in reality are sublumnial.
Here is a link to a (not particularly informative) short article on a NASA conference on neutron stars, black holes, and "superluminal jets".
NASA short article on high energy objects
Artists conception:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | "Well, if that worked we'd see superluminal effects around pulsars."
<br>Interesting point. I'm no astronomer (I work as an analytical chemist) but I do seem to remember that there are apparently superluminal jets shooting out of the poles of some high magnetic, rapidly spinning objects. These apparent superluminal jets have been explained as an optical illusion brought about by their angle to the observer, leading to observations that are apparently superluminal, but in reality are sublumnial.
Here is a link to a (not particularly informative) short article on a NASA conference on neutron stars, black holes, and "superluminal jets".
NASA short article on high energy objects
Artists conception:
A black hole's rotation twists the fabric of space and time. As material crowds in through the flattened accretion disk, some gases are squeezed outward to become superluminal jets. Artwork credit: J. Bergeron/ Sky & Telescope magazine.
<br>Here's a better link, on an apparent superluminal jet, within our own galaxy:
"Superluminal" Jet Sources Close to Home
| QUOTE | In order to make the jets like the one shown at the upper-right of the picture above, deep in the nucleus of a distant galaxy, something must accelerate particles to very high energies. The only way we know of to supply that energy is from the immense gravitational energy reservoir of a black hole. However, it can be difficult to see down into the center of a galaxy (the bright spot at the lower left of the above picture) to get the details of what is going on due to the surrounding stars and dust and the great distance these objects are away from Earth.
What astronomers needed was a way to observe such jets at close range. This opportunity came in 1994 with the discovery that two X-ray sources, which became very bright that year, were also accelerating matter in the form of jets. The most surprising aspect of these sources is that they were in our own Galaxy, practically in the neighborhood compared to distant galaxies. In addition, the jets, which can be seen in radio telescopes as a string of bright "blobs", actually appear to move on the sky in a few hours. Traveling at nearly the speed of light, these blobs carry huge amounts of energy away from the central object, which astronomers believe is a black hole several times more massive than the Sun.
<br>Hmmm... "In addition, the jets, which can be seen in radio telescopes as a string of bright "blobs", actually appear to move on the sky in a few hours."
Like flat galactic rotation curves which lead to the conclusion that galaxies have very large amounts of "missing mass", such phenomena can be looked at as results of conventional or unconventional physics. Most astronomers seem to have accepted the optical illusion explanation for superluminal jets, and they may be right.
metronhead
18th February 2006 - 06:55 PM
| QUOTE | Sequence of Hubble images showing apparent motion at six times the speed of light in the galaxy M87. TOP PANEL: Hubble image showing jet streaming out from the galaxy's nucleus [bright round region at far left]. The jet is about 5000 light years long, and the box indicates where the superluminal motions were seen. BOTTOM PANEL: Sequence of Hubble images showing motion at six times the speed of light. The scale bar is 24 light years long, which is approximately the distance the clouds appear to travel in 4 years. The images were made between 1994 and 1998 with the Faint Object Camera on the Hubble Space Telescope. PHOTO CREDIT: John Biretta, Space Telescope Science Institute.
<br>Hmmm... if the jet really were superluminal, wouldn't the apparent motion along the jet be backwards, with the light from the closest part of the jet reaching us first?
Hmmm... if matter were accelerated (perhaps superluminally) in a Heim rotating magnetic field, wouldn't it drop back to subluminal speed, but close to the speed of light, as soon as the magnetic field strength dropped, leading perhaps to jets at close to light speed, like these appear to be?
Hmmm....what we can see are the jets. The jets are the observable phenomenon. We really don't know that the black holes are there, although most astronomers, applying current physics, think they are there.
Finally... conventional physics can explain the jets shooting from the poles of rapidly rotating massive objects by supercomputer modeling of chaotic effects around massive black holes with magnetic fields, I think- but I get the impression that these jets are not an inescapable prediction of conventional physics. These near light speed jets, though, may be an inescapable prediction of Heim theory. Heim acceleration might explain not only their barely subluminal velocity, but also their tightly focused (collimated) nature.
Leland (Lee) Palmer, Forestville, CA
Vilvi
19th February 2006 - 05:20 PM
QUOTE (Guest_jreed+Feb 18 2006, 12:41 AM) Now comes the bad news. In table VI there is a small table for Qn, Qm, Qp, Qsigma, B, H and A as a function of k. These are all computed correctly by my Mathematica program except for A. When I compute A I get 1635., not 2787. This isn't a difficult calculation. If you have these other numbers, you can get A with only a calculator. You can try it yourself. First compute g using B25. You should get 22.716. Now you can solve for A. You should get 1635.5. What's going on here? Has anybody else tried this?
John Reed Hi John, Your problem is that formual B25 is wrong. We think that g run decreasing the exponent as follows: g=(Qn)^3 + (Qm)^2 + (Qp/k)*e ^(k-1)+... Try this way and you will have better results for A. Bye.
fivedoughnut
19th February 2006 - 06:57 PM
QUOTE (metronhead+Feb 18 2006, 06:55 PM) perhaps it's a lot closer? 
jreed
19th February 2006 - 07:12 PM
QUOTE (Vilvi+Feb 19 2006, 05:20 PM) .Your problem is that formual B25 is wrong. We think that g run decreasing the exponent as follows:
g=(Qn)^3 + (Qm)^2 + (Qp/k)*e ^(k-1)+...
Thank you very much for that correction. I am now computing A for k->1 and k->2 correct to all digits shown in table VI. Can you offer any suggestions about eqns B30 and B29? I am not getting agreement with table VIII. I have checked B30 carefully. I don't know what to set for quantum numbers q and lambda for say an electron. I'm using the other quantum numbers from table I for checking these equations. John
spony
19th February 2006 - 07:44 PM
| QUOTE |
Hi John,
Your problem is that formual B25 is wrong. We think that g run decreasing the exponent as follows:
g=(Qn)^3 + (Qm)^2 + (Qp/k)*e ^(k-1)+...
Try this way and you will have better results for A.
Bye.
<br>I found time to rewrite the selfcouplingfunction today based on the Heim Theory Groups fortran code and you were indeed right, the above equation is the one used in their code.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
Hi John,
Your problem is that formual B25 is wrong. We think that g run decreasing the exponent as follows:
g=(Qn)^3 + (Qm)^2 + (Qp/k)*e ^(k-1)+...
Try this way and you will have better results for A.
Bye.
<br>I found time to rewrite the selfcouplingfunction today based on the Heim Theory Groups fortran code and you were indeed right, the above equation is the one used in their code.
Can you offer any suggestions about eqns B30 and B29? I am not getting agreement with table VIII. I have checked B30 carefully. I don't know what to set for quantum numbers q and lambda for say an electron. I'm using the other quantum numbers from table I for checking these equations.
<br>John i suggest you take a look at my java code. The latest version includes code derived from the Heim Theory Groups most recent fortran code.
Version b0.06 has been posted. I've refactored the code alot since it needed an entirerly different infrastructure to support multiple formulas, also the multitude of java classes was becoming a problem. make sure to use the bash script "./make" which will delete all classes in the hierarchy before recompiling them.
One minor thing is that the HeimGroup code is still using 1982 particles. At present i'm not sure if this is correct.
Martin
metronhead
19th February 2006 - 09:29 PM
Hi fivedoughnut-
| QUOTE | perhaps it's a lot closer?
<br>Dunno. Could be, I guess, if the Heim cosmology modifies distance scales.
The "optical illusion" explanation, in which a "superluminal" jet is traveling at ~0.9c to 0.98 c toward us appears to be a good explanation, IMO. The apparent speed of the jet is exaggerated by the fact that the motion of the jet is so close to the speed of light. The time line looks compressed, therefore. OK, so far. (I wonder, though, if anyone has taken a look at the jet on the other side- going away from us. Motion in that one should be essentially frozen, I think, by the same effect, as well as drastically red shifted).
Actual superluminal motion would appear to be time reversed, I think- the motion would outrace the light from the event, and the blobs in the jet would appear to be going backward, toward the source. Looking at the picture of the M87 jet, it looks like it is possible to draw lines at an opposite slant, corresponding to superluminal motion- but they are not as convincing, IMO. So the M87 jet, at least, appears to be subluminal.
It seems like there are lots of jets out there, though, traveling at close to light speed- they appear to be pretty ubiquitous. The explanations of how they got accelerated to close to c are pretty complicated, it seems, involving matter flowing into an accretion disk around a massive, rapidly spinning object with a very strong magnetic field. Some of the gravitational potential energy of the inflowing matter is translated by some sort of magnetic MHD effect into an outflow at the poles of the magnetic field. The astrophysicists modeling these effects admit that there are uncertainties involved in the generation of these jets, and also the problem of how at least some of them are collimated.
It seems to me that there are enough jets out there traveling at close to c, and the explanations for their origin are shaky enough, that some sort of Heim acceleration mechanism cannot be excluded for the origin of at least some of them. The quasars, for example, are both very bright, and very far away- so much so that some sort of "lighthouse" effect must be going on with them, with the beam just happening to point towards us, in some cases. The beams from quasars must also be fantastically narrow, with angular widths of 0.1 degrees or less- otherwise the energy required to generate that brightness at that supposed distance is way too great to be explained by conventional physics. There is apparently something called the "lighthouse model" by Camenzind & Krockenberger (1992) which predicts these extremely narrow jets.
A Heim mechanism for the quasars might explain several puzzling features of the quasars, it seems to me.
Firstly, Heim acceleration might lead to a very narrow beam or jet- transverse motions of the accelerated particles, occurring subluminally, might be dwarfed by the superluminal linear accelerations caused by the Heim gravitophoton fields, leading to a very narrow beam.
