Hi Troc:

Didn't you see my previous posting -

" I. Von Ludwiger finally found some time away from the transcription of 40 tapes of Heim talking onto a set of 3 x 60 pages to answer a bit more fully Troc's queiries:

1. The first question refers probably to the structure fluxes. In these, maxima and minima of condensations of the Metrons interchange cyclically. Such a geometro-dynamic description has not been given in science so far!

2. The size of the 4 internal zones of differently high density was not indicated by Heim.

3. With "Reestablishment" is meant the setting up of an initial condition of the structure fluxes. Heim can indicate the lengths of time for this from the possible circulation speeds of the partial fluxes and derives from this the lifetimes. But I can not explain that so fast now first I would have to read over it again.

4. The 4 structure zones have only a very small extent and differently high densities. The three zones differ in their densities by the powers 4, 3 and 2. The zone, in which the number of Metrons with the 4th Power is densely occupied, is impenetrable by electrons. In addition, the other two zones are so small that electrons are only scattered by them.

The fact that the quarks cannot be torn apart goes back to the fact that all 3 (in baryons) and/or 2 (in mesons) are only projections of a 6-dimensionalen flux system, which forms a structural unit. Perhaps this answer is sufficient for a start.."

Another point - Maturana & Varela's autopoeisis is a bit like the cycle process in 1.

hdeasy

Hi!
hdeasy....

You have made a mistake or there is a conflict of interpretation.
See my reply at "ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY on the visual of a METRON."
jal

hdeasy,


No, I must have missed it along the way. Forgive me, but since I am not a code programmer, I think my eyes must have glazed over momentarily at some point over the last 30 pages.


Thank you very much for reposting the reply. This is a mix of news; I was sort of hoping for a "confirming" response which would be nice. It seems that I will be in a "predictive" position instead. Not bad, if I'm right, anyway!


Great work by Maturana & Varela, as you mentioned, and can also be found from Leibniz, Bertalanffy, Rosen, Banathy, Luhmann, Dyke, and up to Capra.

The thing that escapes these works, and can be traced back to circa Leibniz’s time, is the musical nature of this idea. From Galileo’s father, to Chu Tsai-Yu, and culminating (mathematically) with Stevin and Mersenne, the discreet quantums’ roots go back much further than Plank and QM.

Biological advocates (wanting to stay clear of the mathematics) go back even further: Aristoxenus was taught by his father, a pupil of Socrates, as well as by two Pythagoreans, and by Aristotle as well. The “fear” of the irrational number kept this idea at bay for over a thousand years.

Tying all this together can “unify” much, much more that just quantum mechanics and relativity. To bring biological processes into the fold will also bring the rest of the Sciences under a common schematic.


I will work out the answers to questions # 2 and 3, using my method, and then we can compare. Even with the most dominant senses cut off (Heim’s disabilities), this pattern exists in consciousness itself; and obviously, electrons, atoms, neurons, etc. With this in mind, it will not surprise me if Heim’s method and mine coincide.


T.Roc

Hi all-

Recently discovered Loop Quantum Gravity. LQG also has a smallest unit of time and space- roughly the Planck Time and the Planck volume- very similar to Heim's metron. LQG seems to contain a proof that space and time must be quantized for it to be possible to combine General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

So, with his quantized space time and use of the Planck area (times a constant) Heim may have been sniffing somewhere close to the truth- and was doing so 50 years ago.

Don't want to bother the serious math people, but if someone was willing to post thoughts on major differences and similarities between LQG and Heim Theory, and prospects for unification of the two, I would be very interested to read it.

Would it be fair to say that Heim worked from GR down, while LQG is working from Quantum theory up?

Good article on LQG- Atoms of Space and Time, Scientific American magazine.

Thanks,
Lee Palmer

Hi!
You probably have looked at what I have been saying.
I think that we will all be able to have bread and molasses. There will be enough to share.
Jal

What about quantizing the curvature of the space-time continuum?
Gravity is a continuum that ought to be quantized.

I suppose you have seen this ?

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

here's the link: http://www.sciam.com/special/toc.cfm?issue...&sc=rt_nav_list

Smolin's article is the last one:

Atoms of Space and Time by Lee Smolin
We perceive space and time to be continuous, but if the amazing theory of loop quantum gravity is correct, they actually come in discrete pieces.

