At this level Bruhn is correct. Empty spacetime is FLAT!
<!--QuoteBegin)I would just take the metron at position #1, set up the rules, of occupied not occupied and see what we get
Cellular Automata.....??
How many students or professors reading this can use Cellular Automata and apply the different rules? I would think that there should be at least 3 people.
That would be a nice balance of informal peer review.  ( Don't all put your hands up together to volunteer.)
I can see, we have the suggestions of more than one way of generating meaningfull information.
The Metron at #1 to #4 make R4 as per HEIM's idea.
The 2d structure generated by the interaction and information exchange makes HEIM's R6. I would expect that the pattern would stabilize with the inclusion of the bottom right layout. 
PNeilson made an offer
| QUOTE | If the group finds this interesting let me know and I will start a new thread, "HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata".
<b>If the group is going to generate "diagrams", we will certainly need a place to look at them, explain how they were produced and to explain the meaning of the generated "diagram". Hey!... Don't look at me!....I know when to step back and let the experts do their work!
(I've tried and I cannot do it) 
jal
jreed
4th April 2006 - 05:53 PM
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 4 2006, 09:06 AM) What happens if instead of looking for Metron resonances or thinking of metrons as dynamic we think of Metrons as being a cell in a cellular automata. The dynamics are created by information exchange between cells using nothing more than nearest neighbor rules. The information is represented by the Metron (cellular automata cell) shrinking when marked and expanding when clear. At every unit of time the nearest neighbor rules are evaluated for information exchange.
A stable particle is a stable pattern in the automata. Different particles have different patterns. A particle lifetime is determined by how fast a unstable pattern decays. All particles then have complex dynamic structure that is deterministic and causual yet they appear at larger scales or at any quanta of time to be non-deterministic, statistical entities. This matches Heim's comments about the results of scattering experiments.
Mass arises as the cell holds information that is the Metrons condense. As the patterns become more complex the mass increases.
Quantum numbers or higher dimensions might then be thought of as topological dynamical pattern types in the 3 D + Time cellular automata or the cellular automata itself might be more complex dimensionally.
I for one think this is an excellent idea. We won't know if it will work until it's tried. It seems to fall into the realm of Heim's ideas, and who knows what will come out of it? Those of us with Mathematica experience are already half way there. Wolfram wrote his book "A New Kind of Science" to apply Mathematica to problems like this. I don't know how to represent the six, eight or twelve dimensions of Heim theory with cellular automata but that's the fun of it. jreed
neutrino
4th April 2006 - 08:05 PM
Cellular automata definitely is interesting, espeically since the universe appears to be completely quantized and is obviously evolving, but how does one pull concrete solutions out of a cellular automata diagram, like Heim's Mass formula, for example? 
Guest_guest
4th April 2006 - 08:55 PM
search for web sites
use your e-mail
send out invitations
talk to uour professors
talk to your students
Guest_MMC
4th April 2006 - 10:10 PM
| QUOTE |
I don't know how to represent the six, eight or twelve dimensions of Heim theory with cellular automata but that's the fun of it.
<br>Modify the source code of your automata program. Provide yourself with a graphical output window for each dimension and adapt the rules to follow Heim's flow of information.
Then integrate this approach:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
I don't know how to represent the six, eight or twelve dimensions of Heim theory with cellular automata but that's the fun of it.
<br>Modify the source code of your automata program. Provide yourself with a graphical output window for each dimension and adapt the rules to follow Heim's flow of information.
Then integrate this approach:
A Genetic Algorithm Discovers Particle-Based Computation in Cellular Automata
Abstract:
How does evolution produce sophisticated emergent computation in systems composed of simple components limited to local interactions?
To model such a process, we used a genetic algorithm (GA) to evolve cellular automata perform a computational task requiring globally coordinated information processing.
On most runs a class of relatively unsophisticated strategies was evolved, but on a subset of runs a number of quite sophisticated strategies was discovered.
We analyze the emergent logic underlying these strategies in terms of information processing performed by “particles” in space-time, and we describe in detail the generational progression of the GA evolution of these strategies.
Our analysis is a preliminary step in understanding the general mechanisms by which sophisticated emergent computational capabilities can be automatically produced in decentralized multiprocessor systems.
<a href='http://www.santafe.edu/research/publications/wpabstract/199403015' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.santafe.edu/research/publicatio...tract/199403015
This should be able to show if Heim's model is sophisticated enough to operate as a basis for self-assembly.
Good luck and remember...
"He who controls self-assembly, controls the future!"
metronhead
5th April 2006 - 06:04 AM
Hi jreed-
I'm so glad that we have a professional physicist in the group (which I am not).
Regarding the cellular automata idea, I have sometimes wondered if some sort of iterative process might be involved in particle lifetimes, as are involved in the generation of fractals like the Mandelbrot set.
As you know, the Mandelbrot set, for example, consists of areas of stability, in which the iterated equation that generates it iterates in a stable cyclic "attractor". Points on the fringe of the Mandelbrot set go unstable, after a certain number of iterations of the generating equation. Points far outside the set go unstable almost immediately.