Secondly, since the energy required for the acceleration appears spontaneously, and is essentially free, the beam or jet would have to be less narrow in the first place, to keep the energy required for producing these beams or jets within reasonable bounds.
Thirdly, it could help explain the near c motions of the jets themselves. Heim acceleration, occurring at the poles of rapidly spinning, highly magnetic objects (or the poles of the magnetic fields generated by accretion disks around massive objects) might be one acceleration mechanism that generates at least some of the jets in the first place.
We should maybe keep in mind, maybe, that we might not be seeing all of the jets, even with the Hubble. Maybe we are only seeing the bright ones, the ones which happen to have lots of matter to accelerate- for the stellar jets, during solar system formation, for the black holes and active galactic centers, infalling matter from gravitational accretion disks.
By the way, here is a Hubble/Chandra comparison of the neutron star at the core of the crab nebula. There does seem to be a jet- don't know its speed, though:
Lee Palmer, Forestville, CA
jreed
20th February 2006 - 01:22 AM
QUOTE (spony+Feb 19 2006, 07:44 PM) John i suggest you take a look at my java code. The latest version includes code derived from the Heim Theory Groups most recent fortran code.
[QUOTE] Hi Martin, Is it possible for me to get the Fortran source code that you are referring to? I'm completely fluent in Fortran, having programmed with it for 20+ years. I have Fortran on my computer, but Mathematica is in another league for working with experimental programs. John
spony
20th February 2006 - 09:34 AM
| QUOTE |
Is it possible for me to get the Fortran source code that you are referring to? I'm completely fluent in Fortran, having programmed with it for 20+ years. I have Fortran on my computer, but Mathematica is in another league for working with experimental programs.
<br>I'm not at liberty to pass the fortran code on. You should discuss the matter either with the Heim Group directly or with HDeasy who posts in this thread and is in contact with them.
However there is some matter concerning the fact that the Heim Group doesn't want to distribute the code in general since they're in the middle of publishing a paper.
Regards Martin
hdeasy
20th February 2006 - 10:41 AM
QUOTE (jreed+Feb 20 2006, 01:22 AM) QUOTE (spony+Feb 19 2006, 07:44 PM) John i suggest you take a look at my java code. The latest version includes code derived from the Heim Theory Groups most recent fortran code.
[QUOTE] Hi Martin, Is it possible for me to get the Fortran source code that you are referring to? I'm completely fluent in Fortran, having programmed with it for 20+ years. I have Fortran on my computer, but Mathematica is in another league for working with experimental programs. John Hi John, Welll done with the mathematica implementation. As Martin says, the code is not freely available. I will have to ask Anton Mueller, who wrote it, for special permission, just as I did for Martin. Regards, Hugh
Haiko Lietz
20th February 2006 - 09:22 PM
Hi all, re "superluminal effects around pulsars": there is nothing like superlimunary velocity in HT (the 4c/3 propagation velocity of gravity waves as published in JSE was, fortunately, an error). it sounds plausible that, given high velocities and magnetic fields at pulsars, there should be Dröscher-type gravitophoton effects. however, quintessence production would cause matter to be displaced in a parallel universe where it may propagate with a velocity relatively higher than c in our universe. but we wouldn't be able to observe this since this happens in a parallel universe. so what do we see on those NASA images? good question  the reason to contact you is to tell you that there is a PASCAL code from 1983 directly from Burkhard Heim. Martin, please contact me at hl@haikolietz.de and I will introduce you. A FEW WORDS ON HEIM COSMOLOGY AND THE MASS FORMULA According to Heim Theory the universe consists of six dimensions, involving the subspaces R3 “space” (3 real dimensions), T1 “time” (1 imaginary dimension), and S2 “organisation” (2 imaginary dimensions). At the beginning of the universe, roughly 10^115 seconds ago, it consisted of three concentrically nested elemental surfaces, having the sizes 3.7 m^2, 1.06 m^2 and 0.91 m^2. At that moment, time did not yet exist. After a long while which may have been several billion years, these initial elemental surfaces termed “metrons” divided. Time was still not defined, you could only refer to “before” and “after”. After a while, which was not as long as the first time span, the now six metrons split again, thereby reducing their sizes. Now time was defined. Importantly, both space and time are discrete which means that space exists and time progresses only in discrete quanta. As life is created through cell division, the universe evolved through accelerated metron division, forming a metron grid. As the universe grew, turbulence entered the picture. Turbulence can be pictured as superimposition of metrons (metron condensation). As time progressed, order emerged out of chaos: In analogy to a standing acoustic wave, metron grid turbulences became partially ordered (maxima and minima of metron condensations began cyclic exchanges). This is where matter entered the picture: Matter is the measurable equivalence of cyclic metron grid turbulences. Turbulences which perform only one cycle cause virtual particles to exist shortly in R3. Physicists know that virtual particles (electrons and positrons) can come to exist from the vacuum. Heim Theory says that matter and the vacuum are actually very close to each other: Were vacuum fluctuations fully cyclic they would be elementary particles. An interesting implication is that from Planck-time to Planck-time the number of metrons doubles. However, as a consequence, since there exist so many metrons already, division practically does not alter their size anymore. The implication is that the metron size is, 10^115 seconds after the beginning of the universe, practically constant, as are the other natural constants. The current cosmological paradigm sets the age of the universe at roughly 13.7 billion years. According to Heim this is the time where metron grid turbulences had grown fully cyclic. To sum it up: In the very beginning of Heim’s universe, there was structure consisting of single surface elements. With metron division structure emerged and with the second metron division time was defined. As structure grew, structural turbulence grew. As structural turbulence grew, short-lived cyclic turbulences established (vacuum fluctuations). As structural turbulence became fully cyclic, matter came to exist. This is where cosmology places the “big bang”: Before were only vacuum fluctuations, after were matter and vacuum fluctuations. Unlike in common singularity models, matter formation was isotropic. Heim derived a mass formula to determine the masses and lifetimes of the elementary particles. This formula only involves the gravitational constant, the Planck-constant, and the speed of light next to the Planck-length, as well as 12 quantum numbers. Quantum numbers describe particle attributes such as spin and strangeness. Next to the known eight quantum numbers Heim introduced four additional quantum numbers. There are no free parameters in the mass formula.
Kettricken
20th February 2006 - 10:35 PM
| QUOTE | however, quintessence production would cause matter to be displaced in a parallel universe where it may propagate with a velocity relatively higher than c in our universe. but we wouldn't be able to observe this since this happens in a parallel universe. so what do we see on those NASA images? good question
<br>But wouldnt we see the effect of that, when matter slow down and enter our universe again?
Haiko Lietz
21st February 2006 - 12:31 PM
| QUOTE | But wouldnt we see the effect of that, when matter slow down and enter our universe again?
<br>at least the spaceship crew would want to do that...
metronhead
21st February 2006 - 08:28 PM
Hi Haiko-
| QUOTE | it sounds plausible that, given high velocities and magnetic fields at pulsars, there should be Dröscher-type gravitophoton effects. however, quintessence production would cause matter to be displaced in a parallel universe where it may propagate with a velocity relatively higher than c in our universe. but we wouldn't be able to observe this since this happens in a parallel universe. so what do we see on those NASA images? good question
<br>It's a good point, that matter accelerated into a parallel universe might not be visible to us. But, we can probably agree it wouldn't look like the NASA "superluminal jets", which plausibly do have speeds of 0.9 to 0.98 c.
But, unlike a spaceship, a jet must leave its rotating magnetic field behind (almost immediately). What would happen to the matter then? Would it just pop back into our universe, with a speed close to c? Once it pops back into our universe, would it look like a narrow beam, accelerated close to c?
Question- do you know if the accelerations from Dröscher-type gravitophoton effects would have any transverse components, or would such Dröscher-type accelerations lead to a narrow beam?. Would the accelerations be outward, away from the neutron star, or downward, toward the poles of the neutron star?
Lee Palmer, Forestville, CA
Haiko Lietz
21st February 2006 - 11:32 PM
Lee, I don't have the slightest idea. It's on the list of questions - for next time I talk to Dröscher... Best, Haiko
rshoemake
21st February 2006 - 11:47 PM
Might it make sense that rather than the material itself actually traveling faster than light, perhaps what is actually happening is that for some reason the space itself is expanding around it causing it to appear to be traveling that fast, but in reality it is not? (probably quite a run-on sentence).
rshoemake
22nd February 2006 - 07:45 PM
By the way, I've posted this in another forum for antigravity and relativity, but it seems like it relates to HT on rotating magnetic fields. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/re...ch/1281736.html
Hal Porter
23rd February 2006 - 06:03 PM
As I non-scientist with some, ancient, math background I looked up Difference Calculus on Wikpedia. It looked a lot harder than standard calculus of continuous functions. I can see why physics PhDs like Deadsy might have to spend a year learning it to truly evaluate the theory. I never even opened the page on interpolation tables! ASnd to get the the level of an intuitive grasp/feel....
My sympathies. Yet I can see how, at least 50 years ago, such an approach might have had its attractions to computer programmers.
It would seem to the naive observer, however, that difference calculus would certainly avoid lots of problems with infinities/renormalization.
My question. How common/accepted among mathematicians is this formalism? I have heard that Cosmologists LQG people, etc have developed numerous ways over the last 50 years to get around these problems of renormalization. Did they consider this approach? Were they aware of this approach? Were there good reasons that they rejected these mathematical techniques?
