Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory

guest_Dantirya

5th March 2006 - 07:35 PM

Hi all,
in my recent post I raised some doubt about java code for Heim formula.
Now after Spony's reply and after some studying and tinkering with code I should
clear things up.
1. There are two places where W() function is used in computation; computation of
quantum numbers n, m, p, sigma - ( they appear in Table 1 of "Selected results").
This is the place where Spony used table (i.e. numbers taken from "Selected results", table VIII).
Second place is "SelfCouplingFunction", here the W() function in Spony's code is computed independently.
2. I compared values of W() computed and from table ; most of differences are in order of 10e-3 to 10e-5 %, the biggest difference was for Baryon delta(minus) 1.72%.
3. Exactly as Spony said in his previous post, the computation of quantum numbers n, m, p, sigma is extremely sensitive to changes in values of W(). When computed version of W() is used instead of table values, a few of quantum numbers are off. The net effect is that in results of mass computation there is more errors, but the change is not at all dramatic.
4. To use computed version of W() instead of table, it is enough to do this little change in code:
in class formula.HeimGroup.Particle add :

CODE

public double W() {
// get rid of table for W...
return formula.HeimGroup.SelfCouplingFunction.getInstance().W(this);
}

this will override the base implementation of W() ( table ) in AbstractParticle class with implementation from SelfCouplingFunction, if you want you can comment out base implementation or delete it entirely. It is no longer used. Results with computed W() are only slightly worse.
As my time permits I will try to look into the way how quantum numbers n,m,p,sigma are computed - clearly there are some problems - even with table values of W() not all quantum numbers are o.k. according "Table I".
best regards

MMC

5th March 2006 - 10:12 PM

Spony,

I am debugging this C# port of your app. I had a few namespace problems that seem to be resolved now.

I need to understand what you are trying to achieve with certain commands, as some won't port directly and I will need to improvise a little...

From the file...\formula\MathL:

QUOTE

bigDecimal = bigDecimal.setScale(decimals, BigDecimal.ROUND_HALF_DOWN);

 Also in this file is a reference to "BigInteger.ONE"...what is this?

There is no implementation for "SelfCouplingFunction.Instance"...

In 'Heimgroup', the file 'particle' has a function called "calculateEquationsK". In this function, this statement is made "W[0] = W();". 'W' is a variable, not a method, is there something else you were refering to?

Kettricken

5th March 2006 - 10:15 PM

Lo Jreed

QUOTE

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.
 Maybe you can make a link to the Mathematica template like Spony's link? So anyone can get it.

Its very nice if the Heim Theory could be something that many can develop togheter. A little like the way that Mozilla and Firefox was done.

MMC

5th March 2006 - 10:51 PM

A little more info on this error:

QUOTE

There is no implementation for "SelfCouplingFunction.Instance"...

 You are pointing to "formula.SelfCouplingFunction" which contains only an interface.

"SelfCouplingFunction.Instance" is available in 'dummyHG', 'f1989' and 'Heimgroup' namespaces....

Any thoughts?

For everyone else, spony's applet will be available as a Windows application as soon as I correct these last remaining errors...

MMC

5th March 2006 - 11:33 PM

Right, I've managed to work around some of the problems and here are the results from the first test of the C# port of spony's app:

QUOTE

'DefaultDomain': Loaded 'c:\windows\microsoft.net\framework\v1.1.4322\mscorlib.dll', No symbols loaded.
'Project1': Loaded 'Project1.exe', Symbols loaded.

=====> C Lepton e(minus) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Lepton e(minus) GOOD
result: -1

=====> q Lepton e(minus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Lepton e(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 0
diff: 3

=====> m Lepton e(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 0
diff: 3

=====> p Lepton e(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 0
diff: 2

=====> sigma Lepton e(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 0
diff: 1

=====> Mass Lepton e(minus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.00949588132685932
   table: 0.51100343
diff: 0.501507548673141
(HG)diff: 4.51156000003117E-06

=====> C Lepton e(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Lepton e(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Lepton e(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Lepton e(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 0
diff: 3

=====> m Lepton e(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 0
diff: 3

=====> p Lepton e(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 0
diff: 2

=====> sigma Lepton e(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 1
diff: 2

=====> Mass Lepton e(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: 0.00537588427222192
table: 0.51617049
diff: 0.510794605727778

=====> C Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 0
diff: 2

=====> qx Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: -1
diff: 1

=====> q Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: 2
table: 1
diff: 1

=====> n Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 11
diff: 14

=====> m Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 6
diff: 9

=====> p Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 11
diff: 13

=====> sigma Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 6
diff: 7

=====> Mass Lepton mu INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.0136158783814966
   table: 105.65948493
diff: 105.645869051619
(HG)diff: 0.0010959300000053

=====> C Messon pi(charge) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Messon pi(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> q Messon pi(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Messon pi(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 12
diff: 15

=====> m Messon pi(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 9
diff: 12

=====> p Messon pi(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 2
diff: 4

=====> sigma Messon pi(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 3
diff: 4

=====> Mass Messon pi(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.0148717503271711
   table: 139.56837088
diff: 139.553499129673
(HG)diff: 0.00180911999999012

=====> C Messon pi(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Messon pi(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Messon pi(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Messon pi(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 12
diff: 15

=====> m Messon pi(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 3
diff: 6

=====> p Messon pi(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 6
diff: 8

=====> sigma Messon pi(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 4
diff: 5

=====> Mass Messon pi(zero) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.0107517532725337
   table: 134.96004114
diff: 134.949289386727
(HG)diff: 0.0165588600000035

=====> C Messon eta GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Messon eta GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Messon eta GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Messon eta INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 18
diff: 21

=====> m Messon eta INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 22
diff: 25

=====> p Messon eta INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 17
diff: 19

=====> sigma Messon eta INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 14
diff: 15

=====> Mass Messon eta INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 6.59873351877631E-17
   table: 548.80002432
diff: 548.80002432
(HG)diff: 1.50002432000008

=====> C Messon k(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> qx Messon k(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> q Messon k(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Messon k(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 17
diff: 20

=====> m Messon k(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 26
diff: 29

=====> p Messon k(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 30
diff: 32

=====> sigma Messon k(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 28
diff: 29

=====> Mass Messon k(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.00143205873650405
   table: 493.71425074
diff: 493.712818681264
(HG)diff: 0.0372507399999904

=====> C Messon k(zero) GOOD
result: 1

=====> qx Messon k(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Messon k(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Messon k(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 18
diff: 21

=====> m Messon k(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 5
diff: 8

=====> p Messon k(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 5
diff: 7

=====> sigma Messon k(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 2
diff: 3

=====> Mass Messon k(zero) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: -0.00268793831813334
   table: 497.72299959
diff: 497.725687528318
(HG)diff: 0.0509995899999467

=====> C Baryon proton GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon proton GOOD
result: 1

=====> q Baryon proton GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon proton INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 0
diff: 24

=====> m Baryon proton INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: 0
diff: 31

=====> p Baryon proton INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: 0
diff: 34

=====> sigma Baryon proton INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: 0
diff: 15

=====> Mass Baryon proton INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.0338279236629062
   table: 938.27959246
diff: 938.245764536337
(HG)diff: 0.00728246000005583

=====> C Baryon neutron GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon neutron GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Baryon neutron GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Baryon neutron INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 0
diff: 24

=====> m Baryon neutron INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: 0
diff: 31

=====> p Baryon neutron INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -2
diff: 32

=====> sigma Baryon neutron INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: 17
diff: 32

=====> Mass Baryon neutron INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.0264336946843728
   table: 939.57336128
diff: 939.546927585316
(HG)diff: 0.0077312799999163

=====> C Baryon lambda GOOD
result: -1

=====> qx Baryon lambda GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Baryon lambda GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Baryon lambda INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 1
diff: 25

=====> m Baryon lambda INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: 3
diff: 34

=====> p Baryon lambda INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: 0
diff: 34

=====> sigma Baryon lambda INCORRECT!!!
result: -15

table: -11
diff: 4

=====> Mass Baryon lambda INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: -0.000244280928299248
   table: 1115.59979064
diff: 1115.60003492093
(HG)diff: 0.0832093599999553

=====> C Baryon sigma(plus) GOOD
result: -1

=====> qx Baryon sigma(plus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> q Baryon sigma(plus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon sigma(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon sigma(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: -7
diff: 24

=====> p Baryon sigma(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -12
diff: 22

=====> sigma Baryon sigma(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: 10
diff: 25

=====> Mass Baryon sigma(plus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: -0.0198369127674778
   table: 1189.37409717
diff: 1189.39393408277
(HG)diff: 0.00409717000002274

=====> C Baryon sigma(minus) GOOD
result: -1

=====> qx Baryon sigma(minus) GOOD
result: -1

=====> q Baryon sigma(minus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon sigma(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon sigma(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: -6
diff: 25

=====> p Baryon sigma(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -5
diff: 29

=====> sigma Baryon sigma(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: -8
diff: 7

=====> Mass Baryon sigma(minus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: -0.0198369127674778
   table: 1197.30443002
diff: 1197.32426693277
(HG)diff: 0.144569980000142

=====> C Baryon sigma(zero) GOOD
result: -1

=====> qx Baryon sigma(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Baryon sigma(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Baryon sigma(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon sigma(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: -7
diff: 24

=====> p Baryon sigma(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -14
diff: 20

=====> sigma Baryon sigma(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: -2
diff: 13

=====> Mass Baryon sigma(zero) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: -0.0168604726936982
   table: 1192.47794854
diff: 1192.49480901269
(HG)diff: 0.16405146000011

=====> C Baryon xi(charge) GOOD
result: -2

=====> qx Baryon xi(charge) GOOD
result: -1

=====> q Baryon xi(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon xi(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon xi(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: 7
diff: 38

=====> p Baryon xi(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -17
diff: 17

=====> sigma Baryon xi(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: 2
diff: 17

=====> Mass Baryon xi(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.0338279236629062
   table: 1321.29326013
diff: 1321.25943220634
(HG)diff: 0.0267398700000285

=====> C Baryon xi(zero) GOOD
result: -2

=====> qx Baryon xi(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Baryon xi(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Baryon xi(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon xi(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: 6
diff: 37

=====> p Baryon xi(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -1
diff: 33

=====> sigma Baryon xi(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: 6
diff: 21

=====> Mass Baryon xi(zero) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.212369599858501
   table: 1314.902062
diff: 1314.68969240014
(HG)diff: 0.00206199999979617

=====> C Baryon omega(charge) GOOD
result: -3

=====> qx Baryon omega(charge) GOOD
result: -1

=====> q Baryon omega(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon omega(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 4
diff: 28

=====> m Baryon omega(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: 4
diff: 35

=====> p Baryon omega(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -1
diff: 33

=====> sigma Baryon omega(charge) GOOD
result: -15

=====> Mass Baryon omega(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.322455531863224
   table: 1672.17518902
diff: 1671.85273348814
(HG)diff: 0.274810979999984

=====> C Baryon delta(plusplus) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon delta(plusplus) GOOD
result: 2

=====> q Baryon delta(plusplus) GOOD
result: 2

=====> n Baryon delta(plusplus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon delta(plusplus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: 1
diff: 32

=====> p Baryon delta(plusplus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: 9
diff: 43

=====> sigma Baryon delta(plusplus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: 4
diff: 19

=====> Mass Baryon delta(plusplus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 4.5565625048183
   table: 1232.91663788
diff: 1228.36007537518
(HG)diff: 0.916637880000053

=====> C Baryon delta(plus) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon delta(plus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> q Baryon delta(plus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon delta(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon delta(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: -1
diff: 30

=====> p Baryon delta(plus) INCORRECT!!!

result: -34
table: -1
diff: 33

=====> sigma Baryon delta(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: -6
diff: 9

=====> Mass Baryon delta(plus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1.41449973575964
   table: 1234.60981181
diff: 1233.19531207424
(HG)diff: 2.60981181000011

=====> C Baryon delta(minus) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon delta(minus) GOOD
result: -1

=====> q Baryon delta(minus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon delta(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon delta(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: -1
diff: 30

=====> p Baryon delta(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -16
diff: 18

=====> sigma Baryon delta(minus) GOOD
result: -15

=====> Mass Baryon delta(minus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1.41449973575964
   table: 1237.06132359
diff: 1235.64682385424
(HG)diff: 5.06132359000003

=====> C Baryon delta(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon delta(zero) GOOD
result: 0

==The program '[3744] Project1.exe' has exited with code 0 (0x0).
===> q Baryon delta(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Baryon delta(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon delta(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: -1
diff: 30

=====> p Baryon delta(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -10
diff: 24

=====> sigma Baryon delta(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: 2
diff: 17

=====> Mass Baryon delta(zero) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1.38272915715068
   table: 1229.99529979
diff: 1228.61257063285
(HG)diff: 2.00470021000001

MMC

6th March 2006 - 12:51 AM

Redundant post...

MMC

6th March 2006 - 01:05 AM

Redundant post #2...

MMC

6th March 2006 - 01:21 AM

The second server also fails when trying to download this file, so once again, I have hosted it elsewhere. I've tested this time and this link is working:

Heim Mass Formula Program - C# Port - Pre-alpha (68KB)
http://d.turboupload.com/d/408371/Burkhard...7a_Win.exe.html

Important Note:

To be able to view all the results the program generates, the buffer size of the console app (cmd.exe) needs to be increased. Follow these instructions:

1. Run the app...do NOT press enter to exit...
2. Right-click the 'Title Bar' and select properties.
3. Select the 'Layout' tab from the properties.
4. Adjust the 'Height' parameter to around '1130' in the section entitled, 'Screen Buffer Size'.

This will allow you to the list from beginning to end by increasing the amount of lines kept in memory. You can then choose to save that option, after you clicked 'OK', so that further use is automatic.

5. Press ENTER to close the app...
6. Re-run the app.

Zephir

6th March 2006 - 01:38 AM

QUOTE (MMC+Mar 6 2006, 04:05 AM)

...To be able to view all the results the program generates, the buffer size of the console app (cmd.exe) needs to be increased....

It's possible to run your program using the following batch from command prompt:

Burkhard_Heim_b0.07a_Win.exe > out.txt || notepad.exe out.txt

It generates text output file, and after then it opens Notepad using this file, consecutively.

MMC

6th March 2006 - 05:33 AM

I've one a lot of debugging...and it seems to have worked...a little...

This is a CSV output of the Heim Mass Formula program from the new C# port...

QUOTE

'DefaultDomain': Loaded 'c:\windows\microsoft.net\framework\v1.1.4322\mscorlib.dll', No symbols loaded.
'Project1': Loaded 'Project1.exe', Symbols loaded.