Particles, too, have various average lifetimes, then go unstable. Some, like the proton, like points far inside the Mandelbrot set, seem to be stable indefinitely. Others, like points on the border of the Mandelbrot set, are stable for a certain number of iterations, then go unstable.
LQG sometimes compares the stepwise changes in spin networks to clock cycles of digital computers.
I know that there are some mathematical models that use iterated difference equations rather than differential equations to model things. I wonder if a quantized space-time, in which changes occur in discrete steps, could better be modeled using cellular automata or iterated difference equations instead of continuous math.
If an iterative process determines particle lifetimes, maybe that explains why more conventional math and physics have not been able to determine particle lifetimes.
You guys might really be onto something with the cellular automata idea, I think.
MMC
5th April 2006 - 07:35 AM
| QUOTE |
Regarding the cellular automata idea, I have sometimes wondered if some sort of iterative process might be involved in particle lifetimes, as are involved in the generation of fractals like the Mandelbrot set.
<br>To progress from the BB to the current universe an iterative process does seem to be the likely choice.
How do we know that the current atomic model is not subject to a process similar to evolution?
When you consider that 95% of the universe is undetectable and that the age of the universe has been determined to be around 13 billion years old...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
Regarding the cellular automata idea, I have sometimes wondered if some sort of iterative process might be involved in particle lifetimes, as are involved in the generation of fractals like the Mandelbrot set.
<br>To progress from the BB to the current universe an iterative process does seem to be the likely choice.
How do we know that the current atomic model is not subject to a process similar to evolution?
When you consider that 95% of the universe is undetectable and that the age of the universe has been determined to be around 13 billion years old...
The Age of the Universe
Recently, the Hubble Space Telescope was used to measure the distance to a galaxy named "M100". Based on this distance (56 million light-years), the age of the universe is apparently 8 to 12 billion years. Yet there are stars right here in our own galaxy that are believed to be older than that! How can the universe be younger than stars contained in it?
This is one of the biggest mysteries currently puzzling astronomers. The discrepancy arises because of the apparent conflict of two major streams of astronomical research: stellar evolution theory and the distance scale measurements.
Stellar evolution theory and observations of globular clusters (believed to contain the oldest stars in the galaxy) give estimates for the ages of the stars of 15-18 billion years. The distance scale measurements and big bang theory suggest the universe is 8-12 billion years old. Hence, either stellar evolution theory is incorrect, or how we measure distances is wrong.
<a href='http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/age.html' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/age.html
...then it is possible that what we are seeing is a 'subset' of particles that are at a particular stage in an iterative process.
It also opens the possibility that life developed within a different stage of this iterative process and thus self-assembly, or the creation of new life, may be impossible.
Do the building blocks of life, elements and their atomic structures, change with time?
PNeilson
5th April 2006 - 10:57 AM
Thanks to all for the interest in Cellular Automata. I have created the new Topic "HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata" as promised. Please see the initial topic post for more information.
I followed Leovinus's link to the paper by Breakstone on Empirical Relationships among Lepton and Quark masses. I found Breakstone's 2 Pi relationship between generations of particles quite suggestive of a simple geometrical progression between the generations of particles. This 2 Pi relationship may help in the search for a particle's Cellular Automata. That is, the first particle has the foundational Cellular Automata and the second particle in the generation is a simple 2 Pi scaling of the first with the third particle in the generation a 2 Pi scaling of the second. The Cellular Automata we are looking for would be required to have this scaling law which would greatly reduce the search space of possible Cellular Automata.
Paul
will314159
5th April 2006 - 12:19 PM
there's a whole theory of gravitation called PROCESS gravitation. in that theory there's a whole different view ot time. The focus is on itereation and process not on linear time. By the way, in the wikipedia article on quantum gravitation, i added a link to Heim Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_physicssounds a lot like metron oscillations QUOTE History
Process physics has its origin in a paper by Reginald T. Cahill and Christopher M. Klinger about modeling space and time with a random matrix in 1996 Pre-geometric modeling. This was further developed in the paper Self-Referential Noise and the Synthesis of Three-Dimensional Space in 1998. In 2002 the paper Process Physics: From Quantum Foam to General Relativity and Process Physics: From Information Theory to Quantum Space and Matter in 2003 took the radical step of expanding on the themes of the earlier papers to encompass both quantum mechanics and general relativity.
[edit]
Modeling process physics
Process physics uses the concept of self-referential criticality to explain the emergence of structure and information from random processes. It is modeled by a boot-strap process that uses a matrix that describes the strengths of connections between nodes. By iterating this matrix by adding its inverse, causing self-reference, and adding random noise, a tree structure emerges with strongly connected nodes exhibiting a fractal but, at higher levels, three-dimensional structure, which resembles space. Connections between nodes decay, while new connections are created; over many iterations more new connections are formed than are lost, causing an exponentially expanding space, just as observed in the physical universe. Within this tree structure, topological defects that have more connectivity than normal and are therefore more 'sticky' emerge, giving rise to patterns that persist. It is argued that these patterns have matter-like behaviour because of their persistence and their fuzziness at smaller scales similar to quantum particles, and also gravity-like behaviour.