I remeber in my youth that nobody understood the math in Einstein's late work, and that he was on a dead end path. Probably he was, but I noticed recently a comment to the effect, of "actually Einstein and Schrodinger published such an approach [which had relevance to LQG] in the 1950s but nobody realized it until .... ". Not saying they were using difference calculus and Heim theory, they weren't. Just that our understanding of what was done in the past and how it's related to what is done presently may be very imperfect. If the formalism has been rejected in the past, for good or bad reasons, then knowing the reasons might save you guys some time.
Maybe this has been discussed elsewhere. If so, sorry for taking up your time. Only sorry I lack the skills to help you guys out.
It's not the space drive that fascinates (though a fun idea) it's the mass spectrum!
will314159
23rd February 2006 - 08:02 PM
Hal what was on Wikipedia on the difference Calculus was kid stuff. It is just analogous to the product and quotient rule for derivatives.
If somebody wants to understand this stuff, a starting point today would be a good grasp of quantum mechanics and general relativity foundations. Good books on vector analysis and tensor analysis can be found on amazon.
there are also a ton of web tutorials on tensors and general relativity. A good starting point for understanding quantum mechanics, though old, are the Feynman lectures. they are available on mp3.
will314159
23rd February 2006 - 09:44 PM
HDeasy commented a while ago that French Wikepedia had updated with a nice Heim article. I had searched for it in vain. But when i went to their physics portal and looked under "other articles," it popped up. It has some nice tables. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Théorie_de_HeimTake Care!
will314159
23rd February 2006 - 10:02 PM
Innsbruck University catfight. we were notified that the heim group web site was moved there is a nasty note at Innsbruck university by a disgruntled professor that says Heim theory is hobunk and he alleges various discrpencies. http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/IGW.html" Remarks on Burkhard Heim's IGW Successors J. Hauser and W. Droescher and their Theory by Gerhard W. Bruhn, Darmstadt University of Technology 1. The IGW (Institute of Border Sciences) Since 1999 there existed a web site of the Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft (IGW) on the server of the Leopold-Franzens-University Innsbruck (Austria). http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/ The indicated owner of that web site was Prof. Dr. Andreas Resch. Under scientific personel were nominated Prof. Dr. Jochem Hauser and Dipl.-Ing. Walter Droescher (originally in German: Häuser and Dröscher). However, none of the indicated persons belongs to the staff of the Leopold-Franzens-University. According to his own biographic data A. Resch was Professor for clinical psychology and paranormology at the Accademia Alfonsiana, Pontifical Lateran University Rom from 1969 to 2000. And J. Hauser is professor at the Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel Fachhochschule at Salzgitter, Germany. Walter Droescher, probably retired now, was a theorist at the Vienna Patent Office in the 80s, when he began to work with B. Heim. The IGW simply tried to deceive their visitors by wrongly alleging to belong to the Innsbruck University in order to obtain reputation by devious means. " and Bruhn goes on to point out some mathematical discrepancies. Take Care!
hdeasy
24th February 2006 - 01:38 PM
Hi Will314159 Well spotted - the Bruhn thing I mean. Now he may be right that Droscher & Hauser were not members of a faculty of Innsbruck University. This was always clear to me and I think that anyone browsing through the old version pretty soon realised that Hauser was based at the Univ. of Salzgitter. Nowhere there did I see Droscher referred to as a university staff member nor did I think it the case. In one or two reports on the internet I noted, more with amusement at the inaccuracy of reporters (I think Pravda was a sinner in this regard) than anything else, that these researchers' affiliations were indeed incorrectly listed. But Hauser's real affiliation is just as good, if not better - and don't forget he was also once a department head in ESTEC, the main site of ESA. Being based at another ESA site in Darmstadt (Bruhn's town - can't choose your neighbours though ) I can appreciate the ESTEC link. So it is rather dishonest of Bruhn to harp on about niceties of affiliation - they are neither here nor there. On his mathematical objections - he says that the R4 considered in the R4-R8-R4 transform for the Heim metrics is not space-time but a flat space M, of all real coordinates. It would surprise me if Droscher and Hauser had confused M with space-time, as they clearly list the 1-D sub-spaces T1 (time), S2 and I2 as imaginary coordinates. Thus they are well aware of the distinction between time-like and space-like coordinates. It is rather disgraceful of Bruhn to plaster up his coments like that, with only a short reply from Hauser: as if he publicised the discussion as revenge for Hauser not answering him with sufficient alacrity. But Hauser and the Heim Theory group have already said they were not answering all posts on all fora as they are too busy with developing the actual work. But Bruhn has a history as a belligerent debater. Best to ignore him and wait for Droscher & Hauser's journal articlle(s) later this year.
UncleMatt
24th February 2006 - 06:15 PM
Update on electromagnet materials search. Since my last post I have continued researching various materials that I am considering for a design for a practical experiment that would create a magnetic field of the type suggested by Droscher and Hauser in “Magnet Experiment to Measuring Space Propulsion Heim-Lorentz Force”. I have been focusing on materials that exhibit super conductive properties, and so far single wall carbon nonotubes have continued to come out on top. http://www.pa.msu.edu/cmp/csc/nanotube.htmlPlease refer to the above link for resistivity and current density properties of SWNT (single wall nanotubes). As read in Droscher and Hauser’s paper, a current density of a least 600 A/mm^2 is required to achieve field propulsion effects. It appears carbon nanotubes have current density levels between 10^7 A/cm^2 and 10^13 A/cm^2 with a resistivity of ropes (not single tubes) of .34 x 10^-4. at 300K. Also, as temperatures rise, carbon nanotubes have excellent properties of stretchability and strength. Compare this to the properties quoted for Nb3Sn by Droscher and Hauser as a possible material for an electromagnet, Nb3Sn: at 25T the material topped out at a current density of only 448 A/mm^2. In addition the material is relatively brittle and does not hold up well under the forces of high magnetic fields. These results were also achieved at a temperature of only 4.2 K! SWNT’s simple outperform Nb3Sn in every way. If SWNT’s could be created in sufficient lengths (10^6 to 10^8 meters) and these unbroken tubes were then bundled together, their properties promise to be even greater. Bundles of SWNT’s have recently been created that are 20cm long and can be handles with your fingers. Barring some method to create the required magnetic field that doesn’t utilize an electromagnet, using bundled SWNT’s wound in a classical electromagnet design appears plausible in the near future. If the goal is high current velocity and density in a close-to-room temperature electromagnet to create 20T to 60T over an aperture of several meters, SWNT appear to be very promising. More links about this topic: http://www.physorg.com/news2937.htmlhttp://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/AnnaWoo.shtmlhttp://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...i-spl050102.php
rshoemake
24th February 2006 - 06:37 PM
Is magnetic field the only variable? Or can mass have something to do with it? Reputable companies and scientists are already seeing and reproducing effects similar to this using rotating superconductors at very speeds. They suggest that Mass is a factor and if they use rotating ions (thought very small mass) can number in the billions, and as such can produce a substantial force.
Note: Boeing has verified the basic science. It's based on relativity.
Guest_ERIC
24th February 2006 - 06:44 PM
HI! I WAS JUST WONDERING IS THE ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECT PROPOSED HERE THE SAME AS NING LI'S SPINING ION LATTICE EFFECT? ERIC
UncleMatt
24th February 2006 - 06:57 PM
QUOTE (rshoemake+Feb 24 2006, 12:37 PM) Is magnetic field the only variable? Or can mass have something to do with it? Reputable companies and scientists are already seeing and reproducing effects similar to this using rotating superconductors at very speeds. They suggest that Mass is a factor and if they use rotating ions (thought very small mass) can number in the billions, and as such can produce a substantial force.
Note: Boeing has verified the basic science. It's based on relativity. Could you post some sources? I kept track of the spinning superconductive disk over a magnetic field thing many years ago, but it never went anywhere. I am unaware of anyone who came up with an experiment that produced verifiable results that showed any modification to gravitational effects on mass using this concept. If I am incorrect, please post them. NASA and Boeing talked about experiments back then, but I don't think it went anywhere. As far as the magnetic field being the only variable, I am trying to focus on one problem at a time. Without the magnetic field the experiment isn't possible, so when that is solved I will consider other variables. The mass you refer to may be represented by the spinning torus described in the Droscher Hauser paper.
MMC
24th February 2006 - 08:11 PM
| QUOTE |
Is magnetic field the only variable? Or can mass have something to do with it? Reputable companies and scientists are already seeing and reproducing effects similar to this using rotating superconductors at very speeds. They suggest that Mass is a factor and if they use rotating ions (thought very small mass) can number in the billions, and as such can produce a substantial force.
<br>There is a slightly different explanation for this. Free electron movement. The electron density of copper for 1m^3 is about 8.5e28 and free electrons move in random directions with the speed of 1.3e6m/s.
When you apply a voltage, free electrons increase their speed in proportion to the electric field and by lattice defect, collision with impurities and lattice oscillation. Thus, they lose speed in the direction of the electric field. It a kind of friction that maintains an averge velocity.
In the case of a superconducter, it is the loss of this friction that provides it characterisitics along with electron pairing.
An electron has a mass around 1/1836 that of a proton, so every 7344 electrons would have the equivilent rest mass to that of an alpha particle.
So, if we look at the Meissner effect, we could see a situation where the screening currents, in rotation, are causing electrons, from the electron gas, to strike the underside of a rotating disk.
Electron propulsion providing upthrust...
rshoemake
24th February 2006 - 08:22 PM
That's not the explanation they give. They say that as a mass rotates the sopace around it rotates as well. Granted the mass is small, but since they can rotate an ion incredible fast (like 4 billion cycles per second) it amounts to an incredible force for a 12 in disk.