"C Lepton e(minus)",Good,0,0,
"qx Lepton e(minus)",Good,-1,-1,
"q Lepton e(minus)",Good,1,1,
"n Lepton e(minus)",Good,0,0,
"m Lepton e(minus)",Good,0,0,
"p Lepton e(minus)",Good,0,0,
"sigma Lepton e(minus)",Good,0,0,

"Mass Lepton e(minus)",INCORRECT!!!,0.510988028633111,0.51100343,0.51099891844

"C Lepton e(zero)",Good,0,0,
"qx Lepton e(zero)",Good,0,0,
"q Lepton e(zero)",Good,0,0,
"n Lepton e(zero)",Good,0,0,
"m Lepton e(zero)",Good,0,0,
"p Lepton e(zero)",Good,0,0,
"sigma Lepton e(zero)",Good,1,1,

"Mass Lepton e(zero)",INCORRECT!!!,0.51555851466856,0.51617049,

"C Lepton mu",INCORRECT!!!,-2,0,
"qx Lepton mu",INCORRECT!!!,-2,-1,
"q Lepton mu",INCORRECT!!!,2,1,
"n Lepton mu",Good,11,11,
"m Lepton mu",INCORRECT!!!,8,6,
"p Lepton mu",INCORRECT!!!,45,11,
"sigma Lepton mu",INCORRECT!!!,-1,6,

"Mass Lepton mu",INCORRECT!!!,114.423633798623,105.65948493,105.658389

"C Messon pi(charge)",Good,0,0,
"qx Messon pi(charge)",Good,1,1,
"q Messon pi(charge)",Good,1,1,
"n Messon pi(charge)",Good,12,12,
"m Messon pi(charge)",Good,9,9,
"p Messon pi(charge)",Good,2,2,
"sigma Messon pi(charge)",Good,3,3,

"Mass Messon pi(charge)",INCORRECT!!!,139.574978093797,139.56837088,139.57018

"C Messon pi(zero)",Good,0,0,
"qx Messon pi(zero)",Good,0,0,
"q Messon pi(zero)",Good,0,0,
"n Messon pi(zero)",Good,12,12,
"m Messon pi(zero)",Good,3,3,
"p Messon pi(zero)",Good,6,6,
"sigma Messon pi(zero)",Good,4,4,

"Mass Messon pi(zero)",INCORRECT!!!,134.97259601729,134.96004114,134.9766

"C Messon eta",Good,0,0,
"qx Messon eta",Good,0,0,
"q Messon eta",Good,0,0,
"n Messon eta",Good,18,18,
"m Messon eta",Good,22,22,
"p Messon eta",Good,17,17,
"sigma Messon eta",INCORRECT!!!,12,14,

"Mass Messon eta",INCORRECT!!!,548.703495437385,548.80002432,547.3

"C Messon k(charge)",Good,1,1,
"qx Messon k(charge)",Good,1,1,
"q Messon k(charge)",Good,1,1,
"n Messon k(charge)",Good,17,17,
"m Messon k(charge)",Good,26,26,
"p Messon k(charge)",Good,30,30,
"sigma Messon k(charge)",INCORRECT!!!,17,28,

"Mass Messon k(charge)",INCORRECT!!!,493.788611705541,493.71425074,493.677

"C Messon k(zero)",Good,1,1,
"qx Messon k(zero)",Good,0,0,
"q Messon k(zero)",Good,0,0,
"n Messon k(zero)",Good,18,18,
"m Messon k(zero)",Good,5,5,
"p Messon k(zero)",Good,5,5,
"sigma Messon k(zero)",Good,2,2,

"Mass Messon k(zero)",INCORRECT!!!,497.721634165388,497.72299959,497.672

"C Baryon proton",Good,0,0,
"qx Baryon proton",Good,1,1,
"q Baryon proton",Good,1,1,
"n Baryon proton",Good,0,0,
"m Baryon proton",Good,0,0,
"p Baryon proton",Good,0,0,
"sigma Baryon proton",Good,0,0,

"Mass Baryon proton",INCORRECT!!!,938.251102166227,938.27959246,938.27231

"C Baryon neutron",Good,0,0,
"qx Baryon neutron",Good,0,0,
"q Baryon neutron",Good,0,0,
"n Baryon neutron",Good,0,0,
"m Baryon neutron",Good,0,0,
"p Baryon neutron",Good,-2,-2,
"sigma Baryon neutron",Good,17,17,

"Mass Baryon neutron",INCORRECT!!!,939.393413295728,939.57336128,939.56563

"C Baryon lambda",Good,-1,-1,
"qx Baryon lambda",Good,0,0,
"q Baryon lambda",Good,0,0,
"n Baryon lambda",Good,1,1,
"m Baryon lambda",Good,3,3,
"p Baryon lambda",Good,0,0,
"sigma Baryon lambda",INCORRECT!!!,-12,-11,

"Mass Baryon lambda",INCORRECT!!!,1115.39589254888,1115.59979064,1115.683

"C Baryon sigma(plus)",Good,-1,-1,
"qx Baryon sigma(plus)",Good,1,1,
"q Baryon sigma(plus)",Good,1,1,
"n Baryon sigma(plus)",Good,2,2,
"m Baryon sigma(plus)",Good,-7,-7,
"p Baryon sigma(plus)",Good,-12,-12,
"sigma Baryon sigma(plus)",Good,10,10,

"Mass Baryon sigma(plus)",INCORRECT!!!,1189.36607002397,1189.37409717,1189.37

"C Baryon sigma(minus)",Good,-1,-1,
"qx Baryon sigma(minus)",Good,-1,-1,
"q Baryon sigma(minus)",Good,1,1,
"n Baryon sigma(minus)",Good,2,2,
"m Baryon sigma(minus)",Good,-6,-6,
"p Baryon sigma(minus)",Good,-5,-5,
"sigma Baryon sigma(minus)",Good,-8,-8,

"Mass Baryon sigma(minus)",INCORRECT!!!,1197.277532406,1197.30443002,1197.449

"C Baryon sigma(zero)",Good,-1,-1,
"qx Baryon sigma(zero)",Good,0,0,
"q Baryon sigma(zero)",Good,0,0,
"n Baryon sigma(zero)",Good,2,2,
"m Baryon sigma(zero)",Good,-7,-7,
"p Baryon sigma(zero)",Good,-14,-14,
"sigma Baryon sigma(zero)",Good,-2,-2,

"Mass Baryon sigma(zero)",INCORRECT!!!,1192.33048439946,1192.47794854,1192.642

"C Baryon xi(charge)",Good,-2,-2,
"qx Baryon xi(charge)",Good,-1,-1,
"q Baryon xi(charge)",Good,1,1,
"n Baryon xi(charge)",Good,2,2,
"m Baryon xi(charge)",Good,7,7,
"p Baryon xi(charge)",Good,-17,-17,
"sigma Baryon xi(charge)",Good,2,2,

"Mass Baryon xi(charge)",INCORRECT!!!,1321.18763033312,1321.29326013,1321.32

"C Baryon xi(zero)",Good,-2,-2,
"qx Baryon xi(zero)",Good,0,0,
"q Baryon xi(zero)",Good,0,0,
"n Baryon xi(zero)",Good,2,2,
"m Baryon xi(zero)",Good,6,6,
"p Baryon xi(zero)",Good,-1,-1,
"sigma Baryon xi(zero)",Good,6,6,

"Mass Baryon xi(zero)",INCORRECT!!!,1314.7056266622,1314.902062,1314.9

"C Baryon omega(charge)",Good,-3,-3,
"qx Baryon omega(charge)",Good,-1,-1,
"q Baryon omega(charge)",Good,1,1,
"n Baryon omega(charge)",Good,4,4,
"m Baryon omega(charge)",Good,4,4,
"p Baryon omega(charge)",Good,-1,-1,
"sigma Baryon omega(charge)",Good,-15,-15,

"Mass Baryon omega(charge)",INCORRECT!!!,1672.76091411693,1672.17518902,1672.45

"C Baryon delta(plusplus)",Good,0,0,
"qx Baryon delta(plusplus)",Good,2,2,
"q Baryon delta(plusplus)",Good,2,2,
"n Baryon delta(plusplus)",Good,2,2,
"m Baryon delta(plusplus)",INCORRECT!!!,-2,1,
"p Baryon delta(plusplus)",INCORRECT!!!,228,9,
"sigma Baryon delta(plusplus)",INCORRECT!!!,13,4,

"Mass Baryon delta(plusplus)",INCORRECT!!!,1526.60735185081,1232.91663788,1232

"C Baryon delta(plus)",Good,0,0,
"qx Baryon delta(plus)",Good,1,1,
"q Baryon delta(plus)",Good,1,1,
"n Baryon delta(plus)",Good,2,2,
"m Baryon delta(plus)",Good,-1,-1,
"p Baryon delta(plus)",Good,-1,-1,
"sigma Baryon delta(plus)",Good,-6,-6,

"Mass Baryon delta(plus)",INCORRECT!!!,1237.4673249826,1234.60981181,1232

"C Baryon delta(minus)",Good,0,0,
"qx Baryon delta(minus)",Good,-1,-1,
"q Baryon delta(minus)",Good,1,1,
"n Baryon delta(minus)",Good,2,2,
"m Baryon delta(minus)",Good,-1,-1,
"p Baryon delta(minus)",Good,-16,-16,
"sigma Baryon delta(minus)",Good,-15,-15,

"Mass Baryon delta(minus)",INCORRECT!!!,1232.50344673,1237.06132359,1232

"C Baryon delta(zero)",Good,0,0,
"qx Baryon delta(zero)",Good,0,0,
"q Baryon delta(zero)",Good,0,0,
"n Baryon delta(zero)",Good,2,2,
"m Baryon delta(zero)",Good,-1,-1,
"p Baryon delta(zero)",Good,-10,-10,
"sigma Baryon delta(zero)",Good,2,2,

"Mass Baryon delta(zero)",INCORRECT!!!,1238.20946951982,1229.99529979,1232

Press ENTER to close...

The program '[1172] Project1.exe' has exited with code 0 (0x0).

MMC

6th March 2006 - 06:05 AM

I apologise for the length of this post, however, it is simply the output of the app. Here is a comparison between the app I posted earlier and the corrected app I'm working on now...

Results from Version A of C# port of spony's app:

QUOTE

Results from Version B of C# port of spony's app:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

=====> C Lepton e(minus) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Lepton e(minus) GOOD
result: -1

=====> q Lepton e(minus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Lepton e(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 0
diff: 3

=====> m Lepton e(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 0
diff: 3

=====> p Lepton e(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 0
diff: 2

=====> sigma Lepton e(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 0
diff: 1

=====> Mass Lepton e(minus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.00949588132685932
table: 0.51100343
diff: 0.501507548673141
(HG)diff: 4.51156000003117E-06

=====> C Lepton e(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Lepton e(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Lepton e(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Lepton e(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 0
diff: 3

=====> m Lepton e(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 0
diff: 3

=====> p Lepton e(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 0
diff: 2

=====> sigma Lepton e(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 1
diff: 2

=====> Mass Lepton e(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: 0.00537588427222192
table: 0.51617049
diff: 0.510794605727778

=====> C Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 0
diff: 2

=====> qx Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: -1
diff: 1

=====> q Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: 2
table: 1
diff: 1

=====> n Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 11
diff: 14

=====> m Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 6
diff: 9

=====> p Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 11
diff: 13

=====> sigma Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 6
diff: 7

=====> Mass Lepton mu INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.0136158783814966
table: 105.65948493
diff: 105.645869051619
(HG)diff: 0.0010959300000053

=====> C Messon pi(charge) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Messon pi(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> q Messon pi(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Messon pi(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 12
diff: 15

=====> m Messon pi(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 9
diff: 12

=====> p Messon pi(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 2
diff: 4

=====> sigma Messon pi(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 3
diff: 4

=====> Mass Messon pi(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.0148717503271711
table: 139.56837088
diff: 139.553499129673
(HG)diff: 0.00180911999999012

=====> C Messon pi(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Messon pi(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Messon pi(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Messon pi(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 12
diff: 15

=====> m Messon pi(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 3
diff: 6

=====> p Messon pi(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 6
diff: 8

=====> sigma Messon pi(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 4
diff: 5

=====> Mass Messon pi(zero) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.0107517532725337
table: 134.96004114
diff: 134.949289386727
(HG)diff: 0.0165588600000035

=====> C Messon eta GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Messon eta GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Messon eta GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Messon eta INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 18
diff: 21

=====> m Messon eta INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 22
diff: 25

=====> p Messon eta INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 17
diff: 19

=====> sigma Messon eta INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 14
diff: 15

=====> Mass Messon eta INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 6.59873351877631E-17
table: 548.80002432
diff: 548.80002432
(HG)diff: 1.50002432000008

=====> C Messon k(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> qx Messon k(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> q Messon k(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Messon k(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 17
diff: 20

=====> m Messon k(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 26
diff: 29

=====> p Messon k(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 30
diff: 32

=====> sigma Messon k(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 28
diff: 29

=====> Mass Messon k(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.00143205873650405
table: 493.71425074
diff: 493.712818681264
(HG)diff: 0.0372507399999904

=====> C Messon k(zero) GOOD
result: 1

=====> qx Messon k(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Messon k(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Messon k(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 18
diff: 21

=====> m Messon k(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -3
table: 5
diff: 8

=====> p Messon k(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 5
diff: 7

=====> sigma Messon k(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 2
diff: 3

=====> Mass Messon k(zero) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: -0.00268793831813334
table: 497.72299959
diff: 497.725687528318
(HG)diff: 0.0509995899999467

=====> C Baryon proton GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon proton GOOD
result: 1

=====> q Baryon proton GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon proton INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 0
diff: 24

=====> m Baryon proton INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: 0
diff: 31

=====> p Baryon proton INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: 0
diff: 34

=====> sigma Baryon proton INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: 0
diff: 15

=====> Mass Baryon proton INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.0338279236629062
table: 938.27959246
diff: 938.245764536337
(HG)diff: 0.00728246000005583

=====> C Baryon neutron GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon neutron GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Baryon neutron GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Baryon neutron INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 0
diff: 24

=====> m Baryon neutron INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: 0
diff: 31

=====> p Baryon neutron INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -2
diff: 32

=====> sigma Baryon neutron INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: 17
diff: 32

=====> Mass Baryon neutron INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.0264336946843728
table: 939.57336128
diff: 939.546927585316
(HG)diff: 0.0077312799999163

=====> C Baryon lambda GOOD
result: -1

=====> qx Baryon lambda GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Baryon lambda GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Baryon lambda INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 1
diff: 25

=====> m Baryon lambda INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: 3
diff: 34

=====> p Baryon lambda INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: 0
diff: 34

=====> sigma Baryon lambda INCORRECT!!!
result: -15

table: -11
diff: 4

=====> Mass Baryon lambda INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: -0.000244280928299248
table: 1115.59979064
diff: 1115.60003492093
(HG)diff: 0.0832093599999553

=====> C Baryon sigma(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: 1
table: -1
diff: 2

=====> qx Baryon sigma(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: 2
table: 1
diff: 1

=====> q Baryon sigma(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: 2
table: 1
diff: 1

=====> n Baryon sigma(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon sigma(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: -7
diff: 24

=====> p Baryon sigma(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -12
diff: 22

=====> sigma Baryon sigma(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: 10
diff: 25

=====> Mass Baryon sigma(plus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: -1.05957741632377
table: 1189.37409717
diff: 1190.43367458632
(HG)diff: 0.00409717000002274

=====> C Baryon sigma(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: 1
table: -1
diff: 2

=====> qx Baryon sigma(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: 0
table: -1
diff: 1

=====> q Baryon sigma(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: 0
table: 1
diff: 1

=====> n Baryon sigma(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon sigma(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: -6
diff: 25

=====> p Baryon sigma(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -5
diff: 29

=====> sigma Baryon sigma(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: -8
diff: 7

=====> Mass Baryon sigma(minus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: -0.0168604726936982
table: 1197.30443002
diff: 1197.32129049269
(HG)diff: 0.144569980000142

=====> C Baryon sigma(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: 1
table: -1
diff: 2

=====> qx Baryon sigma(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: 1
table: 0
diff: 1

=====> q Baryon sigma(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: 1
table: 0
diff: 1

=====> n Baryon sigma(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon sigma(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: -7
diff: 24

=====> p Baryon sigma(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -14
diff: 20

=====> sigma Baryon sigma(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: -2
diff: 13

=====> Mass Baryon sigma(zero) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: -0.0198369127674778
table: 1192.47794854
diff: 1192.49778545277
(HG)diff: 0.16405146000011

=====> C Baryon xi(charge) GOOD
result: -2

=====> qx Baryon xi(charge) GOOD
result: -1

=====> q Baryon xi(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon xi(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon xi(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: 7
diff: 38

=====> p Baryon xi(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -17
diff: 17

=====> sigma Baryon xi(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: 2
diff: 17

=====> Mass Baryon xi(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.0338279236629062
table: 1321.29326013
diff: 1321.25943220634
(HG)diff: 0.0267398700000285