[edit]
Time
In classical physics time is modelled as a geometrical dimension that is added to the three dimensions of space to construct four dimensional space-time. This is a static model that does not have the concept of a past, present or future, or the arrow of time within it. This is at odds to normal experience. Process physics models time as an iterative process and has these effects built in. Time in process physics is modelled as an iterative process, where each iteration is like the next present moment. Due to the randomness present in the iterative equation it is not possible to perform the inverse operation, meaning you cannot go backwards to the previous moments. Again due to the randomness present in the model, the future is not completely predictable. Process physics thus predicts a static past, a continually changing present moment, and an unpredictable future. This is at odds with the static space-time model, which mathematically allows any point in space-time to be predicted, whether past, present or future.
[edit]
Space
A key point in the Process Physics theory is that space has internal structure. This structure is described as a network of nodal points with connections between nodes of varying strength, as described above in the section "modelling process physics". Mathematically the model used by process physics to describe space is essentially the same as that used to model neural networks. The inspiration to use this neural-network type of model to describe reality came from the discovery that the behaviour of the elementary particles skyrmions can be described by a similar model.
[edit]
Matter
In process physics, matter is described as topological defects in three dimensional space that have the ability to become persistent by preserving the pattern of its links over many iterations. Matter is embedded in three dimensional space but is essentially made of the same thing as space. It moves by re-linking preferentially in the direction of travel and losing links more often in the opposite direction to travel. The pattern therefore appears to move relative to the underlying fabric of space and to other matter. Once the movement has started then it will become self sustaining requiring no more energy to continue. Any change in direction to its passage through space would be resisted, which manifests itself as inertia.
[edit]
Gravity
The topological defect nature of matter means it has more links than normal space. This would produce the effect of using up more links than the space surrounding it meaning that space would effectively sink into matter. This is speculated as the reason behind gravity where the space between masses would effectively shrink making the masses become closer together. The masses would not move as such but the distance between them would get smaller. This also explains why a free falling body does not seem to experience a force while accelerating due to gravity towards a more massive body. This however goes against general relativity as the gravitational effect would be instantaneous rather than effect at a distance at the speed of light. An experiment to measure the speed of gravity would go a long way in establishing if general relativity or process physics is closer to reality.
[edit]
See also
Zephir
5th April 2006 - 12:46 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Apr 5 2006, 03:19 PM) ...there's a whole theory of gravitation called PROCESS gravitation.... OK, but why is it in pseudoscience category?
Olaf
5th April 2006 - 01:36 PM
Neutrinos in Heim mass formula
This night I realized, that the term fik in the 1982 DESY code might have been thought to calculate neutrinos. (In the original source code term is calculated but not further used.)
So I looked at the 1989 paper.
I guess there are as many errors in this paper as in the previous 1982 paper (sorry). I state that all intermediate results and structures described in the 1982 formula must have counterparts in the 1989 equations!
So I assume the mass formula B3 should be:
M = my * (alfp(G + S + F + Fi) + 4q*alfm) (wrong brackets in the 1989 paper)
This corresponds to (1982):
M = my * alfp(G + K + H + Fi)
with
G = G
S = K
F = H + fi(N=0) (self coupling term added 1989)
The term
4q*alfm
already is contained in 1982 Fi as the very last term.
Therefore we get a cleared Fi by subtracting
fi = Fi - 4q*alfm/alfp
This is exactly the equation for fik in the 1982 source code.
Fi then is the pure field mass of a particle with protosimplex structures that are empty or compensated by ni = -Qi. In this case K+G+H becomes zero. That is only Fi left over giving a field mass.
I have tested this in Excel where I get the same masses for the e-, muon and pion neutrinos as published by Burkhard Heim 1984. (It seems that in table II at the heim-theory paper the masses are mixed up.)
I am not sure about the other neutrinos. In addition I do not know whether the self coupling term fi(1989) already is contained in 1982 Fi or if this is a new term. This is an important question to evaluate.
will314159
5th April 2006 - 01:57 PM
Zephir West Wind
As to why Process Gravity is labeled PseudoScience
Wikipedia is political. look at the discussion pages sometimes. there are always people trying to delete articles, change them. articles are arrived at by consensus.
Heim theory is a case in point. Now it is labeled "ProtoScience." At one time is was labeled Pseduoscience, Fringescience. I was for labeling it "NonMainstream."
I would label Aether Wave Theory "Zephir's Baby."
Take Care!
araven
5th April 2006 - 03:07 PM
Hi,
| QUOTE |
So I assume the mass formula B3 should be:
M = my * (alfp(G + S + F + Fi) + 4q*alfm) (wrong brackets in the 1989 paper)
<br>I have corrected the C code with the above, and some of the masses got much closer to the experimental results.