MMC
24th February 2006 - 08:25 PM
| QUOTE |
That's not the explanation they give. They say that as a mass rotates the sopace around it rotates as well. Granted the mass is small, but since they can rotate an ion incredible fast (like 4 billion cycles per second) it amounts to an incredible force for a 12 in disk.
<br>There is no need to go that far. A slight apparent loss in weight can be explained through simple electromagnetics.
No one knows what mass is...therefore, anything attributed to mass loss, must be taken with a pinch of salt.
rshoemake
24th February 2006 - 08:48 PM
Well, the effect has been noticed at higher distances. I'm sure that the physicists involved now the difference between this Meissner effect and this new effect. Otherwise, I don't think these major companies, agencies and researchers would be pursuing this.
In other words, if it was so simple they wouldnt be doing what they are doing.
MMC
24th February 2006 - 08:53 PM
| QUOTE |
I'm sure that the physicists involved now the difference between this Meissner effect and this new effect. Otherwise, I don't think these major companies, agencies and researchers would be pursuing this.
<br>Don't be so sure:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
I'm sure that the physicists involved now the difference between this Meissner effect and this new effect. Otherwise, I don't think these major companies, agencies and researchers would be pursuing this.
<br>Don't be so sure:
The US space agency, Nasa, is also attempting to reproduce Dr Podkletnov's findings, but a preliminary report indicates the effect does not exist.
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2157975.stm' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2157975.stm
| QUOTE |
In 1996, the experiments of a Russian scientist were jeered at by the physics world. Writing in the journal Physica C, Dr Yevgeny Podkletnov claimed that a spinning, superconducting disc lost some of its weight. And, in an unpublished paper on the weak gravitation shielding properties of a superconductor, he argued that such a disc lost as much as 2% of its weight.
However, most scientists believe that such anti-gravity research is fundamentally flawed. It goes against what we know about the physical Universe and is therefore impossible, they say.
Pascal's Wager
"I find it rather peculiar that they've done this," said Bob Park from the American Physical Society, in reaction to the BAe Systems admission. "One can only conclude that at the higher levels of these organisations there are people who don't have a very sound grounding in fundamental physics.
"You can invest a little money in far-out projects if they have some chance of success - it's called Pascal's Wager. In this case, most scientists would say there is zero chance of success."
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/692968.stm' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/692968.stm
Justaguy
25th February 2006 - 12:43 AM
So, how do you explain Ning Li's spinning ion lattice effect as mentioned by the previous post by guest-eric. I cant find much on Ning Li other than whats in this popularmechanics article anywhere online. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/re...ch/1281736.html
UncleMatt
25th February 2006 - 01:02 AM
QUOTE (Justaguy+Feb 24 2006, 06:43 PM) So, how do you explain Ning Li's spinning ion lattice effect as mentioned by the previous post by guest-eric. I cant find much on Ning Li other than whats in this popularmechanics article anywhere online. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/re...ch/1281736.html I kept track of this research back when it was new, and as far as I know no other research was able to duplicate her reported results. If you know of research that DID replicate her results, please let us know and/or post it here. There is no need to explain a result that is not reproducible, as it does not represent accepted science, but simply an unsupported claim by someone. If I am proved wrong, I will be glad to eat crow. :-D
MMC
25th February 2006 - 02:01 AM
| QUOTE |
Prospects for the Alabama HTSD are attracting serious attention because this particular disc was fabricated by Ning Li, one of the world's leading scientists. In the 1980s, Li predicted that if a time-varying magnetic field were applied to superconductor ions trapped in a lattice structure, the ions would absorb enormous amounts of energy. Confined in the lattice, the ions would begin to rapidly spin, causing each to create a minuscule gravitational field.
<a href='http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1281736.html' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/re...ch/1281736.html
That's centrifugal force.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
Prospects for the Alabama HTSD are attracting serious attention because this particular disc was fabricated by Ning Li, one of the world's leading scientists. In the 1980s, Li predicted that if a time-varying magnetic field were applied to superconductor ions trapped in a lattice structure, the ions would absorb enormous amounts of energy. Confined in the lattice, the ions would begin to rapidly spin, causing each to create a minuscule gravitational field.
<a href='http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1281736.html' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/re...ch/1281736.html
That's centrifugal force.
In the laboratory it is possible to create another state of matter in which all the atoms are aligned in a way that makes them behave as if they were one single atom.
<a href='http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1281736.html' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/re...ch/1281736.html
So, if you think about it, you have a nano-linear accelerator...shuttling free electrons along basically anisotropic paths.
It can eject free electrons (beta particles) at the surface that are reflected back by the diamagnetic screening currents.
The fact that upthrust is created in a greater proportion than downthrust, could be explained by the gravitional entropy of free electrons. That is, there would be a greater concentration of electrons on the underside due to gravity.
Without being able to analyse mass directly, whilst it is tempting to conclude that the spinning of the ion is generating a weak gravitional field by dragging the mass, we cannot jump to conclusions.
In saying that, the increased relative motion resulting in gravitional gain or loss, is consistant with my view of dilation curving/deforming space. I feel that it has a defined limit to its effect, as fission would occur when the ion splits apart due to internal stresses.
Until we can interact with mass directly, this is the best approach:
| QUOTE |
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Sherlock Holmes - The Adventure of The Blanched Soldier (1926)
MMC
25th February 2006 - 02:32 AM
I can also see a situation where this may play a role...
| QUOTE |
In his book Black Holes and Time Warps (Norton 1994) Kip Thorne says, on pages 429-430 and 432-433:
"... in June 1971 Zeldovich announced ... A spinning black hole must radiate ... a spinning metal sphere emits electromagnetic radiation ... The radiation is so weak ... that nobody has ever observed it, nor predicted it before. However, it must occur. The metal sphere will radiate when electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations tickle it. ... Zeldovich's mechanism by which vacuum fluctuations cause a spinning body to radiate. ... His sketch ...
<br>
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
In his book Black Holes and Time Warps (Norton 1994) Kip Thorne says, on pages 429-430 and 432-433:
"... in June 1971 Zeldovich announced ... A spinning black hole must radiate ... a spinning metal sphere emits electromagnetic radiation ... The radiation is so weak ... that nobody has ever observed it, nor predicted it before. However, it must occur. The metal sphere will radiate when electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations tickle it. ... Zeldovich's mechanism by which vacuum fluctuations cause a spinning body to radiate. ... His sketch ...
<br>
... showed a wave flowing toward a spinning object, skimming around its surface for a while, and then flowing away. The wave might be electromagnetic and the spinning body a metal sphere ... or the wave might be gravitational and the body a black hole ... The incoming wave is not a "real" wave ... but rather a vacuum fluctuation. ... the wave's outer parts ... are in the "radiation zone" while the inner parts are in the "near zone" ... the wave's outer parts move at ... the speed of light ... its inner parts move more slowly than the body's surface is spinning ... the rapidly spinning body will ... accelerate ...[the inner parts of the incoming wave] ...
The acceleration feeds some of the body's spin energy into the wave, amplifying it. The new, amplified portion of the wave is a "real wave" with positive total energy, while the original, unamplified portion remains a vacuum fluctuation with zero total energy. ... Zeldovich ... proved that a spinning metal sphere radiates in this way; his proof was based on the laws of quantum electrodynamics ...".
<a href='http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/angmomemag.html' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/angmomemag.html
spony
26th February 2006 - 02:58 PM
Hello, I've built a graphical front end (applet) for the Heim Mass Formula Program. It's located here: Heim Mass CalculatorEnjoy, Martin
will314159
26th February 2006 - 03:14 PM
very good Spony.
Excelleny Work
What is most impressive is not the Absolute Difference but the Per Cent Difference!
((x1-x0)/x0)*100
UncleMatt
26th February 2006 - 03:25 PM
QUOTE (spony+Feb 26 2006, 08:58 AM) Hello, I've built a graphical front end (applet) for the Heim Mass Formula Program. It's located here: Heim Mass CalculatorEnjoy, Martin Hey Martin, Thanks for all your hard work. You might want to check your link because it just leads to a page with an empty gray box. I look forward to seeing it though! Matt
Zephir
26th February 2006 - 03:38 PM
QUOTE (UncleMatt+Feb 26 2006, 06:25 PM) You might want to check your link because it just leads to a page with an empty gray box. Probably it requires Sun Java (16 MB download), instead of Java VM, supported by Microsoft. It's a pitty, as the Microsoft JVM is just about 5 MB in size and much more common between internet users.
MMC
26th February 2006 - 03:45 PM
| QUOTE |
Thanks for all your hard work. You might want to check your link because it just leads to a page with an empty gray box. I look forward to seeing it though!
<br>Close down any open IE windows and click on the link below:
Java Runtime Environment Version 5.0 Update 6 (Windows Version)
spony
26th February 2006 - 07:56 PM
| QUOTE |
very good Spony.
Excelleny Work
What is most impressive is not the Absolute Difference but the Per Cent Difference!
((x1-x0)/x0)*100
<br>Now with percent too
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
very good Spony.
Excelleny Work
What is most impressive is not the Absolute Difference but the Per Cent Difference!
((x1-x0)/x0)*100
<br>Now with percent too
Hey Martin,
Thanks for all your hard work. You might want to check your link because it just leads to a page with an empty gray box. I look forward to seeing it though!
<br>Yes as others have mentioned it requires Sun's Java VM installed and will not run with Microsofts. I've updated the page to mention this.
Regards Martin
hdeasy
27th February 2006 - 09:33 AM
QUOTE (spony+Feb 26 2006, 07:56 PM)
Yes as others have mentioned it requires Sun's Java VM installed and will not run with Microsofts. I've updated the page to mention this.