I havent read anything from that issue yet, but looking at the list of contents, these other articles might be interesting to those who hang around in this thread:

Inconstant Constants by John D. Barrow and John K. Webb
Do the inner workings of nature change with time?

The Myth of the Beginning of Time by Gabriele Veneziano
String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state.

As far as i understand the cosmological parts of Heim's theory, the universe started to expand long before the Big Bang. In HT, Big Bang describes the moment when the universe became big enough (and the metron size small enough) to allow matter and energy to appear. According to Heim, all the relevant universal constants depend on the current metron size, which slowly decreases over time.

A Hole at the Heart of Physics by George Musser
Physicists can't seem to find the time-literally. Can philosophers help?

I guess that article shows that todays physics has some problems to explain what "time" exactly is. Since Heim's basic 6 dimensional theory adds two other timelike dimensions to the known three spacelike and one timelike dimensions, i wouldnt be surprised if understanding these two other timelike dimensions could fill some holes. Our senses only realize the small fraction of reality that is useful for furless apes who just climbed down from the trees ..

I must totally agree with you on this as these two things are very closely related as I showed the other day with an article on how PET scans can comapre to this line of study and how many experts there are to fill that field. It is an area that is lacking in study and with biological advances left to be made here it is a gold mine for health in the future.

Hello! I'm an anonymous reader with a lot of interset in Heim's theory. So, forgive me if it is a stupid question or a bit off topic, but it has been bugging me all along the way since I first read the article in New Scientist...

Isn't the propulsion device based on Heim's theory amazingly similar to the so called Searl Effect Generator or Searl's Inverse Gravity Vehicle? I know that Searl is probably considered as a hoax and pseudoscience by most of the physics people around, but he is strangly persistent if a hoax and he has been proposing design of a rotating magnetic device for generating anti-gravity effects a very long time.... Doesn't it sound familiar?

See - www.searlsolution.com for details and especially the rotating ring designs on http://www.searlsolution.com/evidence2.html

I know that Searl's stuff really looks like pseudoscience most of the time, and that his stuff is really hard to read and seems incoherent at times, but the basic idea sounds similar doesn't it?

Rotating magnets or metal disks has been thought of by many people - Searle is just one. Another was De Palma with his N-Machine. And of course there wa sPodkletnov. But the problem with all of these efforts is that the theoretical side is not as strong as in Heim-Theory - e.g. they don't predict the masses.

Oh and on the question of whether Heim starts from General Relativity and Loop QG from Quantum - not really: LQG also starts from GR and adds quantum: it's just a question of where they apply the quantisation or correspondence principle to go from the macro to the micro-realm, i.e. GR to QM.

hi!
B-sub-s-mesons???
Has any one got a story to tell us? (17 trillion times per sec?) What does H.T. predic for this baby?
jal
edit: here is what I found.

New: C version of 1982 Heim mass formula DESY code

Leovinus has adapted the Pascal version 0.62 to C.
The C version even provides larger lists of masses. It can generate complete mass outputs up to the resonance limits.
In addition Leovinus added a final evaluation list to the output where calculated mass values for N=0 are compared with the empirical values.

All versions are included in the file at http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/downloads/massformula.zip

In the next version I will add a new print level that provides the masses combined with conventional quantum numbers and Heim quantum numbers so that the whole list can be imported into spreadsheet programs to compare empirical values against the Heim spectra.

RE SCIAM article on LQG Theory

Darn that article requires a subscription but I found a blog with a rundown of the articles
http://responsetotexts.blogspot.com/2006/0...of-physics.html

" The Mysteries of Mass by Gordon Kane
Personally, I can't say I've ever wondered why mass exists, but apparently a lot of top physicists have done so. They reckon it's caused by the elusive Higgs boson. We should be able to detect these and study them directly when the Large Hadron Collider comes online next year, and everyone will be even happier. Someone will probably get a Nobel Prize, too, which would be nice.

The String Theory Landscape by Bousso and Polchinski
OMGWTFSTRINGTHEORY! Nice pretty illustrations, but of course they can't explain the mathematics in any satisfactory way, and I fail to see any experimental verification. When it gets to the point of wondering why we live in this particular universe of all the literally infinite possible universes out there, we're getting seriously into so-what territory.