=====> C Baryon xi(zero) GOOD
result: -2

=====> qx Baryon xi(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Baryon xi(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Baryon xi(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon xi(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: 6
diff: 37

=====> p Baryon xi(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -1
diff: 33

=====> sigma Baryon xi(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: 6
diff: 21

=====> Mass Baryon xi(zero) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.212369599858501
table: 1314.902062
diff: 1314.68969240014
(HG)diff: 0.00206199999979617

=====> C Baryon omega(charge) GOOD
result: -3

=====> qx Baryon omega(charge) GOOD
result: -1

=====> q Baryon omega(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon omega(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 4
diff: 28

=====> m Baryon omega(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: 4
diff: 35

=====> p Baryon omega(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -1
diff: 33

=====> sigma Baryon omega(charge) GOOD
result: -15

=====> Mass Baryon omega(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.00429590715092009
table: 1672.17518902
diff: 1672.17089311285
(HG)diff: 0.274810979999984

=====> C Baryon delta(plusplus) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon delta(plusplus) GOOD
result: 2

=====> q Baryon delta(plusplus) GOOD
result: 2

=====> n Baryon delta(plusplus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon delta(plusplus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: 1
diff: 32

=====> p Baryon delta(plusplus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: 9
diff: 43

=====> sigma Baryon delta(plusplus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: 4
diff: 19

=====> Mass Baryon delta(plusplus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 3.28392400596854
table: 1232.91663788
diff: 1229.63271387403
(HG)diff: 0.916637880000053

=====> C Baryon delta(plus) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon delta(plus) GOOD

result: 1

=====> q Baryon delta(plus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon delta(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon delta(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: -1
diff: 30

=====> p Baryon delta(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -1
diff: 33

=====> sigma Baryon delta(plus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: -6
diff: 9

=====> Mass Baryon delta(plus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.141861236909886
table: 1234.60981181
diff: 1234.46795057309
(HG)diff: 2.60981181000011

=====> C Baryon delta(minus) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon delta(minus) GOOD
result: -1

=====> q Baryon delta(minus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon delta(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon delta(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: -1
diff: 30

=====> p Baryon delta(minus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -16
diff: 18

=====> sigma Baryon delta(minus) GOOD
result: -15

=====> Mass Baryon delta(minus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.141861236909886
table: 1237.06132359
diff: 1236.91946235309
(HG)diff: 5.06132359000003

=====> C Baryon delta(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon delta(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Baryon delta(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Baryon delta(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -24
table: 2
diff: 26

=====> m Baryon delta(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -31
table: -1
diff: 30

=====> p Baryon delta(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -34
table: -10
diff: 24

=====> sigma Baryon delta(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: -15
table: 2
diff: 17

=====> Mass Baryon delta(zero) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.110090658300924
table: 1229.99529979
diff: 1229.8852091317
(HG)diff: 2.00470021000001

Press ENTER to close...

 

Results from Version B of C# port of spony's app:

=====> C Lepton e(minus) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Lepton e(minus) GOOD
result: -1

=====> q Lepton e(minus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Lepton e(minus) GOOD
result: 0

=====> m Lepton e(minus) GOOD
result: 0

=====> p Lepton e(minus) GOOD
result: 0

=====> sigma Lepton e(minus) GOOD
result: 0

=====> Mass Lepton e(minus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 0.510988028633111
table: 0.51100343
diff: 1.54013668891562E-05
(HG)diff: 4.51156000003117E-06

=====> C Lepton e(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Lepton e(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Lepton e(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Lepton e(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> m Lepton e(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> p Lepton e(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> sigma Lepton e(zero) GOOD
result: 1

=====> Mass Lepton e(zero) INCORRECT!!!
result: 0.51555851466856
table: 0.51617049
diff: 0.000611975331440417

=====> C Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 0
diff: 2

=====> qx Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: -1
diff: 1

=====> q Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: 2
table: 1
diff: 1

=====> n Lepton mu GOOD
result: 11

=====> m Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: 8
table: 6
diff: 2

=====> p Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: 45
table: 11
diff: 34

=====> sigma Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: -1
table: 6
diff: 7

=====> Mass Lepton mu INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 114.423633798623
table: 105.65948493
diff: 8.76414886862294
(HG)diff: 0.0010959300000053

=====> C Messon pi(charge) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Messon pi(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> q Messon pi(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Messon pi(charge) GOOD
result: 12

=====> m Messon pi(charge) GOOD
result: 9

=====> p Messon pi(charge) GOOD
result: 2

=====> sigma Messon pi(charge) GOOD
result: 3

=====> Mass Messon pi(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 139.574978093797
table: 139.56837088
diff: 0.00660721379671259
(HG)diff: 0.00180911999999012

=====> C Messon pi(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Messon pi(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Messon pi(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Messon pi(zero) GOOD
result: 12

=====> m Messon pi(zero) GOOD
result: 3

=====> p Messon pi(zero) GOOD
result: 6

=====> sigma Messon pi(zero) GOOD
result: 4

=====> Mass Messon pi(zero) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 134.97259601729
table: 134.96004114
diff: 0.0125548772899151
(HG)diff: 0.0165588600000035

=====> C Messon eta GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Messon eta GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Messon eta GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Messon eta GOOD
result: 18

=====> m Messon eta GOOD
result: 22

=====> p Messon eta GOOD
result: 17

=====> sigma Messon eta INCORRECT!!!
result: 12
table: 14
diff: 2

=====> Mass Messon eta INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 548.703495437385
table: 548.80002432
diff: 0.0965288826155302
(HG)diff: 1.50002432000008

=====> C Messon k(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> qx Messon k(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> q Messon k(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Messon k(charge) GOOD
result: 17

=====> m Messon k(charge) GOOD
result: 26

=====> p Messon k(charge) GOOD
result: 30

=====> sigma Messon k(charge) INCORRECT!!!
result: 17
table: 28
diff: 11

=====> Mass Messon k(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 493.788611705541
table: 493.71425074
diff: 0.0743609655408477
(HG)diff: 0.0372507399999904

=====> C Messon k(zero) GOOD
result: 1

=====> qx Messon k(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Messon k(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Messon k(zero) GOOD
result: 18

=====> m Messon k(zero) GOOD
result: 5

=====> p Messon k(zero) GOOD
result: 5

=====> sigma Messon k(zero) GOOD
result: 2

=====> Mass Messon k(zero) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 497.721634165388
table: 497.72299959
diff: 0.00136542461160616
(HG)diff: 0.0509995899999467

=====> C Baryon proton GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon proton GOOD
result: 1

=====> q Baryon proton GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon proton GOOD
result: 0

=====> m Baryon proton GOOD
result: 0

=====> p Baryon proton GOOD
result: 0

=====> sigma Baryon proton GOOD
result: 0

=====> Mass Baryon proton INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 938.251102166227
table: 938.27959246
diff: 0.0284902937727338
(HG)diff: 0.00728246000005583

=====> C Baryon neutron GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon neutron GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Baryon neutron GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Baryon neutron GOOD
result: 0

=====> m Baryon neutron GOOD
result: 0

=====> p Baryon neutron GOOD
result: -2

=====> sigma Baryon neutron GOOD
result: 17

=====> Mass Baryon neutron INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 939.393413295728
table: 939.57336128
diff: 0.179947984272303
(HG)diff: 0.0077312799999163

=====> C Baryon lambda GOOD
result: -1

=====> qx Baryon lambda GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Baryon lambda GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Baryon lambda GOOD
result: 1

=====> m Baryon lambda GOOD
result: 3

=====> p Baryon lambda GOOD
result: 0

=====> sigma Baryon lambda INCORRECT!!!
result: -12
table: -11
diff: 1

=====> Mass Baryon lambda INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1115.39589254888
table: 1115.59979064
diff: 0.203898091116571
(HG)diff: 0.0832093599999553

=====> C Baryon sigma(plus) GOOD
result: -1

=====> qx Baryon sigma(plus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> q Baryon sigma(plus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon sigma(plus) GOOD
result: 2

=====> m Baryon sigma(plus) GOOD
result: -7

=====> p Baryon sigma(plus) GOOD
result: -12

=====> sigma Baryon sigma(plus) GOOD
result: 10

=====> Mass Baryon sigma(plus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1189.36607002397
table: 1189.37409717
diff: 0.00802714602650667
(HG)diff: 0.00409717000002274

=====> C Baryon sigma(minus) GOOD
result: -1

=====> qx Baryon sigma(minus) GOOD
result: -1

=====> q Baryon sigma(minus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon sigma(minus) GOOD
result: 2

=====> m Baryon sigma(minus) GOOD
result: -6

=====> p Baryon sigma(minus) GOOD
result: -5

=====> sigma Baryon sigma(minus) GOOD
result: -8

=====> Mass Baryon sigma(minus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1197.277532406
table: 1197.30443002
diff: 0.026897614003019
(HG)diff: 0.144569980000142

=====> C Baryon sigma(zero) GOOD
result: -1

=====> qx Baryon sigma(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Baryon sigma(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Baryon sigma(zero) GOOD
result: 2

=====> m Baryon sigma(zero) GOOD
result: -7

=====> p Baryon sigma(zero) GOOD
result: -14

=====> sigma Baryon sigma(zero) GOOD
result: -2

=====> Mass Baryon sigma(zero) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1192.33048439946
table: 1192.47794854
diff: 0.147464140542979
(HG)diff: 0.16405146000011

=====> C Baryon xi(charge) GOOD
result: -2

=====> qx Baryon xi(charge) GOOD
result: -1

=====> q Baryon xi(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon xi(charge) GOOD
result: 2

=====> m Baryon xi(charge) GOOD
result: 7

=====> p Baryon xi(charge) GOOD
result: -17

=====> sigma Baryon xi(charge) GOOD
result: 2

=====> Mass Baryon xi(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1321.18763033312
table: 1321.29326013
diff: 0.105629796875746
(HG)diff: 0.0267398700000285

=====> C Baryon xi(zero) GOOD
result: -2

=====> qx Baryon xi(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Baryon xi(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Baryon xi(zero) GOOD
result: 2

=====> m Baryon xi(zero) GOOD
result: 6

=====> p Baryon xi(zero) GOOD
result: -1

=====> sigma Baryon xi(zero) GOOD
result: 6

=====> Mass Baryon xi(zero) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1314.7056266622
table: 1314.902062
diff: 0.196435337797993
(HG)diff: 0.00206199999979617

=====> C Baryon omega(charge) GOOD
result: -3

=====> qx Baryon omega(charge) GOOD
result: -1

=====> q Baryon omega(charge) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon omega(charge) GOOD
result: 4

=====> m Baryon omega(charge) GOOD
result: 4

=====> p Baryon omega(charge) GOOD
result: -1

=====> sigma Baryon omega(charge) GOOD
result: -15

=====> Mass Baryon omega(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1672.76091411693
table: 1672.17518902
diff: 0.585725096929991
(HG)diff: 0.274810979999984

=====> C Baryon delta(plusplus) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon delta(plusplus) GOOD
result: 2

=====> q Baryon delta(plusplus) GOOD
result: 2

=====> n Baryon delta(plusplus) GOOD
result: 2

=====> m Baryon delta(plusplus) INCORRECT!!!
result: -2
table: 1
diff: 3

=====> p Baryon delta(plusplus) INCORRECT!!!
result: 228
table: 9
diff: 219

=====> sigma Baryon delta(plusplus) INCORRECT!!!
result: 13
table: 4
diff: 9

=====> Mass Baryon delta(plusplus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1526.60735185081
table: 1232.91663788
diff: 293.690713970807
(HG)diff: 0.916637880000053

=====> C Baryon delta(plus) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon delta(plus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> q Baryon delta(plus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon delta(plus) GOOD
result: 2

=====> m Baryon delta(plus) GOOD
result: -1

=====> p Baryon delta(plus) GOOD
result: -1

=====> sigma Baryon delta(plus) GOOD
result: -6

=====> Mass Baryon delta(plus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1237.4673249826
table: 1234.60981181
diff: 2.85751317260429
(HG)diff: 2.60981181000011

=====> C Baryon delta(minus) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon delta(minus) GOOD
result: -1

=====> q Baryon delta(minus) GOOD
result: 1

=====> n Baryon delta(minus) GOOD
result: 2

=====> m Baryon delta(minus) GOOD
result: -1

=====> p Baryon delta(minus) GOOD
result: -16

=====> sigma Baryon delta(minus) GOOD
result: -15

=====> Mass Baryon delta(minus) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1232.50344673
table: 1237.06132359
diff: 4.55787685999826
(HG)diff: 5.06132359000003

=====> C Baryon delta(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> qx Baryon delta(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> q Baryon delta(zero) GOOD
result: 0

=====> n Baryon delta(zero) GOOD
result: 2

=====> m Baryon delta(zero) GOOD
result: -1

=====> p Baryon delta(zero) GOOD
result: -10

=====> sigma Baryon delta(zero) GOOD
result: 2

=====> Mass Baryon delta(zero) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1238.20946951982
table: 1229.99529979
diff: 8.21416972982161
(HG)diff: 2.00470021000001

Press ENTER to close...

MMC

6th March 2006 - 07:11 AM

I just tested the output of the C# Windows port against the output of spony's. They are both pretty much identical now, however, the Java version has a slightly more accurate output.

Download the corrected Windows version:

Burkhard_Heim_b0.07b_Win.exe (68K)
http://d.turboupload.com/d/408969/Burkhard...7b_Win.exe.html

Comparison of output:

Spony's Java app:

QUOTE

=====> Mass Baryon xi(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1321.1876303331087
table: 1321.29326013
diff: 0.10562979689120766
(HG)diff: 0.02673987000002853

My C# Windows app:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

=====> Mass Baryon xi(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1321.1876303331087
table: 1321.29326013
diff: 0.10562979689120766
(HG)diff: 0.02673987000002853

 
My C# Windows app:

=====> Mass Baryon xi(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1321.18763033312
table: 1321.29326013
diff: 0.105629796875746
(HG)diff: 0.0267398700000285

MMC

6th March 2006 - 07:33 AM

For those having trouble with Spony's source code, here is a fully compiled version. I have corrected a number of errors and packaged it into a jar file.

All you need to do is open your console, navigate to the folder containing the 'jar' file and type the following:

java -jar "JavaProject1.jar"

Spony's Java version Burkhard Heim's Mass Formula (Self-Extracting Zip File - 55.21 KB)
http://d.turboupload.com/d/409001/spony_BHMF_b0.07b.exe.html

Note:

This was compiled using jdk1.5.0_06, the runtime files are located here:

Web Update (Windows):
http://java.com/en/download/windows_ie.jsp

Manual Installation (Other platforms):
http://java.com/en/download/manual.jsp

jreed

6th March 2006 - 06:20 PM

[QUOTE=MMC,Mar 6 2006, 07:11 AM]
Spony's Java app:[QUOTE]
=====> Mass Baryon xi(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1321.1876303331087
table: 1321.29326013
diff: 0.10562979689120766
(HG)diff: 0.02673987000002853

My C# Windows app:
=====> Mass Baryon xi(charge) INCORRECT (TABLE)!!!
result: 1321.18763033312
table: 1321.29326013
diff: 0.105629796875746
(HG)diff: 0.0267398700000285
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]

Mathematica comes up with 1321.283 for the mass of Xi-.

John Reed

MMC

7th March 2006 - 03:49 AM

QUOTE

Mathematica comes up with 1321.283 for the mass of Xi-.

 How did you calculate it?

jreed

7th March 2006 - 03:26 PM

QUOTE (MMC+Mar 7 2006, 03:49 AM)

How did you calculate it?

[QUOTE]

I can show you the Mathematica code and the answers it gives. You will have to download MathReader from the Wolfram website and I will send you the notebook to look at. Contact me by e-mail if you want the notebook sent.

I took the fortran code from the Heim group and the pdf files from their web site and converted them to Mathematica code. Mathematica computes the masses according to their equations.