Regards Martin Hi Spony, Yes, I have SUN/ Java and so it works fine for me. It looks like you reproduced the Heim theory results quite well - even with better agreement with experiment in some cases. So the current Java version is quite close in function to the Fortran. Well done again on a fine job, well presented. Regards, Hugh
rshoemake
27th February 2006 - 05:04 PM
Well, I did post a reference earlier and others have reposted it. I only grabbed the popular mechanics link, but there were others. We'll see. However, I brought this up because it seemed to be similar to the rotating Heim Magnetic field people were discussing. Supposedly the basic science is correct. A mass is predicted to drag space around it as it rotates according to Relativity. So, the the billions of tiny masses spinning around at 4 billion cycles per second is predicted to have quite an effect. This field being generated is being called a "gravity like" field, not a gravity shield or antigravity. This is NOT Messiner effect or Centrifigal force. It will be interesting to see if anything comes of it. If there was something to this it might explain why we see "UFOS" and pictures of them, videos where the object and the background come in and out of focus together, etc. Anyway, check out http://www.americanantigravity.com/podkletnov.htmlThere are some papers on the right side by various scientists. Some of these papers have been accepted by physics journals and peer reviewed. This isn't ALL a bunch of crap. ;-) Maybe just some of it.
MMC
27th February 2006 - 07:09 PM
| QUOTE |
Supposedly the basic science is correct. A mass is predicted to drag space around it as it rotates according to Relativity. So, the the billions of tiny masses spinning around at 4 billion cycles per second is predicted to have quite an effect.
<br>Very few accept that is happening, in fact, no one has been able to reproduce the effect. I can see a situation where the higgs boson does not have the time to provide all its energy, thus reducing the mass, however, it has defined limits and will only affect that object.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
Supposedly the basic science is correct. A mass is predicted to drag space around it as it rotates according to Relativity. So, the the billions of tiny masses spinning around at 4 billion cycles per second is predicted to have quite an effect.
<br>Very few accept that is happening, in fact, no one has been able to reproduce the effect. I can see a situation where the higgs boson does not have the time to provide all its energy, thus reducing the mass, however, it has defined limits and will only affect that object.
This field being generated is being called a "gravity like" field, not a gravity shield or antigravity.
This is NOT Messiner effect or Centrifigal force.
<br>Its spinning...of course there is is centrifugal force...as for it not being the Messiner effect reflecting electrons, you have no evidence to make such a claim and it is reasonable to suspect it is.
| QUOTE |
Anyway, check out
http://www.americanantigravity.com/podkletnov.html
There are some papers on the right side by various scientists. Some of these papers have been accepted by physics journals and peer reviewed.
This isn't ALL a bunch of crap. ;-) Maybe just some of it.
<br>I've read most of the material before. I was following Hutchison's work long before that site ever appeared. His work is not anti-gravity but simple electomagnetics. By creating an electromagnetic matrix, he is able to create intense wave-fronts across the surface and produce quite an impact on an object. The effects are unpredictable because of the random dynamic nature of such interactions...
Zephir
27th February 2006 - 07:22 PM
QUOTE (MMC+Feb 27 2006, 10:09 PM) I was following Hutchison's work long before that site ever appeared. His work is not anti-gravity but simple electomagnetics. Mr. Hutchinson is just a swindler, u can trust me. All his video's are just naive fakes.
rshoemake
27th February 2006 - 07:28 PM
There is more to the site than that. Specifically, I am referencing the papers on the right hand side such as this: http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0108/0108005.pdf
MMC
27th February 2006 - 09:08 PM
I have had a good read at that report. He described a coherent laser-like beam that follows a discharge from the superconducter. The beam is proportional both to the mass and the magnetic field strength. If accurate, it is tempting to say that it is a higgs lazer. The problem is that he describes a scenario where there is no detectable loss, or energy transfer. Higgs interacts with higgs, therefore, if it was higgs, there should be a detectable loss. I'm not convined, its not adhering to the basic laws of conservation. We understand bosons quite well and gravitional loss is something we understand from putting space craft in orbit. It would appear someone felt that the higgs boson, would have a similar characteristic to a photon boson, that it could be pushed into an excited state...and forgot about higgs interaction preventing coherency... The Report http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0108/0108005.pdfThe Diagrams        No photos, no video, no supporting evidence, just bold claims...
rshoemake
27th February 2006 - 10:00 PM
Interesting to see your thoughts. So, they accept papers by peer reviewed journals without much analysis? Are you in physics?
MMC
27th February 2006 - 10:12 PM
| QUOTE |
Interesting to see your thoughts. So, they accept papers by peer reviewed journals without much analysis? Are you in physics?
<br>It wouldn't be the first time false material has been published. I'm not the only one to think this way:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
Interesting to see your thoughts. So, they accept papers by peer reviewed journals without much analysis? Are you in physics?
<br>It wouldn't be the first time false material has been published. I'm not the only one to think this way:
The US space agency, Nasa, is also attempting to reproduce Dr Podkletnov's findings, but a preliminary report indicates the effect does not exist.
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2157975.stm' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2157975.stm
| QUOTE |
In 1996, the experiments of a Russian scientist were jeered at by the physics world. Writing in the journal Physica C, Dr Yevgeny Podkletnov claimed that a spinning, superconducting disc lost some of its weight. And, in an unpublished paper on the weak gravitation shielding properties of a superconductor, he argued that such a disc lost as much as 2% of its weight.
However, most scientists believe that such anti-gravity research is fundamentally flawed. It goes against what we know about the physical Universe and is therefore impossible, they say.
Pascal's Wager
"I find it rather peculiar that they've done this," said Bob Park from the American Physical Society, in reaction to the BAe Systems admission. "One can only conclude that at the higher levels of these organisations there are people who don't have a very sound grounding in fundamental physics.
"You can invest a little money in far-out projects if they have some chance of success - it's called Pascal's Wager. In this case, most scientists would say there is zero chance of success."
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/692968.stm' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/692968.stm
will314159
27th February 2006 - 10:19 PM
for fun reading from Pravada 1. a Heim theory space travel article equivalent to the Scotsman article and that came out shortly ater it that gives a fresh perspective "Spaceships of the future to take humans to Mars in 2.5 hours" http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/16-02-2006/76045-02. and a far out artice that mentions zero point energy, subspace bombs, and podkletnov effect and such " American military is pursuing new types of exotic weapons " http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/379...37_weapons.htmlTake Care!
leovinus
28th February 2006 - 10:35 AM
Hi, Got a simple question. When using spony's code (nice job BTW v005 and v006, and enabling the printing of the intermediate results a1/a2/a3, I see the results below (just "heim.exe | grep a3 ") Now, for v005, the a3 results of p/n/lambda seem incorrect while for v006 (based a.o. on the Heim-Group Fortran code), I see that p/n/lambda results are fine, but the sigma results are wrong!? Taking a quick look at the Fortran output that hdeasy posted a while ago, it seems to me that that output has correct output for >all< a3's. So, am I missing something or do we have a little more of debugging to do  ? (The good news is of course that, based on the intermediate results z1/z2/z3/zw1 etc in the a3() computation, we should be able to work out where the problems is easy enough. ) Am happy to take a closer look at these results but I was wondering whether somebody else already found and corrected the problem? Anyone? Thx, L. v005 ---------------- $ grep a3 =====> a3 Lepton e_+- GOOD =====> a3 Lepton e_0 GOOD =====> a3 Lepton mu GOOD =====> a3 Messon pi_+- GOOD =====> a3 Messon pi_0 GOOD =====> a3 Messon eta GOOD =====> a3 Messon K_+- GOOD =====> a3 Messon K_0 GOOD =====> a3 Baryon p INCORRECT!!! =====> a3 Baryon n INCORRECT!!! =====> a3 Baryon lambda INCORRECT!!! =====> a3 Baryon sigma_+ GOOD =====> a3 Baryon sigma_- GOOD =====> a3 Baryon sigma_0 GOOD =====> a3 Baryon xi_- GOOD =====> a3 Baryon xi_0 GOOD =====> a3 Baryon omega_- INCORRECT!!! =====> a3 Baryon delta_++ INCORRECT!!! =====> a3 Baryon delta_+ INCORRECT!!! =====> a3 Baryon delta_0 INCORRECT!!! =====> a3 Baryon delta_- INCORRECT!!! v006 ---------------------------- $ grep a3 =====> a3 Lepton e_+- GOOD =====> a3 Lepton e_0 GOOD =====> a3 Lepton mu GOOD =====> a3 Messon pi_+- GOOD =====> a3 Messon pi_0 GOOD =====> a3 Messon eta GOOD =====> a3 Messon K_+- GOOD =====> a3 Messon K_0 GOOD =====> a3 Baryon p GOOD =====> a3 Baryon n GOOD =====> a3 Baryon lambda GOOD =====> a3 Baryon sigma_+ INCORRECT!!! =====> a3 Baryon sigma_- INCORRECT!!! =====> a3 Baryon sigma_0 INCORRECT!!! =====> a3 Baryon xi_- GOOD =====> a3 Baryon xi_0 GOOD =====> a3 Baryon omega_- GOOD =====> a3 Baryon delta_++ INCORRECT!!! =====> a3 Baryon delta_+ INCORRECT!!! =====> a3 Baryon delta_0 GOOD =====> a3 Baryon delta_- INCORRECT!!! -------------------------------------- PS1: There are also still issues with other intermediate results such as N3(2,2), N4() and N6(). Any new corrections to that? PS2: Vilvi posted a while ago >"With regard to this I would love to get my hands on the equations used > to determine m, n, p and sigma but they >can't seem to be found anywhere. There is a manuscript from the >1980's that Heim wrote as far as i understand it?" > >It`s easy to calculate n, m, p, sigma. In fact, in an excel table I have > calculated these values. I found all the >values are right, excep for delta++ and delta+. The process is described >in page 9 of Heim`s Mass Formual 1982. The >W1 they put in that page refers to WN=0, due we are using basic states Wnx(1+f(N))=W1 becames in WN=0 (cause >f(N=0)=0). > >[snip] > >It's easy, if you want I'll send to your e-mail my excel table. Vilvi, is it possible to post that table in ASCII comma separated format on the forum? Thanks
Kettricken
28th February 2006 - 11:06 AM
Lo Nice work Spony, I am very impressed. That Baryon Delta++ seems to be a very insidious particle. I found this link on the web: http://www-d0.fnal.gov/d0dist/dist/package...able_old_pythiaI think its from the Fermi-lab It says that Q= 6 for Baryon Delta++.