A conversation with Brian Greene
This guy is apparently the god of string theory. He's very nice about loop quantum gravity, the immediate competition to string theory. Unfortunately the loop quantum graviationalists in the next article weren't quite so nice about string theory.

Atoms of Space and Time by Lee Smolin
Now this one, I almost understand! I warm to the idea that spacetime is quantised, like light and all the forces. Discovering graph theory ideas in the middle of the article was kinda nice, too. It all makes sense. Having read this one and the string theory one, I have to agree with Brian Greene's idea that both theories are tending towards the same fundamental ideas. They'd be happier when they got there if they could all just learn to get along in the interim. Smolin is quite dismissive of string theory throughout his article.

A Cosmic Conundrum by Krauss and Turner
Oh, this expanding universe stuff, I can't be bothered. I got stuck back with Einstein, thinking the universe is curved, and while it's interesting to learn that it's actually flat... somehow I always believed in a cold end to the universe anyhow. This article does us the courtesy of including some actual equations. Unfortunately, their algebra is wrong. You'd think that if they're going to take the trouble to simplify the mathematics for the readers, they could at least do it accurately!

Information in the Holographic Universe by Jacob D. Bekenstein
Apparently our universe is really two-dimensional and we merely perceive it as having three spatial dimensions. It's to do with entropy, which I now understand much better than ever before. Much to my alarm, this idea is not presented as incompatible with ten-dimensional string theory. Why not, so what, it's all beyond me, next article.

That Mysterious Flow by Paul Davies
This is my favourite [and not just because it's the last one!]. It's about how time does not actually flow the way we perceive it. There is an arrow of time which allows for temporal causality - one thing causing another to happen at a later time rather than an earlier one - but time itself does not move. Davies suggests that all past and future events are fixed and we merely move through the 'timescape' as through the landscape. He doesn't address whether this idea violates free will [presumably there's some provision somewhere to ensure that it doesn't]. But I like the idea that there's nothing special about the present. It's kind of reassuring, somehow. "

Take Care!

RE: Loop Quantum Gravity Theory

As previously stated the SC?IAM article was not free. In fact the 10 pages of the Smolin article were $5 U.S. to download. I'm going to have to find a public library.

Meanwhile here are some free EDGE articles about time and quantum gravity.
If you've never read EDGE, it"ll be a treat.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/smolin.html

Take Care!

RE: The HEIM of Loop Quantum Gravity

Just as Selector Calculus was necessary for the quantization for spacetime by HEIM, a similar development was necessary for the development of loop quantum gravity.
This was the development of Ashtekar variables by Abhay Ashtekar. See the Wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtekar_variables

It is acknowledged by Smolin that the recast of General Relativity in the Ashtekar notation made LQG possible.

Ashtekar has some excellent popular articles about Space, Time, GR, and LQG, on his home page
http://cgpg.gravity.psu.edu/people/Ashtekar/articles.html

this particular article has excellent graphics.
"Space and Time: Einstein and Beyond
by Abhay Ashtekar
From the Penn State Science Journal, Vol 23 (2005).
This is the first in a new series of featured articles. "
http://cgpg.gravity.psu.edu/people/Ashteka.../space&time.pdf


Take Care!

Edit
For thos that like blackboard lectures
A glilimpse of quantum geometry
http://www.phy.syr.edu/research/hetheory/m...k/ashtekar.html

I referred to Heim and gravitophotons at a posting on the board discussing Tajmar's Cooper pair getting heavier experiment - http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...st=0#entry77734

Enjoy,
Hdeasy
(now I'll get back to watching that partial eclipse through my old eclipse specs)

EQUIVALENCE Principle Revisited from a deeper standpoint

Gravity and the Quantum (PDF file)
by Abhay Ashtekar
From the special issue 'spacetime Hundred Years Later', edited by R. Price and J. Pullin, of the New Journal of Physics
http://cgpg.gravity.psu.edu/people/Ashteka...urnal-final.pdf

The discussion by Abhay on quantization of General Relatvity raises HEIM Theory questions. Is the Heim theory canonical, conformational, or a third way? And as previously discussed by others the quantization of the background or metric is what distinguishes HEIM, LQG from String Theory.