John Reed

MMC

7th March 2006 - 06:02 PM

QUOTE

I can show you the Mathematica code and the answers it gives. You will have to download MathReader from the Wolfram website and I will send you the notebook to look at. Contact me by e-mail if you want the notebook sent.

I took the fortran code from the Heim group and the pdf files from their web site and converted them to Mathematica code. Mathematica computes the masses according to their equations.

 Mathematica is handy, however, I prefer writing the applications myself. I was just wondering why your result was different from both mine and spony's.

Update on the C# port of spony's app:

I had a chance to install my C# version of spony's Burkhard Heim's Mass Formula on another Windows machine. I forgot that you need the .NET runtime files from Microsoft for C# programs to operate, or else you'll get errors when you try to run the program.

So, if you have had any problems running the app, this should sort it out. Install Microsoft's runtime for the .NET framework and then run my port of spony's app.

Link to C# version (Windows .exe) of spony's app:
http://d.turboupload.com/d/408969/Burkhard...7b_Win.exe.html

Link to runtime files at Microsoft:
Microsoft .NET Framework Version 1.1 Redistributable Package

I'll correct the accuracy of the numbers when I get the chance and make it identical to spony's results.

Kettricken

7th March 2006 - 08:00 PM

Regarding differences in the output when calculating masses.

It reminds me about when we, some years ago at school, compared discrepansies on our handcalculators when doing the same calculation. And then we found out that they used numerical series to calculate ln, sin and cos.

Intel Pentium has over 60 known bugs, most of them minor.

One of the most wellknown is the "division bug" some years ago. There are reports of bugs in C++ compilers too.

The calculation you try to do here, have many steps and many significant numbers. Could be that you happens to be victim of a bug, a small one, but very anoying.

Googling on the web after "division bug" gave me around 700 hits.

spony

7th March 2006 - 08:54 PM

Hello everyone,

Good work on the C# port MMC, I suppose It's more inviting to work with for windows folks.

You asked some questions earlier regarding BigInteger and/or BigDecimal, you should use the J2SE API documentation to resolve such questions, for example here is documentation on BigInteger:

BigInteger

It is necissary to ensure that the factorial and combination functions don't overflow. (which they would already do for longs at around 20! if i remember correctly)

QUOTE

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Mathematica comes up with 1321.283 for the mass of Xi-.

 John, that result is really pretty meaningless without context. For example what figure are you using as the gravitational constant? Also you wrote earlier:

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.

 This is not entirerly true. Only 5 input values are needed to predict the mass of particles and not 9. (these are k, P, Q, kappa and x). The rest can be calculated from these. The mass results from the java application are slightly more incorrect because it is calculating these auxilary input values from the base 5 that are needed (the procedure seems to need some bug fixing). Also epsilonC (or qx as it is also refered to) is used in the self-couplings function of formula 1989 and also in the Heim Theory Group version of the same i believe.

It's good to see an another independantly implemented version works though.

Regards Martin

MMC

7th March 2006 - 08:59 PM

QUOTE

The calculation you try to do here, have many steps and many significant numbers. Could be that you happens to be victim of a bug, a small one, but very anoying.

 The problem with my C# application is simply that I have not set the output format. Thus, I am losing resolution during calculation. I'll get around to it when I get some time. I was more concerned with functionality than output precision when porting spony's app. Other than that, the app works perfect.

The mathematica output is puzzling. I can only assume that the algorythm is different to the one both myself and spony implemented. Its difficult to explain as computational error induced by a bug, normally, the effects would be more pronounced.

I want to see when spony is updating the source code again, as I want to provide a Windows interface instead of it running on the command line. I'm also thinking of allowing the values and/or the formula to be manipulated. I'll see what spony has planned and I'll work from there.

spony

7th March 2006 - 09:20 PM

QUOTE

I want to see when spony is updating the source code again, as I want to provide a Windows interface instead of it running on the command line. I'm also thinking of allowing the values and/or the formula to be manipulated. I'll see what spony has planned and I'll work from there.

 MMC as i alluded to in my post some days ago, I don't have much planed. I know there are bugs in my code because of the simple fact that I haven't systematicly double checked the new Heim Group code. Unfortunately all I really have time for lately is droping by this forum every few days to answer questions. If you want to contribute to the process I suggest you get a hold of the Heim Groups fortran code or perhaps Johns Mathmatica implementation and double check the code.

It also sounds like you are waiting for me to implement a GUI? Well I've already done this in the form of an applet and I don't plan to go any further with it. If you would like inspiration take a look at the GUI code:

HeimCalculator.jar

Although I doubt you can use the code for much else then inspiration since GUI's are designed differently in C# (visualy from my experience).

Regards Martin

MMC

7th March 2006 - 09:40 PM

QUOTE

Good work on the C# port MMC, I suppose It's more inviting to work with for windows folks. smile.gif

 It reaches a broader audience and an executable file is more familar for most to work with.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Good work on the C# port MMC, I suppose It's more inviting to work with for windows folks. smile.gif

 It reaches a broader audience and an executable file is more familar for most to work with.

You asked some questions earlier regarding BigInteger and/or BigDecimal, you should use the J2SE API documentation to resolve such questions, for example here is documentation on BigInteger:

BigInteger

It is necissary to ensure that the factorial and combination functions don't overflow. (which they would already do for longs at around 20! if i remember correctly)

 Actually, I did read it and that's how I finished the app. I have a few narrowing conversions that I need to sit down and resolve and some formatting options need changing, however, its not a major issue. When I get a hour free, I'll finish it off.

QUOTE

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

MMC as i alluded to in my post some days ago, I don't have much planed. I know there are bugs in my code because of the simple fact that I haven't systematicly double checked the new Heim Group code. Unfortunately all I really have time for lately is droping by this forum every few days to answer questions. If you want to contribute to the process I suggest you get a hold of the Heim Groups fortran code or perhaps Johns Mathmatica implementation and double check the code.

 The main problem is that I have never read any of Burkhard's material...whilst I understand the code, I don't have a full picture of the theory behind it...nor how scientifically sound that theory is...

It also sounds like you are waiting for me to implement a GUI? Well I've already done this in the form of an applet and I don't plan to go any further with it. If you would like inspiration take a look at the GUI code:

HeimCalculator.jar

Although I doubt you can use the code for much else then inspiration since GUI's are designed differently in C# (visualy from my experience).

 I've already reversed engineered your .class files...I used the .jar file from your server...

I was going to put in some edit boxes and allow manual override of certain values or the ability to add new particles...allowing speculative calculations and the ability to save that.

rshoemake

7th March 2006 - 09:45 PM

How do we know that You're not going to hack our machines?

Anyway, good work guys. I'd like to see almost a data mining or statistical approach. Is there someway we can deduce some of this simply by apply more computer science? I need to bone up more on that stuff.

Rich

will314159

8th March 2006 - 04:06 AM

i've been using microsofts new search engine www.live.com and i have found this new article- new to me (I think anyway) by Burkhard Heim. A translation titled "Elementary Structures of Matter."

It is very concise and it is a good summary of the concepts we have discussed here.

http://www.datadiwan.de/netzwerk/index_e.h...im/he_002e_.htm

Take Care!

will314159

8th March 2006 - 04:27 PM

What if I said after crunching through all the HEIM math a closed formula for the mass of the neutron was achieved, to wit:

[(3)(2p)(1/1-a)(2ph/c2)**1/2] [2p(3)ch/2G]**1/4 yielding a value of
1.6744 x 10-27 kg

where p is apparently a quantum number, a is ?????, h is planck's number, c is the speed of light, G has to be the Gravitational constant.

Actually this formula comes from
http://www.hydrino.org/faq.php

Where Heim theory is just considered Not Mainstream, Hydrino theory is considered PseudoPhysics.

Just focusing on the Mass Formula. It brings up some questions.
Are there some redundant parameters and cancellations in there?
Can it be super-greatly simplified?

Take Care!

spencer7197

8th March 2006 - 08:01 PM

will314159,

the "p" in your link appears to be pi. If you put pi in for "p" in the neutron magnetic moment equation you get there answer. Im not sure what "a" is though.

Spencer

MMC

8th March 2006 - 08:24 PM

QUOTE

How do we know that You're not going to hack our machines?

 Because the file can be tested by anyone with a firewall...

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

How do we know that You're not going to hack our machines?

 Because the file can be tested by anyone with a firewall...

Where Heim theory is just considered Not Mainstream, Hydrino theory is considered PseudoPhysics.

Just focusing on the Mass Formula. It brings up some questions.
Are there some redundant parameters and cancellations in there?
Can it be super-greatly simplified?

 I'm reluctant to explore it any further...its a waste of time if the theory doesn't hold up...however I had a read of the general theory:

QUOTE

The reasonable accuracy of the mass formula - The mass formula predicts the masses of 16 elementary particles to a relative accuracy of one part in 10,000. No other established theory of fundamental particles at present have made comparable theoretical predictions to this accuracy.

There are 4 input parameters in the theory - h (Planck's Constant), G (Gravitational constant), vacuum permittivity and permeability. Combinations of these constants in various mathematical functions derived from Heim theory allows one to derive existing particle masses and their lifetimes to within a reasonable experimental error. It also proposes that other particles not discovered at present, are in existence. The Heim theory also proposes that the fine structure constant is dependent on these 4 other constants.

Some of the predictions are still outstanding - e.g. the neutrino masses

A sign that the theory is perhaps undergoing a renewal of interest is a paper published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics in 2005 authored by Droescher and Haeuser. The paper discusses potential aerospace applications of Heim theory. It was decided by the Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion Technical Committee of the AIAA to acknowledge the publication with a "best paper of the year" award in July 2005. This award attracted much attention, including the cover story for the first 2006 issue of New Scientist [5]

The mass formulae

The mass formulae are perhaps the most important of Heim's theory at the moment. This is because it is the portion of his theory which can be thoroughly analyzed by comparing its numerical results and a standard table of masses for fundamental particles. There are multiple mass formula equations used in succession to compute the entire theoretical "mass spectrum".

In Heim's 1989 mass formula [6], the expression for the masses is broken down as follows:

M = μα + [(G + S + F + φ) + 4qα − ]

Heim's approach to calculating the mass spectrum requires 4 parameters, of which the gravitational constant G is the least precise. It has an uncertainty of up to 0.001. As a result, relative errors of up to 0.001 are expected. This assumption holds if the mass formula equations are more or less linear with respect to G.

The errors indicated in the table are approximately 100 times lower than this value. This indicates that the theory is either:

1. Nonlinear in G;
2. The value of G fortuitously produces these results.

A more precise estimate of the expected error due to G from the theorists would be required to determine which case this is, but this has apparently not yet been produced. As a result, no error bars have been computed for the theoretical values.

Misnomers

The method of extending Heim Theory to higher dimensions than the four known, results in a theory which describes the physical world in terms of an increasing number of dimensions. These extra dimensions (which are auxiliary to length, width, height, and time) are often liberally associated with notions such as "consciousness", "spirit", etc. This, however, is a misinterpretation of Heim, as he always associated x5 and x6 only with organisation and nothing more. This misunderstanding is probably due to Heim's interest later in his life to provide a framework for such perceptions and experiences.

It should be noted that it is convenient to label the additional dimensions, but this only serves as a tool for organization. The additional dimensions need not necessarily correspond to physical reality and be interpreted literally. This is because the labelling is arbitrary, and it serves to provide a name for a particular property of the equations in Heim Theory. This is analogous to quantum chromodynamics where quarks are assigned properties named after different colours. Particle physicists are not suggesting that quarks have "colour", rather, that they have an important property for which an arbitrary label has been applied.

These extra dimensions in Heim Theory should be considered auxiliary coordinates occurring as a mathematical tool in the theory. It introduces symmetry into Heim Theory which simplifies its expression and manipulation. The phenomena described in these auxiliary coordinates of Heim theory are projected into real coordinate space which then describe the physics of fundamental particles and the universe.

As an analogy, in Max Born's interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wavefunction ψ itself has no physical meaning, but its magnitude squared |ψ|2 has physical meaning corresponding to probability density. Likewise, the additional coordinates in Heim theory have no physical meaning - only when they are combined together in some mathematical manner does the result have any meaningful physical result.

<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory

A 'mass spectrum' sounds about right...I don't think this is the pseudo-science that a lot of people have been claiming. His approach is something that I would be familiar with, its more along the lines of Matrix mechanics than wave equations. People had problems with the abstract nature of Heisenburg's approach too, but it functioned.

If I can confirm that the mass predictions are indeed accurate, and not just claims, then I would be more inclined to explore it further. Once I get a clear understanding of the theory, then I should be able to extend it without much problem.

The main difficulty here is the lack of independent references with which to cross-reference the work...

rshoemake

8th March 2006 - 08:49 PM

Respectfully

MMC

8th March 2006 - 09:05 PM

QUOTE

Hey no offense MMC, but technically we're just trusting you that your code wont do something nasty. I belive your trustworthy, but I was tongue-n-cheek pointing out that here we are just arbitrarily running somebody's executable on our unsuspecting machines. Firewall or not that isnt a good practice.

 Thanks for the public health notice, but you have a number of software engineers here and I'm sure they'd say something if there was anything wrong with the file.

Zephir

8th March 2006 - 09:08 PM

QUOTE (rshoemake+Mar 8 2006, 11:49 PM)

we are just arbitrarily running somebody's executable on our unsuspecting machines. Firewall or not that isnt a good practice

I don't know, why MMC doesn't includes the source code. MMC's version of program including source: a, b

MMC

8th March 2006 - 09:14 PM

QUOTE

I don't know, why MMC doesn't includes the source code. MMC's version of program including source: a, b

 I will provide the source when I have made the adjustments to the output accuracy. It will be in .NET 2003 format.

I also wanted to give it a GUI, possibly using a graphic of the atom, so that you get a visual sense of the data.

MMC

8th March 2006 - 09:18 PM

I think it should also be possible to use Heim's equations not only to predict the "mass spectrum", but then relate that against it's Energy, using E=MC^2, providing a map of the "Energy spectrum".

Zephir

8th March 2006 - 09:29 PM

QUOTE (MMC+Mar 9 2006, 12:14 AM)

I also wanted to give it a GUI, possibly using a graphic of the atom, so that you get a visual sense of the data.

You can use a graphics of the neutron...

MMC

8th March 2006 - 10:30 PM

Zephir, what I need is a diagram that is clearly labeled...that would make things simplier.

MMC

8th March 2006 - 11:46 PM

I was thinking along the lines of something like this:

User posted image

will314159

9th March 2006 - 12:06 AM

a mass formula that gives masses is a mass formula independent of its origin.

If you can get a mass formula in one line with just a few variables, that is a theory by itself right there. I should have figured out p for pi because i remember in the discussion of spony's code pi came up.

what are the candidates for "a?"
They would be inputs in the HEIM mass formula that appear to be missing in the hydrino one
edit corrected equation
(3)(2p)(1/1-a)[(2ph/c2)**1/2] [2p(3)ch/2G]**1/4

maybe a is the fine structure constant 1/137 which is connected to both pi and "e" the natural lograthimic base.

http://www.btinternet.com/~ugah174/

edit. Upon further review and reading it appears that the "a" is some kind of expermintally derived particle radius. This leaves HEIM theory as the only theory that gives particle mass from a completely first principle basis plus G.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/bookdownload.shtml

thus (1/1-a) equals all the other leftover stuff in the Heim mass formula.

Take Care!

will314159

9th March 2006 - 10:30 AM

HDeasy has pointed out that Wikipedia has a separate entry for MASS FORMULA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_formula

It recognizes two versions, 1) HEIM and 2) the hydrino CQM.

There are no formulas on that page and predicts more activity for HEIM in 2006-07.

Take Care!

MMC

9th March 2006 - 03:14 PM

Thanks for the link Will, I had a little read:

QUOTE

Heim-theory refers to a paper by Burkhard Heim and subsequent developments by Walter Dröscher and a handful of others. It consists partly of a family of mass formulae. These formulae, it is alleged, arise from considering various subsets of a theoretical 12-dimensional space. Supporters claim that Heim's mass formulae successfully predict the masses of a large number of common particles to a high degree of accuracy.