CODE
=== particles ===============================================================
=============================================================================
name | symbol | q_x | m_the [Mev] | m_exp [Mev] | error %
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
neutral electron | e_0 | 0 | 0.50627181 | |
electron | e_- | -1 | 0.51098822 | 0.51099907 | -0.002%
muon | miu_- | -1 | 105.65634128 | 105.65838900 | -0.002%
eta | eta | 0 | 548.62899518 | 547.30000000 | 0.243%
charged kaon | KAPPA_+ | 1 | 493.69956168 | 493.67700000 | 0.005%
neutral kaon | KAPPA_0 | 0 | 497.69173794 | 497.67200000 | 0.004%
charged pion | pi_+- | 1 | 139.56421834 | 139.57018000 | -0.004%
neutral pion | pi_0 | 0 | 134.92903040 | 134.97660000 | -0.035%
lambda | LAMBDA | 0 | 1116.21187996 | 1115.68300000 | 0.047%
omega | OMEGA_- | -1 | 1672.12543330 | 1672.45000000 | -0.019%
proton | p | 1 | 937.34294837 | 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 | 1321.25394409 | 1321.32000000 | -0.005%
positive sigma | SIGMA_+ | 1 | 1189.33870868 | 1189.37000000 | -0.003%
neutral sigma | SIGMA_0 | 0 | 1192.23763970 | 1192.64200000 | -0.034%
negative sigma | SIGMA_- | -1 | 1197.26880554 | 1197.44900000 | -0.015%
2 charged delta | DELTA_++ | 2 | 1234.45077079 | 1232.00000000 | 0.199%
positive delta | DELTA_+ | 1 | 1234.73927299 | 1232.00000000 | 0.222%
neutral delta | DELTA_0 | 0 | 1235.79291876 | 1232.00000000 | 0.308%
negative delta | DELTA_- | -1 | 1229.21652239 | 1232.00000000 | -0.226%
=============================================================================
jal
5th April 2006 - 04:05 PM
will314159... and all You got to stop that kind of explanations.... your driving me out of a job  simple jal
RAF
5th April 2006 - 07:39 PM
QUOTE (araven+Apr 5 2006, 03:07 PM) Hi,
| QUOTE |
So I assume the mass formula B3 should be:
M = my * (alfp(G + S + F + Fi) + 4q*alfm) (wrong brackets in the 1989 paper)
<br>I have corrected the C code with the above, and some of the masses got much closer to the experimental results.
Output .......
Note Leovinus used http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/mcdata/mass_width_2004.csv for his experimental masses. The experimental masses vary a bit from those you used.
It would seem all use the same experimental masses, and the document above has some very recent values. It contains mass widths and basic particle masses with error bounds.
'leovinus' also adjusted G to give a very small error for e- in his translation of Olaf's Pascal version: 6.67331980000000e-11. That gave an me- still a bit outside the experimental mass error bounds. I posted a sorted list of those masses here recently. As long as G is close to the best measured values that should be legitimate. In fact, a simple Newton's convergence to adjust G to the value that makes the error in e- essentially zero would be reasonable. Though, the value of G used might might also head the list with an indication it was set to minimize me-. And, how well G falls within current error limits.
Further, it's not the relative errors that count, rather it is how well they fall within the experimental error bounds. me- is know the most closely, 0.04 ppm. Again, this makes it the value to minimise. p and n error limits are only 80 ppm. The delta's are known to only 2%.
I see me- is 1.43e-7 high in Leovinus' table. Compared to the 0.4e-7 error limit in the PDG list.
I'm waiting to see how the neutrinos and other particles come out.
RAF
5th April 2006 - 07:59 PM
QUOTE (Olaf+Apr 5 2006, 01:36 PM) Neutrinos in Heim mass formula
This night I realized, that the term fik in the 1982 DESY code might have been thought to calculate neutrinos. (In the original source code term is calculated but not further used.)
So I looked at the 1989 paper.
I guess there are as many errors in this paper as in the previous 1982 paper (sorry). I state that all intermediate results and structures described in the 1982 formula must have counterparts in the 1989 equations!
.................
I have tested this in Excel where I get the same masses for the e-, muon and pion neutrinos as published by Burkhard Heim 1984. (It seems that in table II at the heim-theory paper the masses are mixed up.)
........................ Excellent Olaf! Maybe it's time to look at the particle lifetimes. Some were very close, other(s) were off some. A Flow Diagram of the mass calculations, something that would describe the process in a simple way, would be useful. Ultimately, that might be just part of a larger diagram showing the underpinnings of Heim's theory, and also the more speculative area of gravito-photons and the 'Space Drive'. I assume these matters will eventually get back to Dr's. Hauser and Droescher.
araven
5th April 2006 - 08:47 PM
Hello, RAF.
| QUOTE |
Note Leovinus used http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/mcdata/mass_width_2004.csv for his experimental masses. The experimental masses vary a bit from those you used.
It would seem all use the same experimental masses, and the document above has some very recent values. It contains mass widths and basic particle masses with error bounds.
<br>I had this document for a while, just had no time to adjust the masses in the program. Now it is done. :-)
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
Note Leovinus used http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/mcdata/mass_width_2004.csv for his experimental masses. The experimental masses vary a bit from those you used.
It would seem all use the same experimental masses, and the document above has some very recent values. It contains mass widths and basic particle masses with error bounds.
<br>I had this document for a while, just had no time to adjust the masses in the program. Now it is done. :-)
'leovinus' also adjusted G to give a very small error for e- in his translation of Olaf's Pascal version: 6.67331980000000e-11. That gave an me- still a bit outside the experimental mass error bounds. I posted a sorted list of those masses here recently. As long as G is close to the best measured values that should be legitimate. In fact, a simple Newton's convergence to adjust G to the value that makes the error in e- essentially zero would be reasonable. Though, the value of G used might might also head the list with an indication it was set to minimize me-. And, how well G falls within current error limits.