Guest_ERIC
28th February 2006 - 04:12 PM
HI, Would someone please explain why Professor Heim believes that a magnetic field less then 100 Telsas would have any effect on spacetime, much less put a spsacecraft into hyperspace. It shouldn't represent enough energy to do this should it? THANK YOU!!!
Vilvi
28th February 2006 - 04:31 PM
QUOTE (leovinus+Feb 28 2006, 10:35 AM) Vilvi, is it possible to post that table in ASCII comma separated format on the forum? Thanks Hi leovinus, If you send me an e-mail, I'll return back the table, it is better for me and, I think, for you, cause the table have several columns ans some calculus. At present, only the values n, m, p, sigma for delta++ are wrong, due to N3(2,2) is wrong. Anyway, I insist, I think the Heim mass formula is incomplete (at least at the moment) due to lepton tau is not predicted (and difficult to insert in this way of calculation).
Zephir
28th February 2006 - 04:52 PM
QUOTE (Guest_ERIC+Feb 28 2006, 07:12 PM) Would someone please explain why Professor Heim believes that a magnetic field less then 100 Telsas would have any effect on spacetime, much less put a spacecraft into hyperspace. It shouldn't represent enough energy to do this should it? I don't know the Heim's theory in depth, but I'm believe, such effect is tighly connected with the gravitoelectromagnetism. By my private Aether Wave theory isn't so surprising, because each form of energy are just a certain form of supergravity and the can mutually interfering by the same way, like the gauge bosons and photons forming so called strong interaction (mediated by the composite bosons, i.e. gluons). From this point of view, the interaction between gravity waves and photons leads to so called gravitophotons predicted by the Heim's theory by the similar way. The Aether doesn't distinguish between different forms of energy, everything is a source of gravity. The propulsion effect isn't required to by so high, after all - for example the ion engines are having the propulsion force in the similar range (typically a few newtons). What's important, the Heim's propulsion speed isn't limited by the combustion pressure virtualy, like at the case of chemical propulsion and it doesn't requres to throw up any material at all (with compare to the ionic/chemical propulsion). This is my private insight to this situation, maybe somebody here has a more deeper/effective explanation of this effects.
Vilvi
28th February 2006 - 05:36 PM
QUOTE (Kettricken+Feb 28 2006, 11:06 AM) Lo Nice work Spony, I am very impressed. That Baryon Delta++ seems to be a very insidious particle. I found this link on the web: http://www-d0.fnal.gov/d0dist/dist/package...able_old_pythiaI think its from the Fermi-lab It says that Q= 6 for Baryon Delta++. Hi Kettricken, I think the Q on that table is right, because is 2*charge. But the Q in Heim formulae is 2*spin. Bye
Vilvi
28th February 2006 - 05:39 PM
QUOTE (Vilvi+Feb 28 2006, 05:36 PM) I think the Q on that table is right, because is 2*charge. But the Q in Heim formulae is 2*spin.
Sorry, the Q on that table is 3*charge.
Zephir
28th February 2006 - 09:23 PM
QUOTE (Guest_ERIC+Feb 28 2006, 07:12 PM) why Professor Heim believes that a magnetic field less then 100 Telsas would have any effect on spacetime Heim's gravitoelectrodynamic propulsion corresponds the mechanism of jellyfish motion - it uses a reactive motion too, but it utilizes a reactive propulsion of environment (i.e. the water/Aether vortex), instead of jellyfish material. It can serve as the another demonstration of the inertial properties of Aether. 
rshoemake
28th February 2006 - 10:45 PM
Zephir,
Are you familiar with the "anti-ether" arguments? I believe there was one experiment which said that if there was such a thing then a laser should look different in one direction than in another. (I dont remember the specifics).
Rich
Zephir
28th February 2006 - 11:20 PM
QUOTE (rshoemake+Mar 1 2006, 01:45 AM) ...there was one experiment which said that if there was such a thing then a laser should look different in one direction than in another... Of course. But the Aether concept evolves during time by the same way, as the vacuum concept. I suppose, nobody's expecting today, the vacuum is truly empty environment, as it was believed on the beginning of the 18th century. The same with Aether - by my idea the moving body interacts with Aether like the flowing boat with the super-fluid surface. The start of movement creates a waves around such boat, which are the source of the boat's inertia, but it's not so easy to detect motion of boat, just because here's no friction and the boat doesn't interact with the underwater. The surface wave motion is simply isotropic and doesn't depends to/interfere with the occasional underwater motion, like the well known capillary waves onto water surface. They're driven solely by the water surface tension, not the underwater motion.   It's obvious, the Aether forms a massive environment for the surface wave spreading, not the underwater bulk waves. But this is the only one conceptual difference. With respect of this, the water surface wave spreading can be used for modeling/explanation of relativity effect without any fundamental problems.
metronhead
1st March 2006 - 09:06 PM
I think the idea of a quantized space time is similar to the aether idea, too. I don't know what Heim's smallest unit of time is, but if you take the Planck length, and divide it by the Planck time, you get the speed of light. Wikipedia - Planck UnitsPlanck length : 1.61624 × 10-35 m Planck time : 5.39121 × 10-44 s Result of L/T: 3.00 x 10e8 m/s If space and time are quantized, it seems very interesting that the smallest unit of length in the smallest unit of time equals the speed of light. Intuitively, it seems right that the smallest unit of space in the smallest unit of time should be a speed limit of some sort. Thinking about it like this, it seems reasonable that the fabric of space time should display some sort of resistance as objects with mass approach that speed limit. I have this picture in my head of the Heim universe as a kind of giant 3 dimensional TV screen, filled with volumes that are of the order of the Planck length cubed. Elementary particles appear as distortions in this "pixel" lattice, and these distortions move across space by jumping from pixel to pixel- with a maximum speed of one "pixel" in the smallest unit of time. It seems possible to imagine the fourth dimension as this whole "TV screen" evolving through time. Can't imagine the fifth and sixth dimensions, though, unless they have something to do with steering of events in R4, like Heim says, I think.
Zephir
1st March 2006 - 10:08 PM
QUOTE (metronhead+Mar 2 2006, 12:06 AM) Can't imagine the fifth and sixth dimensions, though, unless they have something to do with steering of events in R4, like Heim says, I think. By the Aether Wave theory the vacuum is massive elastic inhomogeneous environment and the fourth dimension is simply formed by it's density fluctuations, they're simply forming a energy/mass density field. They're dependent on the particle position, but they can oscillate independently in hidden dimension set, because the particle inner energy forms just a subtle part of the total Aether energy at given place. As the result, the torsion vibrations of vacuum are spreading to the larger volume like at the case of the inhomogeneous E-M lattice vibration. As the common 2D+3D model/analogy of such vibrations in multidimensional environment can serve the surface water waves spreading modified by the tiny water density oscillations coming from Brownian motion (2D model of quantum vacuum). 
will314159
2nd March 2006 - 04:01 PM
the classic experiment that shot down the aether was the michelson-morely. read it at wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment" From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Michelson-Morley experiment, one of the most important and famous experiments in the history of physics, was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University, and is considered to be the first strong evidence against the theory of a luminiferous aether. Physics theories of the late 19th century postulated that, just as water waves must have a medium to move across (water), and audible sound waves require a medium to move through (air), so also light waves require a medium, the "luminiferous aether". The speed of light being so great, designing an experiment to detect the presence and properties of this aether took considerable thought. " Take Care!
rshoemake
2nd March 2006 - 04:25 PM
Thanks Will. I knew I remembered something about that.
Zephir
2nd March 2006 - 04:31 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Mar 2 2006, 07:01 PM) ...the classic experiment that shot down the aether was the Michelson-Morley... It just shot down the obsolete Aether concept, where the Aether serves as the medium for longitudinal wave spreading. But it's impossible to determine the absolute water motion using a surface capillary waves, so such waves can serve as the classical physic model for the surface wave spreading with respect of Michelson-Morley experiment. The Aether behaves by the same way, i.e. like the multiphase surface formed by the inertial torsion deformations of it. After all, the longitudinal waves have a rather subtle importance in condensed matter physic, because transferring a considerable low energy density with compare the transversal waves. My question is: considering the light is spreading like transversal wave obviously, why it was never compared with the transversal wave spreading in classical physic experiments? If the light serves for time interval and distance measurements at the same time, why the classical transversal wave wasn't used by the same way in such experiment ? Using inconsistent experiment conditions you'll never obtain consistent results, of course. Why present-day physic requires a more than one hundred years to understand it?
Guest_mike
2nd March 2006 - 05:57 PM
Hello ! To All: the name of this topic is "Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory". Please stop all offtopic posts (aether, private theories etc). Such discussions can decrease reputation of this thread.  If someone have his own theory, he might start his own thread. Thanks, Mikhail.