However, the derivation of the formula has to be further elucidated before confirming that the predictions are justified. As Heim was a respected physicists it is assumed that the formulae are indeed the product of consistent physical reasoning. However, a fuller derivation is needed, in English, and should soon be forthcoming, as the Heim Theory Group's goal is to publish one in 2006 or 2007 in a mainstream physics journal.

Some followers describe Heim-theory as a potential theory of everything (TOE). However, there are currently very few published papers dealing with these ideas, and it seems fair to say that Heim-theory is currently some distance from becoming an accepted replacement for other candidate TOEs such as String Theory.

<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_formula' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_formula

I don't see it as a TOE either, it is more like Maxwell's equations, only for a "mass spectrum" instead of electromagnetic.

Perhaps we will have software for them to accompany the paper...

To do that, we need the following:

1. Independent confirmation of the pdf on Selected results...
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/G_Selected_Results.pdf

2. A solid, detailed, description of the theory in plain English...this will allow a very wide delivery of the theory and essential for proper documentation. Also, a copy of the published theory and all relating material, in an off-line HTML format, to allow further independent progession.

3. Labeled diagrams to provide a visual sense of the data.

4. Independent review and confirmation of the application's output data.

5. A comprehensive list of values yet to determined...that is, a list of other particles and their mass.

6. A wishlist of functions that the application can perform.

Kettricken

9th March 2006 - 03:35 PM

I link to download of an Excel-file with Hems Mass formula I found when browsing the web.

http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/new.htm

will314159

9th March 2006 - 05:47 PM

Kettricken

Thank you very much for the link to the Excel sheet. It was so instructive to see that table of all the constants used in the computation all lined up in a column. I didn't realize the fine structure constant was in there.

Also at that site was a "layman's" explantion of the protosimplex which is the theory of matter condensation. That was very good.

I have bookmarked the site.

Of course HEIM is a TOE or a GUT. In fact it is the only credible one right now that has a mass formula.

[Well the hydrino theory (CQM) also has a mass formula but it seems to incorporate measured radiuses]

{edit. I have confirmed that the CQM a=hydrogen atom radius which can be measured or computed from the measured electrical charge e.}

As Edward Witten explained in that little slide show with audio I cited many pages ago, classical theory breaks down at two key singularities. In Electromagnetics when the electron approaches the proton at r=0, hence the need for quantum mechanics or the equivalent. And General Relativity when r=0, hence the need for quantum gravity. HEIM takes care of both singularities.

jreed

9th March 2006 - 06:33 PM

QUOTE (spony+Mar 7 2006, 08:54 PM)

John, that result is really pretty meaningless without context. For example what figure are you using as the gravitational constant?

[QUOTE]

Here are some values for Xi- mass for different values of G from my Mathematica program:

G=6.663X10^-11 1321.62 This is the lower limit for G, according to Heim group
G=6.6742X10^-11 1321.26 Recent CODATA value and some experiments
G=6.672237X10^-11 1321.319 Heim fortran default value
G=6.683X10^-11 1320.96 Upper limit for G according to Heim group

It's interesting to note that the value used in Heim fortran gives the mass of Xi- almost exactly (1321.32 +/-.13).

John

Kettricken

9th March 2006 - 08:17 PM

jreed

I have Mathematica installed on my PC at work.
I would like to take a look at your Heim-template. Can you make it available on the web with a link here? Would be very nice of you to do that.

I think many besides me would like to have a look, as this is a very interesting theory.

MMC

9th March 2006 - 08:35 PM

I'm in the process of converting spony's app to a Windows version. Its going to be bulkier than the console version. To present the information in an ordered fashion and set options the front-end will need to re-written. Its pretty straight-forward, just time-consuming.

I have the GUI pretty much finished. Just structuring the information done wonders for understanding the basic theory. The first version shall be along the lines of spony's calculator, however, rather than summerizing the information, it present the full range of information across 21 tabs.

http://www.daimi.au.dk/~spony/HeimMassForm...HeimCalculator/

I'll provide options to change the formula and the gravitational constant.

Does anyone know how spony's output compares to the fortran output?

RAF

10th March 2006 - 12:37 AM

QUOTE (Kettricken+Mar 9 2006, 08:17 PM)

If a Mathematica version were converted for Scilab (4.0), anyone could benefit -- Scilab is free.

Ron

RAF

10th March 2006 - 12:43 AM

QUOTE (Kettricken+Mar 9 2006, 03:35 PM)

I link to download of an Excel-file with Hems Mass formula I found when browsing the web.

http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/new.htm

In order to check precedents and dependents of the cells, it appears that 'heim' works as a PW.

leovinus

10th March 2006 - 10:40 AM

Hi All,

Seems like we are getting more and more implementations of the theory. Good.

As a few people asked before it would be nice to have them all available,
preferably on the same site. Java, C##, Mathematica. Someone mentioned
a PASCAL implementation from the 80's (a predecessor to the Fortran code?)
and it would be nice to have that too for comparison.

A couple of remarks in relation to recent discussions:

1. [MMC] Does anyone know how spony's output compares to the fortran output?

hdeasy posted the output of the HeimGroup Fortran program a few weeks
ago on this forum. I did some comparison of that output with the output
of spony's Java code, and that brought up a couple of questions (and a potential
bug - but I could be mistaken) about
the Fortran program. These questions and results were also posted on the forum. Unfortunately, no answers :/

2. Since there is now a C## and Mathematica version, I have some more food for
thought for you

(a) Does any of the new code has correct output for all values of N3, N5, N6?
We have a version of N3 in spony's code that is correct except for N3(2,2).
It would be nice to know whether the code is correct of the value in the "results"
is wrong.

(

I haven't verfied this with the latest version of spony's code but it seemed to me that, when trying this 2 weeks ago, using the most correct N3 version, and the 1982 Java code (maybe also with the HG code?) that when you print the intermediate results for a1/a2/a3 and the Masses, there is pattern in the errors for delta_+, delta_++,delta_- and delta_o.

It looked like e.g. the mass prediction for delta_++ should be for delta_o, delta_-
for delta_++, etc. Just quoting from the top of my head here.

In fact, there was a almost perfect permutation of results with a much
better fit to the selected results "G". It begged the question to me - are the
values in "G" mixed up or is it a coding error?

Do you guys see the same in Mathematica et al?

© It seems that the theory guys of the HeimGroup are indeed writing or correcting papers. The long version in German "D" at
http://www.heim-theory.com/Inhalt/Einfuhru...imsche_mas.html

was available earlier this year. Now it "being corrected". Maybe someone can
comment on when there will be a more up-to-date version, or whether all
the new code can help finding bugs?

(d) In fact, the version of N3() which works best, now in spony's code, is not in
any of the D,E,F papers from 82/89. It was just some debugging to find
out where to place the ()()

And voila. Makes me wonder if we can spot more
issues.

Enjoy, and keep up the good work,

L.

Mikhail

10th March 2006 - 11:19 AM

Hello ! A little half off topic :

http://www.arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf

Experimental Detection of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment by Martin Tajmar, Florin Plesescu, Klaus Marhold & Clovis J. de Matos
Space Propulsion, ARC Seibersdorf research GmbH, A-2444 Seibersdorf,
Austria
ESA-HQ, European Space Agency, 8-10 rue Mario Nikis, 75015 Paris, France

If they are right, how is this can be interpretated in the terms of Heim theory ?

will314159

10th March 2006 - 12:25 PM

The administrator of the site where the EXcel worksheet resides has a link to PhsyorgForum for Heim Particle Structure Theory. Unfortuanately it was a bad link that pointed to an atom bomb triggering discussion.

I emailed him, gave him the proper llink, and thanked him for the Excel worksheet. He rewarded me today by forwarding an Engllish translated copy of the Excel worksheet for evaluation and debugging.

If anybody is interested in a copy, please email.

Take Care!

PS Edit
i had some questions and comments
what is a POV in reference to Excel?

Fortran was the granddaddy programming language. it stands for Formula Translator. Pascal, named after the famed French Mathmetician, was the first of the modern languages, using procedures and structured programming. for more there's always Wikipedia.

Kettricken

10th March 2006 - 02:13 PM

will314159

QUOTE

what is a POV in reference to Excel?
 

Maybe this link can help you:

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~NJ2T-HG/ilphowte.htm

will314159

10th March 2006 - 02:22 PM

Thanks Kettricken
the link was a little over my head though. I did a little googling. POV stands for Point of View. I see the connection to ray tracing. I used to have an AMIGA computer back in the dark ages that used to be able to do all kinds of far out stuff that no other computer could. It had several co-processors on board. Each one had a name. Agnes was one. It had a ray tracing program.

Going off topic.
Learned something else obscure. PASCAL was a teaching language derived from ALGOL. Algol is named after the star. Anybody that knows a little Arabic knows that Al-Gol means Al-Ghoul, the Ghost or Monster as in "ghoulish." I wonder what the connection is to naming a lprogramming anguage.

Zephir

10th March 2006 - 02:25 PM

QUOTE (will314159+Mar 10 2006, 05:22 PM)

Algol is named after the star...

It's a romantic view, indeed...

ALGOL is the stand (acronym) for ALGOritmic Language. Maybe it was inspired by the old arabian name, because such acronym can be constructed by the many ways.

will314159

10th March 2006 - 03:02 PM

Very Good Zephir, I stand corrected. I made an unwarranted assumption. Of course it is named after " Algorithmic language." I"m sure it was a ghoul to learn. I had to learn Fortran in Physical chem to do a numerical calculation of the Schrodinger solution of the hydrogen atom. that was after i'd already had a college course in some watered down Pascal equivalent that I can't even remember the name of.

That was in the punch card days before most people on this board were born.

That was a ghoulish experience!

HDeasy has had a look at the English Excel sheet and translated the remainder. my contribution was changing zentral to central and expanding some columns.

I just got an Email from Olaf the Administrator from Protosimplex. He says he will post the English version on the site soon, maybe as soon as tonite. He welcomes collaboration on it, but wants to be informed of changes. There is a change log on the last page. I emailed him my version and noted the changes on the change long.

Here is a list of the translated constants the the Excel sheet.

1. Given constants (input)

Name Wert
µ0 Vacuum permeability (4.Pi. E-07) 1.256637000000E-06
e0 Vacuum permitivity 8.854188000000E-12
ga Newton gravitational constant 6.673319800000E-11 [m^3 / (kg*s^2)]
hq Planck's Constant (h bar) 1.054571596000E-34 [Ws*s]
s0 length unit 1m 1.000000000000E+00 [m]

fakMeV Conversion factor 5.609589200000E+29 [kg] -> [MeV/c^2]

pi Pi 3.141592653590E+00 pi(0)
ebn e 2.718281828459E+00 exp(1)

2. Derived natural constants

c Speed of light 2.99792462E+08 [m/s]
Rg Vacuum wave Resistance R- 3.76730300E+02 [Ohm]

Geometric constants
xi geometric constant (VI) 1.61803399E+00
eta eta shortening (V) 9.89989641E-01
eta11 eta(1,1) shortening (V) 9.87563988E-01
eta12 eta(1,2) shortening (V) 9.85167764E-01
eta22 eta(2,2) 8.42423846E-01
theta theta shortening (V) 7.93991267E+00

Fine structure constant: Heim 1982 Heim 1989
(right side) 7.29716030E-03 7.29715612E-03
beta Beta = Alpha- 9.99973374E-01 9.99973374E-01
alfa Alpha = Alpha+ 7.29735460E-03 7.29735042E-03
1/Alpha 1.37035961E+02 1.37036040E+02
1/Beta 1.00002663E+00 1.00002663E+00

eq Elementary electric charge e+- 1.60216462E-19 [As]

alfp Alpha+ (geometric factor) 1.83221151E-02
alfm Alpha- (geometric factor) 8.12834494E-03

For calculation of my please choose a value for gamma at page "Particles"!
amu my mass element (VI) 2.25898457E-31 [kg]

Take Care!
Edit More Info
From Email
Olaf Posdzech this is okay as far as the members of the forum will contact me when doing changes. ..............
The results of the excel sheet match the results of the 1982 DESY
program. I have already checked this. So changes in the equations are
not necessary.

The pascal version is almost running as well.
....."

leovinus

10th March 2006 - 03:07 PM

> Someone mentioned a PASCAL implementation from the 80's (a predecessor to the Fortran code?)

Sorry for the confusion. I am familiar with PASCAL just fine after
using it ages ago. I was wondering about >what< was implemented
in PASCAL. What was the basis for the PASCAL code? Who implemented it?
Was the basis the '82 paper "D" or maybe some notes or other
papers from Heim himself that we do not have access to?

If the basis of the PASCAL code is the '82 paper, then it is probably similar to
spony's Java code, which now is also very similar to the FORTRAN code.

If the basis of the PASCAL code would be something else, i.e., not the Heim papers
D,E,F from '82 and '89, then it may or may not contain additional clues for
further debugging and detecting errors in the printed formula's. Therefore,
I would be interested to see that old code :)

L.

will314159

10th March 2006 - 03:13 PM

What I said I learned Fortran AFTER I learned a structured programming language.
It was a change after just being albe to say PRINT to have to say write(3,5) etc. Everything had to be spelled out. It was very klutzu back then. I'm sure now it has procedures.

physicits and chemists still USE Fortran. It has been going through many, many, incarnations. it executes very fast and has a ton of canned scientifi applications.

Wikipedia is the quickest source on this stuff.
Edit
Fortran is American, was started in the late 50's
Pascal is Algol derived, European, from Zurich, circa 1970.

Take Care!

jreed

10th March 2006 - 03:19 PM

For those of you with Mathematica, the HeimMass notebook can be downloaded from:

http://briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/ka5qep@sbcgl...cuments&.view=l

I made it public. If it won't work, let me know.

Enjoy the math.

John Reed

mdda123

10th March 2006 - 03:37 PM

Based on the Mathematica book (which is beautiful) I've been putting together an equivalent Maxima book.

Both Mathematica and Maxima are computer algebra systems - the key difference being that Maxima is Free (source code and $0) and Mathematica is not free (check out the Amazon price for non-students). Since the packages handle equations algebraically, they can easily do higher precision, or symbolic manipulation.

I'm doing a straight translation job, and will post the plain-text version when it's ready (maybe tomorrow).

Martin
:-)

PS: Maxima is available for *unix and Windows - grab it from sourceforge. It also does TeX output and graphing...

will314159

10th March 2006 - 07:09 PM

Spony, JRedd, Martin, et al

We have several implemenations of the Mass Theory now. Java, Mathematica, C++(I believe), and some more coming.

What is needed is a central repository to publish them. What better place than the site where Kettricken found the Excel sheet. At any rate, that is my Suggestion.

http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/index_e.htm

the site was one of the first to popularize the physics of Burkardt Heim in an accessible form.

the web master can be reached at "Olaf Posdzech" <op@praxis-posdzech.de>

If you wish, Please email him directly with you work product attached so proper credit can be given and conditions of its publication and updates can be established.

Edit
the link to our forum is found at
http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/links_e.htm#Links
under the header
"Forum: Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
Diskussion regarding the computation of Heims unified formula of particle masses with different software tools (Java, Excel).(2006) "

Take Care!

rshoemake

10th March 2006 - 07:32 PM

Guys,

Why not simply start SourceForge projects for each of them and link over to those? It's a handy tool for tracking requests etc and making the code widely available to every one.

Rich

ps the link is www.sourceforge.com

will314159

10th March 2006 - 07:39 PM

http://maxima.sourceforge.net/
edit
It appears to be a LINUX application.
whoops- i've posted one too many- i've statused into advanced membership.

will314159

10th March 2006 - 08:24 PM

O.K. The ENGLISH EXCEL file has now been pulbished at

http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/new.htm

when you download the zip file, the english one is the 0.52c en

Olaf says
"There still are some words left in German (Resonanzordung), but we can
fix this later.