<br>The value of G (and rest of the constants) was taken from wikipedia, is there any alternative source with better estimation?
Regarding the best fitting G... There is a slight problem with it (at least in C case), it can at best be temporary until all the errors are found. Its value is:
CODE
G_best = G * pow(m_theoretical / m_experimental, 6) = 6.67336e-11
where m_theoretical and m_experimental stand for theoretical and expeimental masses of electron. The m_theoretical is the problematic one, it depends upon the quadruples n, m, p and sigma. And the quadruples yielded by C implementation do not match all of the selected results' values for now. This is the main reason I didnt try to add neutrinos so far.
Did anyone manage to get perfect match with any of the other implementations?
jal
5th April 2006 - 09:04 PM
Hi! It's available at: HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata JAL’S INTERPRETATION AND PROCEDURES (Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure to be used for HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata ). jal
RAF
5th April 2006 - 10:29 PM
QUOTE (araven+Apr 5 2006, 08:47 PM) Hello, RAF.
| QUOTE |
Note Leovinus used http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/mcdata/mass_width_2004.csv for his experimental masses. The experimental masses vary a bit from those you used.
It would seem all use the same experimental masses, and the document above has some very recent values. It contains mass widths and basic particle masses with error bounds.
<br>I had this document for a while, just had no time to adjust the masses in the program. Now it is done. :-)
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
Note Leovinus used http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/mcdata/mass_width_2004.csv for his experimental masses. The experimental masses vary a bit from those you used.
It would seem all use the same experimental masses, and the document above has some very recent values. It contains mass widths and basic particle masses with error bounds.
<br>I had this document for a while, just had no time to adjust the masses in the program. Now it is done. :-)
'leovinus' also adjusted G to give a very small error for e- in his translation of Olaf's Pascal version: 6.67331980000000e-11. That gave an me- still a bit outside the experimental mass error bounds. I posted a sorted list of those masses here recently. As long as G is close to the best measured values that should be legitimate. In fact, a simple Newton's convergence to adjust G to the value that makes the error in e- essentially zero would be reasonable. Though, the value of G used might might also head the list with an indication it was set to minimize me-. And, how well G falls within current error limits.
<br>The value of G (and rest of the constants) was taken from wikipedia, is there any alternative source with better estimation?
Regarding the best fitting G... There is a slight problem with it (at least in C case), it can at best be temporary until all the errors are found. Its value is:
CODE
G_best = G * pow(m_theoretical / m_experimental, 6) = 6.67336e-11
RAF:Close to the value Leovinas uses: 6.67331980000000e-11
Hmm, actually, it appears to be from "theory W.Droescher(2002)"
I'm not sure how many std erros that is from one of the 'best values': 6.6742 ?
............................
Did anyone manage to get perfect match with any of the other implementations?
I copied and pasted the G in Leovinas' source code into my quote above.
I had manually changed G in Spony's on-line java applet. Got the error in e- down to 0e00 once, but later it wouldn't drop that low. There appeared to be some hysteresis in the calculations. More recent codings in Pascal and C probably have more accurate math. Further, I noted that the assembly source file generated appeared to save FP variables from the NPX's stack as TBYTES (or QWORDS), which preserves the 80-bit precision and exponent range of the NPX itself. I think that runs about 18 digital digits. I'm not that familiar with the extended precision FP types used in both the Pascal and C source, but 'double precision' or float8 should be good enough to handle most of the calculations. One calculation involves 1.000 - beta^2, but that still leaves 10 or more digits of significance with float8 or float8+.
Note 1 - beta^2 = 2bd + bd^2, where bd = 1.0 - beta. So at least a little precision could be gained with the binomial expansion.
While speed isn't important for just calculating these masses, it may be nice to add a graphical output where calculations are made which move the values around on a 3D projection. More efficient calculations might be desirable in such a case. Watching the trajectories of poor fits could be instructive. Regardless, colorful pictures are good for advertising results.
RAF
5th April 2006 - 10:53 PM
Note I still think setting many of the constants in Planck Units (1.0, or with a 2Pi factor) would be very useful. That includes the Planck Mass. I think the uncertainty in G would also be eliminated. Note these are given at Wikipedia.
The 'so' length of 1 m would also be replaced with the Planck unit. The calculated masses might come out as multiples of the Planck Mass. Or, could be manipulated to that.
To convert to the current masses in MeV, the empirical constants G, c, etc. would come in.
RAF
leovinus
5th April 2006 - 11:07 PM
QUOTE (Olaf+Apr 5 2006, 01:36 PM) Neutrinos in Heim mass formula
This night I realized, that the term fik in the 1982 DESY code might have been thought to calculate neutrinos. (In the original source code term is calculated but not further used.)