Zephir
2nd March 2006 - 06:11 PM
QUOTE (Guest_mike+Mar 2 2006, 08:57 PM) the name of this topic is "Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory" Well, I have nothing against it. I'm offering the link to the original Aether Wave theory topic all the time, but nearly nobody uses it for discussion about it.
will314159
2nd March 2006 - 06:52 PM
thanks for the link Zephyr, nice Graphics
Take Care!
Zephir
3rd March 2006 - 06:00 AM
QUOTE (will314159+Mar 2 2006, 09:52 PM) Take Care! For example the Scientific American, November 21, 2005 issue: Sound waves in a fluid behave uncannily like light waves in space. Black holes even have acoustic counterparts. Could spacetime literally be a kind of fluid, like the ether of pre-Einsteinian physics?Well, I believe, the mainstream physic is pretty scrambled, not me. On the other side it speculates about (super)fluid properties of vacuum, or 5D sphere models of Universe expansion, or even about concept, we are living inside the Black Hole.  On the other side it refutes the Aether concept as the massive environment for the light spreading obstinately, like the small dumb child. It's funny. Why the mainstream of scientists are believing, the rest of planet should be as stupid and naive, as they're? After all, they're spending money from my taxes, too.
lancis
3rd March 2006 - 11:33 AM
Greetings,
Usually, I do not post on boards like these, and thus saw no point in registering.However I do enjoy reading some of the topics... This topic is one of them, and aether wave theory is not one of them.
Zephir, with all the respect you deserve, and from reading your posts I can say that you indeed deserve it, please refrain from posting an off topic messages. They do nothing but bring even more off topic messages - this one is a good example.
Thank you
Guest_ERIC
3rd March 2006 - 06:30 PM
NOW THAT THE NEW SCIENTIST ARTICLE IS OLD NEWS! THE QUESTION BECOMES; When do we see the next important publication of Professors Heim's work? Thank You!!!
UncleMatt
3rd March 2006 - 07:00 PM
Maybe the group here needs a new goal to focus on since the efforts to reproduce Heim's mass results are winding down, or at least seem to be. Great job to all who contributed!
I have suggested that some discussion occur regarding an experiment to test Heim's theories as suggested by the AIAA paper. I opened the discussion with some information about carbon nanotubes, their superconductive properties and the potential they present, but got no replies. If not on that topic, I suggest we come up with something new in the way of a goal related to Heim's theories on which to focus. I also suggest people refrain from off topic posts.
doofus
4th March 2006 - 09:36 AM
The technology for what you propose is still in a passive stage of development and has not matured sufficiently to the coercive level. The material refinements and necessary tolerances just aren't there yet. You need multiple multi-layered diameters to experiment with different types of particles and a whole slew of other technically difficult parameters with absolute continuity without imperfections, atomic misalignment, divots, etc. in the core material. There would have to be absolutely no interaction between said particle/energy wave and surrounding materials(probably superconducting). If your particle's an electron and it's cycling through the tube it has to stay the same electron and not be absorbed and re-emitted by surrounding material. While your trying to create a linear? accelerator on the atomic level think of it more in terms of a wave guide conduit with everything in the construction designed to adjust resonances(in fact think of it exactly like a wave guide). You would also have to create the equipment test the tolerances or adapt equipment from other fields if available. Also in a test of this nature be clear on what it is you trying to do. Your not trying for anti-gravity but gravitational resistance. While I could keep coming up with some of the hurtles to overcome I'm not trying to dissuade you. I'm just pointing out the huge amount of brain power and money necessary(no halfway measures) to even attempt such an endeavor.
Maxwell's Demon
4th March 2006 - 11:19 AM
I’m kinda skeptical of Droescher’s experiment anyway, at this point—I mean, if we don’t have a solid grasp on Heim’s 6D-derived mass formula, how can we gauge the merit of Droescher’s 8D revision? Perhaps some intermediate steps would be pragmatic at this point.
For example, has anyone been able to check the derivation of Heim’s mass formula from the ‘metronic lattice’ model that Heim employed? And should this be a concern at this point?
Because if spony could write a program (a marvelous achievement, btw, and thanks also to everyone who assisted) that verifies Heim’s mass formula results so precisely, then can’t we at least conclude that Heim created a radically more accurate set of equations to describe the ‘mass spectrum’ of fundamental particles than anyone has offered to date?
Which leads me to ask: has anyone tried to redefine the Delta ++ and Mu particle properties, to see if our assumptions about their quantum characteristics/numbers are postulated accurately? That is, could the Standard Model be feeding inaccurate assumptions into the mass equation calculations somehow…are any of the input parameters ‘negotiable?’ Because if we found a near-perfect fit using an unconventional quantum parameter, we might know what experiments to run at a particle collider to test the prediction, and the theory would have an experimental confirmation or disconfirmation. I can’t see how we’d be getting 19 of 21 results so incredibly close, and two so far off, unless the error is in the input.
And if Heim’s mass formula predicts the fundamental particles so well, couldn’t it be extended to predict isotope masses and stabilities? If so, then we’d have a new toolkit for nuclear chemistry, like new fusion experiments, right? The grail du jour is fusion; even the current President can get behind new energy research. If Heim theory proposed a new fusion experiment based on an isotope model as compelling as the fundamental particle mass formula, I’d bet that everyone and their grandmother would be lining up to fund that experiment. ‘Antigravity’ experiments, not so much.
Frankly, I’d rather see a pursuit of a nuclear chemistry test, than gamble on Droescher’s revised 8D Heim theory, which seems doubly sketchy after reading his seemingly optimistic assumptions about superluminal travel through ‘hyperspace.’ At least that much seems wildly speculative at this point. We know the mass formula works, probably better just to build on that, for now. Due to the looming energy crisis, the present political/scientific climate seems ripe for a new model of nuclear transformations, and to the layman (hi there!), that looks like a relatively short step from an effective mass formula…compared to the conceptual/mathematical acrobatics required to get from the 6D-based Heim mass formula to Droescher’s 8D ‘gravitophoton’ prediction.
One last thing, though I’m loathe to stop because I have about a gazillion more questions—do we know if the neutral electron (which seems to be predicted by Heim’s mass formula) actually means anything, by Heim’s own model? That is, if an electron is defined simply as a charge in Heim’s model, and charge is akin to a kind of metronic spin, then maybe a ‘neutral electron’ is a kind of contradiction in Heim’s physical language…?
Thank you for tolerating my Neolithic comprehension of theoretical physics, gentlemen. Perhaps it is my ignorance, but I can’t understand how anyone could not be incredibly excited by the now proven triumph of Heim’s mass formula, and the fascinating theory behind it.
Zephir
4th March 2006 - 11:59 AM
QUOTE (Maxwell's Demon+Mar 4 2006, 02:19 PM) ...do we know if the neutral electron (which seems to be predicted by Heim’s mass formula) actually means anything, by Heim’s own model... The metronic lattice corresponds the recursive graviton E-M lattice of Aether Wave theory. It explains, the neutral electron has the physical meaning, but such kind of vibrations is a quite less probable than in the case of neutrino due the Lagrangian of this motion (i.e. principle of minimization of action). The neutral electron existence would be a much more probable in more dense environment, for example inside the neutron stars.     It's obvious, the particle charge is the result of the spinor component of the Aether torsion vibrations. Such component of motion requires, the Aether behaves as the multidimensional environment. Such behavior is the more pronounced, the higher is the energy density of particle. Try to imagine vacuum as the elastic foam formed by the some less elastic particles of foam recursively. If you'll stay jump to such foamy mattress, the torsion deformation of it would be rather semi-classical - without spinor component. The heavy jumps would interfere the more convoluted part of vacuum foam, which will become vibrate by the multidimensional way, i.e. with the spinor component. The classical vibration mode, i.e. without charge would be possible too, but a much more probable due the more pronounced spontaneous symmetry breaking. Such qualitative insights can be quantified using the surface/volume ration dependence inside the hypersphere. Such ratio defines the Lagrangian of motion in the gauge field theory. Is such explanation clear for you? Currently, the Aether Wave theory is the only theory, which is able to explain everything - it means all the other theories, too - including the Heim's theory.
will314159
4th March 2006 - 12:20 PM
Oh Zephir you just won't take a hint and you just won't quit with the aether theory posts.
I admit it is very interesting and you hav got nice graphics and nice animations. But we all have the LINK to your thread. And we can all go there if we CHOOSE.
You are a very good EVANGELIST. It's a good thing you are not trying to proselytize to a religion.
But here we wa want to READ ABOUT
Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
What part about Heim don't you understand.
Personally I am not interested right now in Heim engineering, I'm still working on grasping the physics of it all.
I don't think the Heim mass problem is solved although we are far far traveled along the path thanks to Spony than when we started.
Take Care All!