Please dont worry about me readjusting the columns in "Tables".
you can see all values when you click a cell or when you load the values.
If anyone needs a better view on the values I have to re-arrange the
complete "Tables" sheet so that all tabels are arranged in the same
manner (may be vertical style).

The pascal code indeed might be useless for the people that are familiar
with Java or c. I wrote it to help myself in understanding the Heim
algorithms. In addition it can provide large outputs of mass values so
that visualation of the output will be possible."

Please email suggested changes directly to the protosimplex webmaster at
op@praxis-posdzech.de

Take Care!
My best guess is that "Resonanzordung " means Resonance Allocation

araven

10th March 2006 - 08:41 PM

Greetings,

During the last week I was working on an independant piece of code for the particle mass calculation. The code, which is written in C, implements the 1989 formulas, and at the moment lacks the part of quadruples' (n, m, p, sigma) calculation.

The results (presented below), inspite being logical, disagree slightly with those presented by Heim's group.

CODE

=== constants ===============================================
=============================================================
name | symbol | units | value
-------------------------------------------------------------
pi | pi | --- | 3.14159265359
xi | xi | --- | 1.61803398875
eta | eta | --- | 0.9899896408
tet | tet | --- | 7.939912667
alp+ | alp+ | --- | 0.01832212397
alp- | alp- | --- | 0.008128353747
-------------------------------------------------------------
speed of light | c | m/s | 299792458
gravitational constant | G | N*m^2/kg | 6.6742e-11
elementary charge | e | C | 1.60217653e-19
planck's constant | h | J*s | 6.6260693e-34
dirac's constant | h-bar | J*s | 1.054571682e-34
constant of induction | miu_0 | N/A | 1.256637061e-06
constant of influence | eps_0 | F/m | 8.854187818e-12
fine structure const | alpha | --- | 0.007297354598
gauge factor | s_0 | m | 1
mass element | miu | kg | 2.258935082e-31
=============================================================

=== Q values ============
=========================
k | Q_n | Q_m | Q_p | Q_s
-------------------------
1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1
2 | 24 | 31 | 34 | 15
=========================

=== N values =====================================================================
==================================================================================
k:q | N_1 | N_2 | N_3 | N_4 | N_5 | N_6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1:0 | 1.00000000 | 0.66666667 | 1.95718556 | 4.00000000 | 1.15773376 | 0.00000164
1:1 | 0.99688127 | 0.67506174 | 1.95731767 | 4.00000000 | 1.15773376 | 0.00000164
1:2 | 0.96389849 | 0.77446686 | 1.95871530 | 4.00000000 | 1.15773376 | 0.00000164
2:0 | 1.00000000 | 0.66666667 | 2.66009098 | 2.00000000 | 1.15773376 |-0.10521531
2:1 | 0.99627809 | 0.67670370 | 2.59881924 | 4.00000000 | 1.73239193 | 0.02525567
2:2 | 0.95891825 | 0.79136728 | 2.05928417 | 6.00000000 |76.73188427 | 0.15572666
==================================================================================

=== particles ===============================================================================
=============================================================================================
name | symbol | ch | W | phi | th mass [Mev] | ex mass [Mev] | error
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
electron | e- | -1 | 38.70 | 0.00 | 0.50694376 | 0.51099907 | 0.79%
muon | miu- | -1 | 2831.14 | 2.57 | 105.65230987 | 105.65838900 | 0.01%
eta | eta | 0 | 9905.57 | 5.07 | 548.74597958 | 547.30000000 | 0.26%
charged kaon | KAPPA+ | 1 | 8858.95 | -40.78 | 493.69558066 | 493.67700000 | 0.00%
neutral kaon | KAPPA0 | 0 | 9332.74 | -12.73 | 497.70267796 | 497.67200000 | 0.01%
charged pion | pi+- | 1 | 3515.12 | -2.33 | 139.56019154 | 139.57018000 | 0.01%
neutral pion | pi0 | 0 | 3419.76 | -5.12 | 134.94888708 | 134.97660000 | 0.02%
lambda | LAMBDA | 0 | 16827.21 | 0.00 | 1115.40594053 | 1115.68300000 | 0.02%
omega | OMEGA- | -1 | 23156.62 | -137.04 | 1672.12156374 | 1672.45000000 | 0.02%
proton | p | 1 | 14793.19 | 9.28 | 938.24772703 | 938.27231000 | 0.00%
neutron | n | 0 | 14828.56 | 11.17 | 939.40283342 | 939.56563000 | 0.02%
neutral xi | XI0 | 0 | 18989.89 | 90.45 | 1314.71148884 | 1314.90000000 | 0.01%
charged xi | XI- | -1 | 18999.41 | 23.44 | 1321.25003962 | 1321.32000000 | 0.01%
positive sigma | SIGMA+ | 1 | 18124.84 | -6.01 | 1189.33479044 | 1189.37000000 | 0.00%
neutral sigma | SIGMA0 | 0 | 18179.60 | 11.78 | 1192.38584758 | 1192.64200000 | 0.02%
negative sigma | SIGMA- | -1 | 18183.67 | -2.01 | 1197.26488657 | 1197.44900000 | 0.02%
2 charged delta | DELTA++ | 2 | 18114.76 | -1336.27 | 1232.59683188 | 1232.00000000 | 0.05%
positive delta | DELTA+ | 1 | 18468.01 | -696.70 | 1234.44657901 | 1232.00000000 | 0.20%
neutral delta | DELTA0 | 0 | 18508.92 | -957.16 | 1233.64918079 | 1232.00000000 | 0.13%
negative delta | DELTA- | -1 | 18447.52 | -520.30 | 1229.95478394 | 1232.00000000 | 0.17%
=============================================================================================

In the tables "ch" stands for the electric charge quantum number q_x. If I understood correctly, not only mass is predicted by theory, but electrical charge as well.

Regarding gravitational constant.... Many here suggested to alter it in order to find how masses are affected, and I was making the code with similiar thought in the back of the mind. However, to my surprise, gravitational constant is used only once during computations and mass of a particle is proportional to it's inverse square root:

m ~ miu ~ 1/sqrt(G)

And as such its best value may be found manually using the best experimentally measured mass of some particle.

Later, I plan to add the quadruples calculation part, which will allow us to check the masses of additional particles. As well I am preparing a pdf which will summarize the calculations of the program and explain some o the values.

P.S. I hope you will exuse me for inventing a weird name for e0. :-)

Edit

removed the neutral electron from the table

araven

11th March 2006 - 02:36 AM

My previous note might seem a little spartan, however it is only due to the lack of time on my part. Now, that I am free to write lengthy notes, please allow me to introduce myself and to raise few issues that bugged me during coding.

First of all I am not a physicist, rather an aerospace engineer, and my knowledge of physics is only a little beyong the scope of compulsory courses of B.Sc. Given that fact, please be patient with me when I ask silly questions on these forums. :-)

The first silly question is a philospophical one... Heim-Dröscher theory suggests that travel to "parallel dimensions" is a real possiblility. Thus, it suggests that energy (or mass) can leave the so familiar spacetime and basically "dissapear" from our sight, silillary it may suddenly "appear" in our sight. Such an (dis)appearances are violations of conservation laws, and so far noone has ever observed them. "Dissapearances" might indeed require special devices, but the question is: does anyone knows how Heim explains the lack of "appearances"?

The second question is regarding anti-particles. Heim defines the so called "time-helicity", as I understood this is a particle/anti-particle selector. Positive time helicity refers to R4 and negative time-helicity refers to the mirror symetrical anti-structure. Judging by the paper "selected results", time helicity is the only parameter that differs say an electron from a positron. Does anyone knows if this is indeed so? Atm the electrical charge formula produces correct results for a particles, but a totally wrong results for an anti-particles.

will314159

11th March 2006 - 02:54 AM

Aarven

Thank you very much for that beautiful work in C. Very nice tables.
My B.S. in Physics was in 1975 and obscured by a subsequent law degree but I"ll give your questions a try.

QUOTE

The first silly question is a philospophical one... Heim-Dröscher theory suggests that travel to "parallel dimensions" is a real possiblility. Thus, it suggests that energy (or mass) can leave the so familiar spacetime and basically "dissapear" from our sight, similarily it may suddenly "appear" in our sight. Such an (dis)appearances are violations of conservation laws, and so far noone has ever observed them. "Dissapearances" might indeed require special devices, but the question is: does anyone knows how Heim explains the lack of "appearances"?

 Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy had an explanation for disappearances

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

. Actually the Droescher-Hauser extensions have been beyond the scope of the discussions here which have been about the mass eqluation and its derivation. The evolution of mass from space is intriguing enough of itself. Mass is a condensation of resonance across a metron lattice. See the protosimplex site for an introduction.

Seriously, the answer would be a local conservation disparity would be balanced by a global conservation.

If you would go back through the postings, there is a reference to a powerpoint presentation of the Droscher-Hauser theory given at the Huntsville Space Center and one at India.

The second question is regarding anti-particles. Heim defines the so called "time-helicity", as I understood this is a particle/anti-particle selector. Positive time helicity refers to R4 and negative time-helicity refers to the mirror symetrical anti-structure. Judging by the paper "selected results", time helicity is the only parameter that differs say an electron from a positron. Does anyone knows if this is indeed so? Atm the electrical charge formula produces correct results for a particles, but a totally wrong results for an anti-particles.
 The whole particle antiparticle stuff started with Dirac. It was susceptible of two interpretations. For example, a positron could be thought of as an electron with a positive charge or an electron traveling backwards in time.

Feynman continued this tradition with his Feynman diagrams which are time reversible. There is another interpretation of antiparticles as holes in the energy sea and the antiparticle is a traveling hole.

So it appears that Heim is consistent in talking about antiparticles both in terms of 1) time reversal and 2) opposite charge.

You just can't have your cake and eat it too. A positron traveling backwards in time would be ..... an electron!

Edit
The ZEROTRON was very inspired.

Take Care!

millka

11th March 2006 - 06:29 AM

Hi araven,

its great that you added a C implementation. Any plans to make the source available ?

i am no physicist, just a programmer, so maybe im just talking bullshit ..

about the neutral electron:
As far as i remember, Heim Theory neither demands nor forbids that a neutral electron exists. However, if it exists, HT predicts its mass.
I think it is important to avoid the impression, that HT demands that a neutral electron exists, because it is not (yet?) part of the standard model of elementary particles. Some orthodox mainstream physicists rip HT apart for lesser sins .. ;-P
Maybe the error calculation of theoretical e0 mass vs. experimental e- mass should be supressed in the table ?

about conservation laws:
i really have no clue, but i remember something from a book about special relativity for mere mortals. in SR there is the effect of length contraction. in that book they used Minkowski diagrams (x,y,z,ict) to visualize stuff. Something moving along the x-axis at a speed close to c appeared to be rotated into t, and preserved its "true" length in (x,y,z,ict). As far as i understand, that means what seems to get lost in one dimension appears in another dimension.
Since HT uses 6, 8 or even 12 dimensions, i expect that conservation laws are not violated if all dimensions are considered, it would only look llike a violation in the 3 (or 4) dimensional subspace(time) we know.

doofus

11th March 2006 - 07:44 AM

I think araven's question was more in line with explaining why if that's the way it works(local imbalance/ global balance), we don't see evidence of natural appearances in our 4 meager dimensions of said imbalances(ie. violations of conservation). This is a fundamental logic error that will have to be resolved at some point regardless of whether the math works out. It's a good question that touches on the viability of this whole hyperspace/propulsion/8+ dimensions etc. aspect. I think this method of calculation will prove more efficient with the bugs worked out but the current hypothetical explanations of how ht is put together are problematic.

araven

11th March 2006 - 08:07 AM

QUOTE

Seriously, the answer would be a local conservation disparity would be balanced by a global conservation.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Seriously, the answer would be a local conservation disparity would be balanced by a global conservation.
 As far as i understand, that means what seems to get lost in one dimension appears in another dimension. Since HT uses 6, 8 or even 12 dimensions, i expect that conservation laws are not violated if all dimensions are considered, it would only look llike a violation in the 3 (or 4) dimensional subspace(time) we know.
 What concerns me is the lack of any observable phenomena that will suggests such an inter-dimensional energy/mass flow. For us, locked in 4D, energy appearing from some 5th dimension would look like a spontaneous energy boost, that violates our "local" laws of coservation. One might claim, that such a boosts do happen on micro levels, but somehow, after looking at the energies involved in our universe, it seems logical to assume that we are the ones who are the "micro level". This all are just speculations of course. :-)

QUOTE

So it appears that Heim is consistent in talking about antiparticles both in terms of 1) time reversal and 2) opposite charge.
 Heim defines a particle using 6 configuration parameters: time-helicity (epsilon), configuration number (k), double isospin (P), double spin (Q), doublet number (kappa) and some multiplet identifier (x).

According to the tables the only difference between particle and anti-particle is the sign of time-helicity, and the parameters k, P, Q, kappa and x stay as they are. If this is indeed so, then the electric charge formula (q_x) is incorrect with respect to epsilon, since electrical charges yelded for anti-particles are not even close to the real ones. Moreover they dont follow any pattern at all, just a random bunch of numbers.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I think it is important to avoid the impression, that HT demands that a neutral electron exists, because it is not (yet?) part of the standard model of elementary particles. Some orthodox mainstream physicists rip HT apart for lesser sins .. ;-P
Maybe the error calculation of theoretical e0 mass vs. experimental e- mass should be supressed in the table ?
 You are absolutelly right, I will comment it out in the code. :-)

Kettricken

11th March 2006 - 08:33 AM

Nice work Araven

If I read the table correct, this puzzle me:

[/QUOTE] 2 charged delta | DELTA++ | 2 | 18114.76 | -1336.27 | 1232.59683188 | 1232.00000000 | 0.05%[QUOTE]

Other calculations shown here gives a diff of over 20%.

araven

11th March 2006 - 09:07 AM

Kettricken, I have looked at the Spony's code and I think the error lies in the infamous q_x, could you please check whether it's value is generated properly for the particles?

This is what I believe to be the proper version for particles (I have tried plenty of combinations, and only this one yelded proper numbers for all of them):

CODE

/*
* Function name : calc_charge
* Description : function calculates the electric charge quantum number
* Arguments : int - the time-helicity (R4 & mirror R4 selector)
* int - the configuration number ( metrical index )
* int - the double iso-spin of particle (P = 2 * s)
* int - the double spin of the particle (Q = 2 * J)
* int - the doublet number (dist. between doublets)
* int - the particles iso-spin multiplet identifier
* Returns : real - the particle electric charge quantum number
*/
real
calc_charge(int eps, int k, int P, int Q, int kap, int x)
{
register real alp_P, alp_Q, eps_P, eps_Q, C;

alp_P = pi * Q * (kap + bincoeff(P, 2));
alp_Q = pi * Q * (Q * (k - 1) + bincoeff(P, 2));

eps_P = eps * cos(alp_P);
eps_Q = eps * cos(alp_Q);

C = 2.0 * (eps_P * P + eps_Q * Q) * (k + kap - 1) /
(k * (1 + kap));

return ((P - 2.0 * x) * (1.0 - Q * kap * (2.0 - k)) +
eps * (k - 1.0 - Q * (1.0 + kap) * (2.0 - k)) + C) / 2.0;
}

As well, from what it looks like the 1982 formuas are an approximation of some sort and the 1989 formulas are the real solution. The approximation seems to lie in the geometrical constant xi, which is approximated thru some numerical expression. This is only my own impression however, and might as well be false.

will314159

11th March 2006 - 11:50 AM

aarven

your code elucidates and educates your point about charge and time direction. From what you've said in Heim Theory and your code, one calculates the charge from the time co-ordinate. That is first there is the time dimension and then second charge is calculated from it.

i see your point about the inconsistantcies. In many ways heim theory is like hydrino theory (Classical Quantum Theory) 1)promising rich results, 2) having a mass formula, though nowhere near as sophisticated, broad, rich, or deep and 3) having some contradictions.

you surpass me in Heim theory understanding. that is the advantage in writing out the code. It forces a deeper ulnderstanding. That is why the protosimplex administrator said he wrote out a Pascal mass program, so he could understand better.