Hi, Based on Olaf's comments, and the Mathematica code from jreed, I have extended the C program gprog.c (derived from gprog.pas by Olaf), for neutrino masses. It now prints this table (with neutrino masses ) given at the end. Notes: 1) The mass values are identical to Olaf's spreadsheet, but different from the Mathematica implementation since that is based on 1989 papers. There is still some work to do to decide what's correct and what can be improved 2) Here two papers also discussion neutrino mass predictions that I stumbled upon. * http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?...:hep-ph/0505028 * http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0602/0602118.pdf3) Anyone has any better predictions/ measurements/ brackets on neutrino mass? L. *************************************************** Particle | description | reference mass | computed mass | diff[%] name | kPQkap#x,qx,cs| | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- eta = 1000#100 = ref= 547.75 comp= 548.8023492 = diff[%]= 0.192% e- = 1110#2-10 = ref= 0.51099892 comp= 0.5109988467 = diff[%]= 1.43e-05% mu = 1111#1-10 = ref= 105.658369 comp= 105.6585358 = diff[%]= 0.000158% K+- = 1101#111 = ref= 493.677 comp= 493.6779494 = diff[%]= 0.000192% K0 = 1101#201 = ref= 497.648 comp= 497.6695545 = diff[%]= 0.00433% pi0 = 1200#200 = ref= 134.9766 comp= 134.9615354 = diff[%]= 0.0112% pi+- = 1200#110 = ref= 139.57018 comp= 139.5658085 = diff[%]= 0.00313% lambda = 2010#10-1 = ref= 1115.683 comp= 1115.590928 = diff[%]= 0.00825% omega = 2030#1-1-3 = ref= 1672.45 comp= 1672.202046 = diff[%]= 0.0148% p = 2110#110 = ref= 938.27203 comp= 938.2720701 = diff[%]= 4.28e-06% n = 2110#200 = ref= 939.56536 comp= 939.5654923 = diff[%]= 1.41e-05% xi0 = 2111#10-2 = ref= 1314.82 comp= 1314.774428 = diff[%]= 0.00347% xi- = 2111#2-1-2 = ref= 1321.31 comp= 1321.306103 = diff[%]= 0.000295% sig+ = 2210#11-1 = ref= 1189.37 comp= 1189.354538 = diff[%]= 0.0013% sig0 = 2210#20-1 = ref= 1192.642 comp= 1192.426786 = diff[%]= 0.018% sig- = 2210#3-1-1 = ref= 1197.449 comp= 1197.275523 = diff[%]= 0.0145% delta++ = 2330#120 = ref= 1232 comp= 1230.254996 = diff[%]= 0.142% delta+ = 2330#210 = ref= 1232 comp= 1229.776076 = diff[%]= 0.181% delta0 = 2330#300 = ref= 1232 comp= 1231.127661 = diff[%]= 0.0708% delta- = 2330#4-10 = ref= 1232 comp= 1235.669805 = diff[%]= 0.298% neutrino1 = 1010#100#1 = ref= -1 comp= 1.440221201e-05 = diff[%]= -1% neutrino2 = 1110#100#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.005375600513 = diff[%]= -1% neutrino3 = 1200#200#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.001459933654 = diff[%]= -1% neutrino4 = 2110#200#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.0306332214 = diff[%]= -1% neutrino5 = 2111#10-2#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.09800052843 = diff[%]= -1% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NrParticles with reference mass= 20, avg. diff[%]= 0.048131735 % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PNeilson
6th April 2006 - 01:46 AM
RAF
I think you are right. The units we use are just versions of the length of the king's foot. Clarity will only be obtained with the use of fundamental units.
Paul
RAF
6th April 2006 - 03:31 AM
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 6 2006, 01:46 AM) RAF
I think you are right. The units we use are just versions of the length of the king's foot. Clarity will only be obtained with the use of fundamental units.
Paul <br>Here is the Wikipedia info on the Planck units: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_unitAll are 1 in these units. It gives are four that concern us: G, c, h_bar, "1/4Pi*eps_o". k, Boltzmann's constant can also be unitized, but doesn't affect us anyway. Ro (~377 ohms) could have been unitized instead of eps_o. However, there are also the Planck Mass, and Planck Length further down the page. They are then given in terms of the above, and pretty much appear to automatically come out to 1 (with perhaps a factor of 4Pi). It would seem the Planck Length might also be set to 1 (it is currently set to 1.0 m), or the "so" scale factor set to the that length in meters. "Natural units can help physicists reframe questions. Perhaps Frank Wilczek said it best : ...We see that the question [posed] is not, "Why is gravity so feeble?" but rather, "Why is the proton's mass so small?" For in Natural (Planck) Units, the strength of gravity simply is what it is, a primary quantity, while the proton's mass is the tiny number [1/(13 quintillion)]...(June 2001 Physics Today)"
Olaf
6th April 2006 - 12:32 PM
New versions of 1982 code online, including neutrinosChangelog of Excel Heim mass calculator v. 0.65: CODE + Added computation of mesonic neutrino masses as remaining field mass when Qi are compensated by ni=-Qi. The beta-neutrino is not presented here that results from a term in Fi not depending from k. + Changed name: fig into Fi. + Replaced empirical values from CERN 2002 by values from http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/mcdata/mass_width_2004.csv.