Zephir
4th March 2006 - 12:32 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Mar 4 2006, 03:20 PM) Oh Zephir you just won't take a hint and you just won't quit with the aether theory posts. Hi, will314159, I'm just explaining the Heim's theory concepts (like the neutral electron) using a more general and simple theory concepts. My only religion is the ability to explain something. If you're not able to explain anything from the Heim's theory, why I should take care about u? You're just decreasing the scientific level of this topic by off-topic spam repeatedly. Please consider, the next similar offensive attempt will be reported immediately without warning.
hdeasy
4th March 2006 - 06:02 PM
QUOTE (Guest_ERIC+Mar 3 2006, 06:30 PM) NOW THAT THE NEW SCIENTIST ARTICLE IS OLD NEWS! THE QUESTION BECOMES; When do we see the next important publication of Professors Heim's work? Thank You!!! Look at the open letter in Heim thery page: http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/contents.html : "a reviewed paper is now being prepared which gives an introduction to Heim’s Theory and the extension to eight dimensions, necessary for the realization of the new space propulsion method." It is hoped to publish this in one of the main physics journals sometime this year. As for teh other points raised above - I hope to get back to them in a while, cat and children permitting.
guest_Dantirya
4th March 2006 - 10:06 PM
Hi all, I am really excited with work done by Spony in reconstructing mass formula. I think that successfull computation of masses of so many elementary particles with such precision, based solely on several fundamental constants itself is of enourmous significance. It was of course said repeatedly here. There is one small matter which bothers me though. I myself am programmer, not physicist, so I downloaded version 0.6 of Spony Java code. I tried to run it, was amazed by results. As I went through code, I found that in class AbstractParticle there is a method for computing W which looks like that: CODE ---- Spony's code
// Since noone can seem to figure out W atm. this simply returns
// values given in Selected Results
protected double W() throws Exception {
if (index == AbstractFormula.E_MINUS) return 38.7;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.E_ZERO) return 38.51;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.MU) return 2830.26;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.PI_CHARGE) return 3514.46;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.PI_ZERO) return 3419.16;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.ETA) return 9905.01;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.K_CHARGE) return 8857.96;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.K_ZERO) return 9332.36;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.P) return 14792.56;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.N) return 14828.61;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.LAMBDA) return 16827.98;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.SIGMA_PLUS) return 18124.03;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.SIGMA_MINUS) return 18183.3;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.SIGMA_ZERO) return 18179.6;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.XI_CHARGE) return 18998.73;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.XI_ZERO) return 18990.09;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.OMEGA_CHARGE) return 23157.61;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.DELTA_PLUSPLUS) return 18115.38;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.DELTA_PLUS) return 18467.56;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.DELTA_MINUS) return 18448.52;
else if (index == AbstractFormula.DELTA_ZERO) return 18508.94;
throw new Exception("Unknown Particle");
}
----end Spony's code
As Spony mentioned in his post from 28th jan., there is a problem with function W returning "enourmous values around 10^50 to 10^100" . It looks like Wn or/and x formula from 1989 is wrong ? I couldn't find those in 1982 paper. Now, I think that those of you who have access to Fortran code could clear this up ? Results of mass computation depends of course on those values, and now we have for each particle one "magic number" taken from "Selected results". It makes me really uneasy about whole thing. Best regards! D.
will314159
4th March 2006 - 10:45 PM
I googled a vigourous and nasty discussion on heim theory at http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/01/05/spacedrive/HDeasy got some input in there. looking at some of the code above, it seemed to have a lof of if else then this number stuff. It seemed like a look up table where the numbers are already embeded in it. What is going on? Anyway, here is a sample from that site, a section about particles and HDeasy's response. He must google too. ************************ "Keith Douglas Says: January 13th, 2006 at 10:23 am “Predicting” the particle masses from “first principles” is easy if you are allowed to make up anything whatever, unconstrained by what is known about the universe. Just assume that the masses are describable as the roots of an arbitrary polynominal, and then run a computer program to do nonlinear regression to find it. This shows the falsity of some forms of empiricism, incidentally, since the polynominal would meet the goal of “acting as a data summary”. One also wants what is sometimes called “consilience” and other, transempirical, virtues. ******************* HDeasy Says: January 20th, 2006 at 8:06 am Yes, when Just noting all the comments above, a few points to clarify: On predictions – Heim theory has an outstanding prediction on the Neutrino masses. Either we measure neutrino masses more accurately to see if Heim’s mass values are correct or we check the formidable maths background to the mass formula which has already reproduced the known masses to great accuracy using only G, h and c as input. Also, if Heim-Droscher theory is right, there should be particles called gravito-photons transforming electromagnetic energy into gravitational in certain conditions. If an effect is seen at 25 Teslas in the coils as described in their experimental setup, this would be one prediction of the theory - without the need for that extra hyperspace effect. And note that Heim was emphatic about not wanted to violate energy conservation – he was relieved that the theory gave no ‘free energy’ since, as he correctly noted, the environment is in enough of a mess from waste energy. As for the number of dimensions - the full exposition does require 12 dimensions it seems. In the 8-D version, the energy density tensor has only 36 non-zero elements and so Heim justifies restriction to a 6 x 6 space. 6 x 6 is enough for the mass formula derivation. Quoting Hauser & Droscher “The dimensional law derived by Heim requires a 12-dimensional space, but the additional four coordinates are needed only in the explanation of the steering of probability amplitudes (information).” The surface element, the ‘metron’, is similar to that in LQG. Heim derives the need for it in his own calculations. Hopefully they can soon be published in the standard journals to see if they are plausible. In Heim theory, particles are stable distortions in the 6-D metron lattice - the ‘condensation’ that results in a particle involves projection from 6 dimensional structures on 4-D. I confess that the details of this are hard to understand and I haven’t got that far yet. Charge is associated with a partial-metric: the full metric is a ‘poly-metric’, with the normal g(i,j) of gravity and others for the other forces. That part is rather elegant and not at all ‘ugly’. Heim acknowledged Kaluza-Klein theory as having the right idea. Only for Heim the extra dimensions are not compacted - there are 3 normal space dimensions, 3 time-like dimensions (including normal time) and the rest of an ‘organisational’ nature, having to do with quantum probabilities etc. Von Ludwiger is working on transcribing tapes of Heim speaking on all this (in German admittedly) and wants to then have it translated into English and published as an introduction. Apparently when he talks about it, it’s much easier to understand where he’s coming from. On the issues mentioned by Stuard above – these are repeating the discussion we already had in Wikipedia talk pages on Heim – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heim_theory and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burkhard_Heim"Take Care!
spony
5th March 2006 - 12:06 AM
Hello everyone, First off... I've updated the page with version b0.07. Don't get too excited though because the update is mostly concerned with minor fixes in the interfaces and small corrections which were needed in order to make the applet possible. The good news though is that it is much easier to define unit cases in HeimUnit now. The page is: Heim Mass Formula ProgramSecondly... I've done a very minor update to the applet fixing lepton e0 since it was being compared to a table value from Selected Results in the experimental column, which is ofcourse a little unfortunate. The page is: Heim CalculatorAs always I've been following the posts on this forum. Regarding the concerns with mu and delta++, I didn't mean to give the impression that the code is completely debugged, it is not. Infact I've had very little time to do debugging. Thus the HeimGroup formula should be considered as a quick translation and I'm sure there are mistakes. | QUOTE |
There is one small matter which bothers me though. I myself am programmer,
not physicist, so I downloaded version 0.6 of Spony Java code. I tried to run
it, was amazed by results. As I went through code, I found that in class AbstractParticle
there is a method for computing W which looks like that:
...
As Spony mentioned in his post from 28th jan., there is a problem with
function W returning "enourmous values around 10^50 to 10^100" .
It looks like Wn or/and x formula from 1989 is wrong ? I couldn't find those in 1982 paper.
<br>Dantirya I decided to include this in AbstractFormula because the values n, m, p and sigma are extreemely sensitive to the function W. However W has improved very much since the post you quote. We had interpreted the formula for W incorrectly, there should be a post a while back with the correction. So if you use W instead of that switch statement you should get good results for most particles, however minor variations do seem to persist. The problem with fixing W is that n, m, p and sigma are not calculated in the Heim Theory Groups code so I can't very easialy copy the procedure from there. The procedure for finding m, n, p and sigma is based on the 1982 paper and I still haven't gotten around to checking if the procedure is still the same in the 1989 paper. If you have time it would be helpfull if you research this.
I hope I've covered the most pressing questions regarding the java code. Unfortunately I just don't have much time lately which is why I haven't debugged the Heim Group formula systematicaly. Between university courses and starting work this week at a rather large software company, I have to admit Heim Theory isn't my first priority right now. 
Regards Martin
will314159
5th March 2006 - 12:09 PM
I've found another physics forum with a discussion on Heim particle structure with comments by HDeasy http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=883762#post883762As far as I know, due to Spony's work, this one here is by far the most advanced. Take Care!
jreed
5th March 2006 - 02:59 PM
I have finished translating the Heim formulas from the 1989 pdf files and the Fortran source code I was given to work with into Mathematica. I'm now in the process of adding all the quantum numbers for particles in Table I of "Selected Results". The answers I'm getting are remarkable for the few particles I've looked at. I noticed the following comment in an earlier post:
"Predicting the particle masses from “first principles” is easy if you are allowed to make up anything whatever, unconstrained by what is known about the universe. Just assume that the masses are describable as the roots of an arbitrary polynominal, and then run a computer program to do nonlinear regression to find it. "
This is clearly not the way Heim theory works. If you look at Table I, you see 9 quantum numbers (epsilonC is not used) are used to predict properties for 20 particles. The system would be underdetermined, in other words there are more unknows than input parameters. Regression can't find answers to this system.
When I'm through adding all the particles and checking results, I will be glad to send this Mathematica notebook to anyone with Mathematica installed on their computer.
What is strange is that this theory has gone unnoticed. There is something here that seems to be a breakthrough in the understanding of particle physics.
John Reed
will314159
5th March 2006 - 04:40 PM
very good work JReed
The Mathematica implementations will add redundancy to the Java code.
The Heim mass quantum numbers presumably are the result of the solution of a general relativity equation quantized a la Heim and represent eigenvalues of solutions. All this would be analogous to the Schrodinger treatment in quantum QED.
Take Care!
MMC
5th March 2006 - 05:00 PM
Spony,
I have begun converting your app to C#. Actually, I'm almost finished, I have all the files converted to c# and I'm debugging at the moment. I just need to understand the flow of the program, so that I can integrate it with a front end.
I can give you the source when I'm finished. I'm using release b0.07 for the conversion.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