Thanks for sharing the code and look forward to seeing the rest of it.

HDeasy will be along sooner or later and answer the deep questions.

will314159

11th March 2006 - 12:01 PM

With all this code developing, it won't be long before it"ll be time for HDeasy to update the Wikipedia article WITH TEETH!

I forgot, anybody can update a wikipedia article, but personally i wouldn't have the cojones.

will314159

11th March 2006 - 12:27 PM

Hey Guys, I did it.

Got to the Wikipedia Heim Theory Article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory

QUOTE

External links
[edit]
Theory
A site which alleges to offer an explanation of Heim theory:

Heim Theory
A forum which has developed Java and C programming language implementations of the Heim Mass Formula and which has links to the programs, the code, and the results. Forum: Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=0

A site which was among the first to offer a popularized introduction of Heim theory in both German and English. Has an Excel Worksheet Heim Mass Calculator.

Protosimplex

http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/new.htm

edit
sorry, I'd forgotten the Mathematica. I went back and edited it back in

will314159

11th March 2006 - 01:10 PM

Whatta go Spony for editing the Wiki! I think you are going to take a lot of hits!
I hope you can stand the bandwidth.

Your looking Good on Wikipedia. Now is somebody would put a bullet in Front of Heim Particle Structure Theory, bold it, and embed the link. that would be cool.

millka

11th March 2006 - 01:25 PM

QUOTE (will314159+Mar 11 2006, 12:27 PM)

Hey Guys, I did it.

Got to the Wikipedia Heim Theory Article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory

Nice !

I added C# and the link to sponys java applet (so that the lazy ones only need one click ..), as well as some remarks on the corresponding Discussion page.

Will, please create an account on Wikipedia, so that you can participate in discussions on Wikipedia.

Sponys page resides on an university server, so i guess the traffic will be tolerable ..

MMC

11th March 2006 - 01:34 PM

QUOTE

Heim Theory
A forum which has developed Java and C programming language implementations of the Heim Mass Formula and which has links to the programs, the code, and the results. Forum: Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory

 Will,

We have the following versions:

1. Spony's Java code (source included)
2. C# Windows command line executable (source code to be released soon)
3. C# Windows version (Upon confirmation of output by Research Group Heim Theory)
4. A C implementation (Source unavailable at present)

will314159

11th March 2006 - 01:36 PM

Thanks Milka nice work. You really cleaned it up nice. Now puleezee, the bold, the bullet, and embedding the lilnk.

I actually did create an account. I thought mistakenly you had to, to edit. There was some controversy about some political defamation on wikipedia. There was recently a political scandal about US congressmen and Senators editing their own entries to remove derogaory info and put in complinmentary info.

That whole Wikipedia HEIM Theory article needs to be rewritten.

One of my pet peeves is that the HYDRINO theory or CLASSICAL QUANTUM MECHANICS, which virtually denies all of quantum mechanics is in Wikipedia without any warnings but HEIM theory has all that bullcrap warnings all over the place.

Take Care!

will314159

11th March 2006 - 02:04 PM

NMC

Milka seems to be the Wiki pro. I'm going to leave further editing to him.
But really anybody can edit. Give it a try yourself if you feel like it.

I suggest registering. All it takes is an email address. Then you can log your changes at the discussion or "talk page."

If enough of us get on the Tallk page, then we can remove those BS warnings from the article.

Again, Thanks to Milka for making the Wikipedia link look very professional!

Take CAre!

MMC

11th March 2006 - 03:02 PM

QUOTE

If enough of us get on the Tallk page, then we can remove those BS warnings from the article.

 I wouldn't be happy with that until I have confirmed the output of the progam.

The selected results need independent confirmation.

Has anyone emailed any research institutes to try to confirm any of the selected results?

MMC

11th March 2006 - 03:07 PM

araven,

I just got a chance to compare your output with my app...

It is very close, where does your code differ from spony's?

Will you be posting the source?

Kettricken

11th March 2006 - 03:11 PM

Araven

Your code seeems to me more logical that the one in Heim's Mass 1989 Formula and that is used by Spony in his excellent java-code.

QUOTE

return ((P - 2.0 * x) * (1.0 - Q * kap * (2.0 - k)) +
eps * (k - 1.0 - Q * (1.0 + kap) * (2.0 - k)) + C) / 2.0;
 

From particle.class in the Java code:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

return ((P - 2.0 * x) * (1.0 - Q * kap * (2.0 - k)) +
eps * (k - 1.0 - Q * (1.0 + kap) * (2.0 - k)) + C) / 2.0;
 

From particle.class in the Java code:
return MathL.trunc((1.0/2.0) * (((P-(2*x)+2) * (1 - (kappa*Q*(2-k)))) -
(k-1-((1+kappa)*Q*(2-k))) + C));
 The diff is that you have omitted the "+2", as far as I can see.

I dont have the tools to test the Java code where I am now.

araven

11th March 2006 - 05:52 PM

QUOTE

CODE (->

QUOTE

It is very close, where does your code differ from spony's?

 MMC, I am not entirely sure about the exact differences. I can just point out at the pitfalls I faced during the coding, one of them was that charge formula. The one used in my code is the original one from german paper. Both the 1982 and the 1989 papers seem to contain the wrong combination of formulas.

The 1982 version:

Will you be posting the source?

I will, as soon as the quadruple calculation part is finished. Releasing it now will add the additional burden of versions and change logs. Something that I am not entirely sure i am interested at. :-)

P.S. I will edit the post once remember more of the problematic parts.

MMC

11th March 2006 - 07:41 PM

QUOTE

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

MMC, I am not entirely sure about the exact differences. I can just point out at the pitfalls I faced during the coding, one of them was that charge formula. The one used in my code is the original one from german paper. Both the 1982 and the 1989 papers seem to contain the wrong combination of formulas.

 I think the main problem is that recent studies have shown a spin-charge separation in electrons and the Heim theory needs reworked to account for this new information. I feel that this may explain the problems with calculating charge. Its also implying that things aren't as fundemental as previously thought.

If I can get some independent confirmation of the selected results then I would be more inclined to proceed with the Windows conversion, until then, its sitting in limbo. I'll fix the output of the console version and release the source.

Here is a brief overview of Heim's viewpoint:

THE 12 DIMENSIONS OF HQT

It is obvious to anyone that has experimented with basic static electricity or
magnetic fields that a description of physical reality as a 4-Dimensional (4D)
universe is incomplete. A 4D metric can at best be used to represent mechanical
motion in a universe occupied by only one force - gravity. The discovery of the
existence of other forces, including EM, Weak, and Strong forces require
additional dimensions.

In Heim's work, which predates string theory, Einstein's general relativity has
been extended in a way that expands the space-time metric by 4 dimensions,
and also adds 4 non-metric dimensions. A brief summary of Heim's dimensions
follow.

ST4
The ST4 dimensions represent those that are classically known as the spacetime
metric. These can be decomposed as follows:

R3 = {x, y ,z} = {x1, x2, x3} = Spatial Dimensions
T1 = {t} = {x4} = Time Dimension

SI4
The SI4 dimensions consist of what Heim has termed "structure" dimensions and
"information" dimensions. While the meaning of these dimensions is not literally
identical to their names, there are a number of parallels. Among other functions,
these dimensions function to describe attraction and repulsion in the universe.
They are also metric dimensions in that they affect motion. These dimensions are
unique to Heim's formulation. The SI4 dimensions may be decomposed as
follows:

S2 = {x5, x6} = Structure Dimensions
I2 = {x7, x8} = Information Dimensions

G4
The last 4 dimensions in Heim's UFT are the "event steering" dimensions. These
dimensions may be understood as defining probability amplitudes across the
other dimensions. They may be denoted as follows:

G4 = {x9, x10, x11, x12} = Event Steering Dimensions

Listed among the properties of these dimensions are the following Hermetry and

Symmetry forms:

Hermetry Form: H5(T1, S2, I2) represents the flow of events.
Symmetry Form: S2 x I2 = 0 represents a kind of Ying/ Yang balance.

The symmetry form, for example, requires that the energy extracted from the
vacuum during virtual particle pair production must equal zero.

HEIM'S 6 FUNDAMENTAL FORCES

Heim's UFT also includes 6 fundamental forces, 3 of which are known and 3 of
which are components of gravity. The three known forces are:

1) EM (Electromagnetic) - propagated by the Photon
2) Weak Force - propagated by the Higgs boson
3) Strong Force - propagated by the Gluon

The 3 gravitational forces are as follows:

4) Gg (Scalar Gravity, or "Gravitonic") - propagated by the Graviton
5) Ggp (Dark Energy/Matter) - propagated by the Gravito-photon
6) Gq (Vacuum Field) - propagated by the Quintessence particle

Standard gravity G is the tensor summation of all three gravitational components,
i.e. G = Gg + Ggp + Gq

In terms of relative strength, Gg is much larger than the other components. The
following ratios apply to their relative strength:

Gravito-Photonic Gravity Ggp = 1/(67)^2 Gg = [2.23(10)^-4]*Gg
Quint-Essenic Gravity Gq = [4(10)^-18]*Gg

 From what I can see of the theory, heim has used abstract dimensions in order to model the necessary flow of information. This doesn't mean that those dimensions must exist as described, but are used to "balance the books".

Einstein uses the same approach when describing 4D space-time, the dimension "time" does not exist as decribed mathematically. It could be any number of dimensions compressed.

Therefore, the heim mass formula is a form of co-ordinate system that attempts to use known reference points and abstract representations to predict mass values.

Thus, in this respect it is NOT a TOE (theory of everything), as it does not deal with the physical mechanisms. It reduces those mechanisms to an abstract representation. This means that it will differ substantially for reality, however, from a practical viewpoint, will fuction with some degree of accuracy to predict certain aspects. Just looking at heims selection of abstract dimensions, I can see that I could alter it quite easily and balance the books to achieve the same results...

Heim theory is important for another reason, quite apart from every other claim you have heard. It demonstrates how you tackle a problem where unknown quantities exist by reducing them to abstract representations. Heim's style is essentially a lesson in how to approach systematic reverse engineering of a universe, by establishing key points and using those to establish others.

Its a progressive, methodical, style that aims to replace the abstract quantities with physical mechanisms at a later stage, thus requiring constant refinement.

Olaf

11th March 2006 - 08:02 PM

Hello,

please check your code against the running excel sheet. All equations are shown by simply clicking the appropriate cell. Also you may check the results.

This excel code absolutely goes conform with the FORTRAN version and the results are matching!
While programming I've checked every line against the the 2003 version of the 1982 mass formula paper. I have found about 20 mistakes in that paper and sent them to the heim theory group. The group also found some errors. At the moment they are correcting the papers. But the excel code works.

Let me shortly introduce myself. I am the author of www.engon.de/protosimplex. I started that site after I met Burkhard Heim who made a very deep impression on me. When I started protosimplex (Burkhard still was alive) there was nothing in the web at all about the Heim theory. Even the Heim theory group did not exist.
I am not a physicist nor a programmer (sorry). I've graduated in electronics. But my heart belongs to the heim theory. So I went coding because I wanted that a public code exist.
Because some things are uncertain in the 1989 code I first started coding the 1982 formula. I wrote it to help myself in understanding the Heim algorithms.

Note:
Checking the output of my PASCAL code version I found some risky equations where influences of the number formats chosen influence the output. This might occur in C, Java and mathematica as well.
I will post about this tomorrow.

will314159

11th March 2006 - 09:57 PM

Welcome Olaf

It is very good to have one of your dedication join us here at this site. You will find us a diverse and international group.

I look forward to your insights.

Take Care!
********************
Willkommener Olaf

Es ist sehr gut, ein Ihrer Widmung uns an diesem Aufstellungsort hier verbinden zu lassen. Sie finden uns eine verschiedene und internationale Gruppe.

Ich schaue vorwärts zu Ihren Einblicken.

Mach's gut!

spony

12th March 2006 - 03:18 AM

Hello everyone,

Just a quick post since it's 4am, and I want to get some sleep.

I've found the bug concerning mu in my code. In my code I had the following in all the Particle class implementations:

CODE

protected int getStructureDistributor(boolean timeHelicity) {

double alpha_P = Math.PI * Q * (kappa + MathL.comb(P, 2));

double alpha_Q = Math.PI * Q * (Q + MathL.comb(P, 2));

This should've been:

CODE

protected int getStructureDistributor(boolean timeHelicity) {

double alpha_P = Math.PI * Q * (kappa + MathL.comb(P, 2));

double alpha_Q = Math.PI * Q * ((Q*(k-1)) + MathL.comb(P, 2));

Apparantly that difference only effects mu which is why it went by unnoticed for so long....

I've also discovered via. the excel spreadsheet from olaf (thanks olaf) that the matter concerning the different interpretation of how to calculate qx, which are (1982):

CODE

protected int getQuantumNumber(boolean timeHelicity) {

if(timeHelicity) {

return MathL.trunc((1.0/2.0) * (((P-(2*x)) * (1 - (kappa*Q*(2-k)))) +
(k-1-((1+kappa)*Q*(2-k))) + C));

and (1989):

CODE

protected int getQuantumNumber(boolean timeHelicity) {

if(timeHelicity) {

return MathL.trunc((1.0/2.0) * (((P+2-(2*x)) * (1 - (kappa*Q*(2-k)))) +
(k-1-((1+kappa)*Q*(2-k))) + C));

Seems to have to do with different interpretations of the parameter x for particles. Particles in my code are given an x where as in the excel spreadsheet they are x+1. Olaf could you elaberate on how x should be choosen for a particle? I thought x was supposed to be 0 < x < P for any combination of the other 4 particle input parameters k, P, Q and kappa. In the 1982 formula this works fine but in the 1989 that +2 suddenly ruins it all. Are you certain that the +2 is not a mistake? Currently I have removed the +2 from the 1989 formula code.

Finaly it seems that a1, a2 and a3 are not up to date in the Selected Results note for the delta particles and thus neither is the mass of those particles. Does anyone here know what the delta particles represent? I wonder if they are particles with unknown mass. In Selected Results they are all compared to an experimental mass of "~1232"? Perhaps this means their mass is only estimated and it currently doesn't make sence to compare them to anything? This would certainly explain that their mass results are the only results which don't correlate.

I look forward to answers

Regards Martin

will314159

12th March 2006 - 08:55 AM

Would like to thank mdda123 for pointing out that Maxima has a Windows download.

Sure Enough at
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4933
the download page shows several 32 bit windows exe files.

for more info on which files to dowload see
http://maxima.sourceforge.net/download.shtml

Take Care!

edit
ok it is installed now. the download was very quick. the file was 12.7 mg
it has calculus functions:integrals, deriv, trig funct: sin cos.

here is the version and screen info
" Maxima 5.9.2.99rc2 http://maxima.sourceforge.net
Using Lisp GNU Common Lisp (GCL) GCL 2.6.7 (aka GCL)
Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING.
Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter.
This is a development version of Maxima. The function bug_report()
provides bug reporting information. "

hdeasy

12th March 2006 - 09:54 AM

Hi Spony, Araven, Olaf, Will314159 etc.
Compliments to all who are working on the different implementations of the mass formula. This is magnificent work and hopefully pondering the effect of different terms in the equations will show that there is indeed an internal consistency in the theory which speaks in its favour.

I’ll try to answer some of the questions raised in the flood of recent posts.

First for Spony & co. on the Delta – the 1232 is a resonance or excited state of the proton or neutron of mass about 1232 MeV/c2. See e.g. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE...cles/delta.html where they say e.g.