+ Added optimized value of gamma (Leovinus 2006). Changelog of 1982 C code by Leovinus v. 0.65: CODE + removed nue2 and nue3 from gprogin.dat + added evaluation of calculated masses compared to values given at http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/mcdata/mass_width_2004.csv.
+ added optimized value of gamma (Leovinus 2006) + added calculation of neutrinos
Please have fun with the neutrinos!
To RAF:
The optimized Leovinus value of gamma shall be 6.67279915e-11.
To MMC:
You may upload both the pascal and C versions to sourceforge.
RAF
7th April 2006 - 12:47 AM
QUOTE (Olaf+Apr 6 2006, 12:32 PM) Changelog of Excel Heim mass calculator v. 0.65: CODE + Replaced empirical values from CERN 2002 by values from http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/mcdata/mass_width_2004.csv.
+ Added optimized value of gamma (Leovinus 2006). Changelog of 1982 C code by Leovinus v. 0.65: CODE ........ http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/mcdata/mass_width_2004.csv.
+ added optimized value of gamma (Leovinus 2006) + added calculation of neutrinos Please have fun with the neutrinos! To RAF: The optimized Leovinus value of gamma shall be 6.67279915e-11.
It appears the n, p error limits in the CODA or CERN data are roughly 100 times as tight as in the PDG mass_width_2004 listing. The former gave e-, n, and p error limits roughly 0.1e-6. Much closer than the calculated values with a 'reasonable' value for G.
If G = "6.67279915e-11" to minimize the mass calculation errors it is getting outside the expected error.
RAF
7th April 2006 - 12:49 AM
QUOTE (Olaf+Apr 6 2006, 12:32 PM) Changelog of Excel Heim mass calculator v. 0.65: CODE + Replaced empirical values from CERN 2002 by values from http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/mcdata/mass_width_2004.csv.
+ Added optimized value of gamma (Leovinus 2006). Changelog of 1982 C code by Leovinus v. 0.65: CODE ........ http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/mcdata/mass_width_2004.csv.
+ added optimized value of gamma (Leovinus 2006) + added calculation of neutrinos Please have fun with the neutrinos! To RAF: The optimized Leovinus value of gamma shall be 6.67279915e-11.
It appears the n, p error limits in the CODA or CERN data are roughly 100 times as tight as in the PDG mass_width_2004 listing. The former gave e-, n, and p error limits roughly 0.1e-6. Much closer than the calculated values with a 'reasonable' value for G.
If G = "6.67279915e-11" to minimize the mass calculation errors it is getting outside the expected error.
Neil Farbstein
7th April 2006 - 01:43 AM
QUOTE (RAF+Apr 7 2006, 12:49 AM) QUOTE (Olaf+Apr 6 2006, 12:32 PM) Changelog of Excel Heim mass calculator v. 0.65: CODE + Replaced empirical values from CERN 2002 by values from http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/mcdata/mass_width_2004.csv.
+ Added optimized value of gamma (Leovinus 2006). Changelog of 1982 C code by Leovinus v. 0.65: CODE ........ http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/mcdata/mass_width_2004.csv.
+ added optimized value of gamma (Leovinus 2006) + added calculation of neutrinos Please have fun with the neutrinos! To RAF: The optimized Leovinus value of gamma shall be 6.67279915e-11. It appears the n, p error limits in the CODA or CERN data are roughly 100 times as tight as in the PDG mass_width_2004 listing. The former gave e-, n, and p error limits roughly 0.1e-6. Much closer than the calculated values with a 'reasonable' value for G. If G = "6.67279915e-11" to minimize the mass calculation errors it is getting outside the expected error. Does that mean that the results from CERN experiments prove the standard model is 100 times closer to describing subatomic interactions than Heim's theory?
RAF
7th April 2006 - 02:01 PM
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 7 2006, 01:43 AM) QUOTE (RAF+Apr 7 2006, 12:49 AM) QUOTE (Olaf+Apr 6 2006, 12:32 PM) ............... Changelog of 1982 C code by Leovinus v. 0.65: CODE ........ http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/mcdata/mass_width_2004.csv.