“The delta is a baryon which contains only up and down quarks. The Δ+ and Δ0 have the same quark compositions as the proton and neutron respectively and decay quickly by the strong interaction to the proton and neutron and a π0. If such a decay pathway is available to a particle, it decays very quickly - on the order of 10-23 seconds. “

Then on the disappearance and reappearance of spaceships – I think the right answer given above was indeed that one must consider all dimensions when looking at mass conservation. As they are all ‘metronised’ this presumably allows the metron fluxes to move to different dimension combinations. Though remember that this ‘warp’ drive is the most speculative of Hauser & Droscher’s work. I think it best to first concentrate on the mass formula and if on a space drive then first the ‘low-level’ gravito-photon field drive without the ‘warp’.

On the neutral electron – the searches for neutral leptons recently has been restricted to the ‘heavy’ range of GeV – orders of magnitude above the electron mass range. As we covered in recent posts (or was in the Wikipedia talk pages? – by the way, nice work Will314159 & co. on recent edits there – don’t be afraid to edit, within reason of course!) there is a fairly recent paper which stresses that the existence of low mass neutral leptons is wide open, as searches to date have made assumptions about the decay paths leading to detection. And indeed it is also not clear if it could be a forbidden particle in Heim theory. Hopefully those updates being prepared on Heim.theory.com or later calculations by Droscher et al. may say something about this eventually.

will314159

12th March 2006 - 10:02 AM

with apologies to araven

neutral leptons=ZEROTRONS

Take Care!

Olaf

12th March 2006 - 10:05 AM

QUOTE (spony+Mar 12 2006, 03:18 AM)

trunc((1.0/2.0) * (((P-(2*x)) * (1 - (kappa*Q*(2-k)))) +
(k-1-((1+kappa)*Q*(2-k))) + C));

Seems to have to do with different interpretations of the parameter x for particles. Particles in my code are given an x where as in the excel spreadsheet they are x+1. Olaf could you elaborate on how x should be chosen for a particle?

Hi Martin,

there is an inconsistency regarding the use of x in the 1982 paper.
At page 1 it is stated: x= 1 ... I (the amount of possible varieties of a multiplet).

At page 2 it is stated: x = 0... P which is = 0 ... (I-1)
In the 1982 DESY code x is used conform to the first declaration.

Nevertheless you may use the second declaration as well. But then you have to choose the other value of x consistently in your particle tables (x running from 0 ... P).

This was one of the 20 mistakes I found.

Another remark on the "sophisticated" equation. The whole thing here simply is a combined equation that has terms that are switched on or of via the quantum numbers. For instance
(2-k)= 1 mesons / 0 baryons
(k-1)= 0 mesons/ 1 baryons
(1-(kappa*Q*(2-k)) = 0 my / 1 else

((P + 2 - 2*x) * (1 - kappa*Q*(2 - k)) + eps*(k - 1 - (1 + kappa)*Q*(2 - k)) + cs )

You can unprotected the excel sheet and fill in some lines under table 1a to test such terms.

Regards

will314159

12th March 2006 - 02:14 PM

edited the French Wikipedia, used Systrans
" Diverses réalisations de formule de la masse de théorie de Heim
Un forum qui a développé Java, C, C # des réalisations de langage de programmation, et codage de Mathematica de la formule de masse de Heim et qui a des liens aux programmes, au code, et aux résultats.

Physorg Forum thread about Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
L'exécution de Java de ce forum est également disponible comme Java applet (qui fonctionne directement dans le web browser).

Heim Mass Calculator
A une calculatrice de masse de Heim de feuille de travail d'exceler en allemand et anglais.

Protosimplex "

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9orie_de_Heim

Take Care!

araven

12th March 2006 - 03:28 PM

Greetings,

As I have promised the quadruples calculation part is now finished, and to say the least I am puzzled about the results.

The chance for error, while exists, is relatively small. Every equation was double if not triple checked on each stage of copying. First a Mathtype copy was made, then it was copied into the code, pasted into Matlab and verified against the original. Of course this doesnt eliminate logical errors and typos in the original paper.

What puzzles me is the fact, that quadruples almost always disagree with those presented in "selected results", and yet the masses are pretty accurate.

CODE

=== constants ===============================================================
=============================================================================
name | symbol | units | value
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
pi | pi | ----- | 3.141592654
eta | eta | ----- | 0.9899896408
theta | tet | ----- | 7.939912667
alpha_+ | alp+ | ----- | 0.01832212397
alpha_- | alp- | ----- | 0.008128353747
speed of light | c | m / s | 299792458
gravitational constant | G | N * m^2 / kg | 6.6742e-11
elementary charge | e | C | 1.60217653e-19
planck's constant | h | J * s | 6.6260693e-34
dirac's constant | h-bar | J * s | 1.054571682e-34
constant of induction | miu_0 | N / A | 1.256637061e-06
constant of influence | eps_0 | F / m | 8.854187818e-12
fine structure constant | alpha | ----- | 0.007297354598
gauge factor | s_0 | m | 1
mass element | miu | kg | 2.258935082e-31
=============================================================================

=== N params ================================================================
=============================================================================
k : q | N_1 | N_2 | N_3 | N_4 | N_5 | N_6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 : 0 | 1.000000 | 0.666667 | 1.957186 | 4.000000 | 1.157734 | 0.000002
1 : 1 | 0.996881 | 0.675062 | 1.957318 | 4.000000 | 1.157734 | 0.000002
1 : 2 | 0.963898 | 0.774467 | 1.958715 | 4.000000 | 1.157734 | 0.000002
2 : 0 | 1.000000 | 0.666667 | 2.660091 | 2.000000 | 1.157734 | -0.105215
2 : 1 | 0.996278 | 0.676704 | 2.598819 | 4.000000 | 1.732392 | 0.025256
2 : 2 | 0.958918 | 0.791367 | 2.059284 | 6.000000 | 76.731884 | 0.155727
=============================================================================

=== functions ===============================================================
=============================================================================
symbol | n | m | p | sig | a_1 | a_2 | a_3 | W | phi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e_0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 34 | 28 | -0.032 | 38.506 | 0.000
e_- | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 11 | -0.032 | 38.695 | 0.000
miu_- | 11 | 6 | 11 | 6 | 1 | 23 | 7.269 | 2830.263 | 2.571
eta | 18 | 22 | 17 | 1 | 28 | 33 | 48.650 | 9905.006 | 6.704
KAPPA_+ | 17 | 26 | 30 | 28 | 16 | 31 | 7.269 | 8857.958 | -40.786
KAPPA_0 | 18 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 22 | 17 | 98.295 | 9332.358 | -13.423
pi_+- | 12 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 25 | 0 | 95.625 | 3514.463 | -2.329
pi_0 | 12 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 22 | 2 | -0.032 | 3419.162 | -5.666
LAMBDA | 1 | 3 | 1 | 29 | 13 | 45 | 69.739 | 16830.064 | 0.974
OMEGA_- | 4 | 4 | -1 | -15 | 47 | 3 | 69.739 | 23157.614 | -137.036
p | 0 | 0 | -2 | -11 | 0 | 23 | -0.033 | 14790.347 | 10.121
n | 0 | 0 | -5 | 23 | 0 | 36 | -0.033 | 14825.943 | 11.274
XI_0 | 2 | 6 | -2 | 25 | 26 | 22 | 71.624 | 18990.089 | 90.166
XI_- | 2 | 7 | -17 | 2 | 26 | 25 | 15.615 | 18998.735 | 23.441
SIGMA_+ | 2 | -7 | -12 | 10 | 21 | 30 | 26.154 | 18124.031 | -6.009
SIGMA_0 | 2 | -7 | -14 | -15 | 21 | 46 | 83.863 | 18179.597 | 0.000
SIGMA_- | 2 | -6 | -5 | -8 | 21 | 47 | 94.496 | 18183.303 | -2.011
DELTA_++ | 2 | 1 | 10 | -8 | 21 | 27 | 69.739 | 18115.384 | -674.393
DELTA_+ | 2 | -1 | -1 | 17 | 23 | 27 | 69.739 | 18467.128 | -616.320
DELTA_0 | 2 | -1 | -5 | -3 | 23 | 41 | 69.739 | 18514.997 | -731.992
DELTA_- | 2 | -1 | -16 | 5 | 23 | 22 | 69.739 | 18450.062 | -919.969
=============================================================================

=== particles ===============================================================
=============================================================================
name | symbol | q_x | m_the [Mev] | m_exp [Mev] | error %
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
neutral electron | e_0 | 0 | 0.50627181 | |
electron | e_- | -1 | 0.50694371 | 0.51099907 | -0.794%
muon | miu_- | -1 | 105.65229677 | 105.65838900 | -0.006%
eta | eta | 0 | 548.62899518 | 547.30000000 | 0.243%
charged kaon | KAPPA_+ | 1 | 493.69551717 | 493.67700000 | 0.004%
neutral kaon | KAPPA_0 | 0 | 497.69173794 | 497.67200000 | 0.004%
charged pion | pi_+- | 1 | 139.56017382 | 139.57018000 | -0.007%
neutral pion | pi_0 | 0 | 134.92903040 | 134.97660000 | -0.035%
lambda | LAMBDA | 0 | 1116.21187996 | 1115.68300000 | 0.047%
omega | OMEGA_- | -1 | 1672.12138879 | 1672.45000000 | -0.020%
proton | p | 1 | 937.33890386 | 938.27231000 | -0.099%
neutron | n | 0 | 938.30996495 | 939.56563000 | -0.134%
neutral xi | XI_0 | 0 | 1314.47953670 | 1314.90000000 | -0.032%
charged xi | XI_- | -1 | 1321.24989957 | 1321.32000000 | -0.005%
positive sigma | SIGMA_+ | 1 | 1189.33466416 | 1189.37000000 | -0.003%
neutral sigma | SIGMA_0 | 0 | 1192.23763970 | 1192.64200000 | -0.034%
negative sigma | SIGMA_- | -1 | 1197.26476102 | 1197.44900000 | -0.015%
2 charged delta | DELTA_++ | 2 | 1234.44268176 | 1232.00000000 | 0.198%
positive delta | DELTA_+ | 1 | 1234.73522847 | 1232.00000000 | 0.222%
neutral delta | DELTA_0 | 0 | 1235.79291876 | 1232.00000000 | 0.308%
negative delta | DELTA_- | -1 | 1229.21247787 | 1232.00000000 | -0.226%
=============================================================================

As well, I was trying to find a combination of k, P, Q, kappa and x that will yield a tau lepton or one of the neutrinos, needless to say that i have failed miserably. :-)

P.S. I have no place to host the code, if anyone is interested in it, please pm me with your email and I will send you. Or, as was already suggested, we could host it on the Code Project (I think it was).

will314159

12th March 2006 - 03:38 PM

araven

the tables look very nice, and your naming choice are clear. I'm dissapointed you dropped the Zerotron, just kidding. Message me or email me with an attachment, i'd be glad to host the code.

a natural would be with Olaf at protosimplex as his site is internationally known.

take Care!

will314159

12th March 2006 - 04:02 PM

aarven

got your email
" I have attached the source code. It was compiled using cygwin, and
should therefore compile out of box on any linux platform. Windows
users will probably have to either install cygwin or port the code
to some windows compiler.

Eli (araven)
"

Got the code going up shortly

Take Care!

will314159

12th March 2006 - 04:21 PM

araven

i just posted it quick and dirty with minimal explanation. I attached as a text file the email that you sent. Check it out. I"ll upload any explanatory material you"ll forward.

Uh-oh gmail alerts me that a Maxima code is incoming. I"ll be uploading that, with permission.

http://zeena.org/araven/

Take Care!

araven

12th March 2006 - 04:35 PM

Thank you very much, will!

I hope to finish that pdf which summarizes the formulas sometime soon, and attach it to the code.

will314159

12th March 2006 - 04:43 PM

from MDDA123 (Martin) MAXIMA has now been uploaded for evaluation.

" > thanks for the Maxima!!!!! neat. graphing, integration, solving simulataneous equations!

And now Heim Theory... (attached - just copy and paste the whole text
into Maxima, and Boom you're done)

All the Best
Martin
:-)"

Download at

http://zeena.org/Heim/Maxima/heim_maxima.txt

Take Care!

Olaf

12th March 2006 - 05:28 PM

Hosting of sources

Thank you very much for appreciation!

Of course I can host copies of the Heim mass programs at protosimplex.
There are two aspects that need some more thinking.

1. With an official download resource we have to guaranty that the implementations are almost free of errors. I only can answer this question for the 1982 excel code.

There is a strong group of fanatic skeptics here in Germany. Even in German wikipedia they forced to state that protosimplex is an esoteric site. They are like hungry dogs when they smell blood.
So if there is any inaccuracy or guessing in your code this could cause a lot of trouble and personal offense.

2. We don't have reached a stable level of the programs yet.
That means, that the one who hosts the sources has to put daily builds in the download section.

3. So I like sourceforge as a good place as well.
Because of my very bad experiences with German open source wikipedia I am afraid a bit of anyone being able to change codes. Does sourceforge have any mechanism to only allow a secure team of people changing codes?

will314159

12th March 2006 - 05:46 PM

I don't mind doing the hosting. Wikipedia doesn't host software. It's a good place to point links because it is an international encyclopedia.

Olaf, the esoteric in front of protosimplex has magically disappeared at the Deutsche Wiki site. Heim theory maybe esoteric, but I don't think your explanations of it are ESOTERIC.

I noticed the German and French Heim sites don't have the Warning crap the English Heim theory site has.

That's OK, moe egg on the Higher Branes when the time comes.

Put it back in if you want

Zephir

12th March 2006 - 05:49 PM

QUOTE (Olaf+Mar 12 2006, 08:28 PM)

There is a strong group of fanatic skeptics here in Germany. Even in German wikipedia they forced to state that protosimplex is an esoteric site. They are like hungry dogs when they smell blood.

Well, some explanation can be, the Heim's theory was presented like the metaphysic theory, at least at the end of Prof. Heim's life. But I don't understand the supposed mechanism of metaphysical connections of Heim's theory - do you have some info about it in English? I believe, such insight's can help in better understanding of this complex theory.

The English reader's were separated for such interpretations due the language barrier. After all, the criticism against a new theories is always stronger in the country, where they appeared at first. It's interesting psychological phenomenon.

Yes, the Source Forge has a secured version management, if u means this. But I've working experience just with gotdotnet.com site, oriented to Microsoft .NET Framework community.

MMC

12th March 2006 - 05:56 PM

I said in an earlier post that I wouldn't be happy removing the warnings at Wikipedia. I decided to look at the catagory and it is listed as "Pseudophysics". I don't think this is right, it should be in a catagory of "Abstract Investigatory Physics". Heim's techniques are vital tools in condensed matter physics.

Heim's work has been badly catagorised due to the wrong interpretation of the dimensions he uses.

I'm in the process of opening a source-forge site to hold all programs. I've included the three main implementations, C, C# and Java. I can add more as necessary.

I have been looking at this gravito-photon coupling...I'm beginning to think he is on to something...

If this is indeed accurate, then the story does not end there. It would also have to couple with phonons, glueons, etc. Pioneer 10 and 11 spring to mind here...

will314159

12th March 2006 - 06:11 PM

Isaac Newton, co-inventor of Calculus, and one of the greatest Physicists, also dabbled in religion and metaphysics.

Likewise, Heim, dabbled into metaphysics. He has been adopted by a lot of metaphysical types, the Raelians, by one. the Raelians have recently come into prominence for making Cloning claims. They also believe aliens started the human race and propogated it by cloning. MMM sounds like Stargate 1 and the Ancients.

He also has a following in the Alternative Healing community.

But that desn't take away from the Physics. He took an obvious steps. I guess it is all obvious once it is obvious. He avoided the singularity in General relativity by quantitizing it and he wasn't afraid of the extra dimensions!

I don't mind doing temporary or permanent housing until sourceforge or whatever gets sets up. Or being a mirror site.

Likewise, we need as many links as we can. We are all evangelicals here trying to popularize this theory. I for one just see that Heim took some obvious steps.

Take Care!

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.