+ added optimized value of gamma (Leovinus 2006) + added calculation of neutrinos To RAF: The optimized Leovinus value of gamma shall be 6.67279915e-11. It appears the n, p error limits in the CODA or CERN data are roughly 100 times as tight as in the PDG mass_width_2004 listing. The former gave e-, n, and p error limits roughly 0.1e-6. Much closer than the calculated values with a 'reasonable' value for G. If G = "6.67279915e-11" to minimize the mass calculation errors it is getting outside the expected error. Does that mean that the results from CERN experiments prove the standard model is 100 times closer to describing subatomic interactions than Heim's theory? I only ran into e, p, and n mass error limits at a CODA site. I noted that the p and n mass error limits appeared to be much lower than those set in the gprog.c souce code. Here is a record in gprog 0.65: " { "e-" , "1110#2-10", 0.0, 0.51099892, 4e-8 }, 4e-6% error limit { "mu", "1111#1-10", 0.0, 105.658369, 0.00009 }, ............................................... { "omega", "2030#1-1-3",0.0, 1672.45, 0.29}, { "p", "2110#110", 0.0, 938.27203, 8e-5 }, 8e-4% error limit { "n", "2110#200", 0.0, 939.56536, 8e-5 }, " " I lost my PDG mass_width file, I'll have to DL it again. I compiled gprog 0.65 with several values of G. One version sets G about 6ppm lower than the value Leovinus had set: gam = 6.6733198e-11 -0.0000060E-11 I then got this error for the e- mass: 6.41e-07%. Which is lower than the 4e-6% limit(above). However, p and n mass errors increased over the values with no G offset: p 1.93e-05% n 2.91e-05% Changing G changed "Mass element amu =2.25898475254888e-31 [kg]" G - 3 ppm "Mass element amu =2.25898492180394e-31 [kg]" G - 6 ppm but not any of the other 'Derived constants' printed out. The relative change appears to be smaller than the relative change in G. Recompiling for different values of G is clumsy, but I'm not a C programmer. What I would like to see is calculations of the partial derivatives d(mass_n)/d(G). Probably normalized by G/mass_n. That would give a better idea how the different masses change as G changes. Even though the masses calculated are close, unless they are within a couple of std deviations of the empirical values they present a problem.
RAF
7th April 2006 - 02:04 PM
DUPE
RAF
7th April 2006 - 02:31 PM
Addendum:
I misinterpreted the error limits. the mass_width_2004 error limits are in MeV, not in relative error. So, the 8e-5 MeV error for p and n is to be compared with their masses, about 939 MeV. That drops the relative experimental error to ~ 1e-7, 10e-6%.
While the 4e-8 MeV error in e- is to be compared with the 0.51 MeV mass. Making this relative error about 8e-8, 8e-6%.
So, the relative empirical errors in e-, p, and n are around 10e-6%, the value to compare with the gprog error percent.
RAF
RAF
7th April 2006 - 02:34 PM
Another DUPE
araven
7th April 2006 - 02:57 PM
RAF, I am not sure what such a derivative will be good for, as was mentioned earlier, G is merely a scale factor in mass equation. CODE m = pow(G, -1/6) * f and so CODE dm/dG = -(1/6) * pow(G, -7/6) * f = -m/6/G
With Planck's units we will have the same problem as now I believe. Only that we wouldnt be sure about the experimental masses, since we will have to convert them from the common units to the Planck' units using one of the G values.
Olaf, does the C/Pascal code yields a matching n, m, p and sigma for particles?
Olaf
7th April 2006 - 05:05 PM
QUOTE (araven+Apr 7 2006, 02:57 PM) Olaf, does the C/Pascal code yields a matching n, m, p and sigma for particles? n, m, p and sigma are the same numbers of protosimplexes formerly noted as n1, n2, n3 and n4. The same indexes are used in Q1=Qn, Q2=Qm, Q3=Qp, Q4=Qsigma. The 1989 equations should describe the same structures as the 1982 equations did.
Guest_Bentsutomuito
7th April 2006 - 06:30 PM
Wave Theory of Light
Ben Ito
4-07-06
This paper will prove that the wave theory of light is invalid.
1. Introduction
Huygens (1690) described the propagation of light using a wave structure formed by an ether yet light propagates in a vacuum that does not contain an ether. Maxwell (1864) stated that light was an electromagnetic wave formed by an ether. Without the ether, Maxwell's structure of light does not physically exist yet light propagates in a vacuum that does not contain an ether.
In 1899, the photoelectric effect proved that light formed particle effects. To justify the particle effects of light, Planck (1900) derived a discrete energy equation using Maxwell's structure of light yet the ether that forms Maxwell's structure of light does not physically exist. Einstein (1905) derived an energy quanta equation of light that described the ether using kinetic gas theory but Huygens-Maxwell's ether does not physically exist.
Feynman (1940) formed quantum electrodynamics (QED) that
is used to describe the particle structure of light. QED uses electromagnetic fields that are formed by Maxwell's ether that does not physically exist. Nambu (1970) formed string theory that is used to describe light yet string theory also uses a medium.
The medium (ether) and electromagnetic fields are part of wave theory; therefore, the wave-particle duality theory of light is a wave theory.
2. Wave Theory of Light
Huygens describes the propagation of light. Huygens' propagation mechanism uses an ether. The disturbance of the ether forms the wave propagation of light. Vacuum is empty and does not contain an ether yet light propagates in a vacuum which proves that Huygens' propagation mechanism of light is invalid.
Maxwell states that light is not a substance but a process going on in an ether which forms an electromagnetic wave structure of light (Maxwell, vol 2, p. 765). Maxwell's ether does not exist in a vacuum yet light propagates in a vacuum which is proof that Maxwell's structure of light does not physically exist.
The photoelectric effect proves that light forms particle effects. In Planck's black-body paper, a discrete energy equation of light is derived to justify the photoelectric particle effect. Planck uses Maxwell's structure of light to form a discrete energy equation of light; however, Maxwell's structure of light does not physically exist.
Einstein's energy quanta equation of light is derived using kinetic gas theory. The constant (N), of Einstein's energy quanta equation, originate form Boltzmann's gas molecule entropy equation. Maxwell states that an ether forms the electromagnetic wave structure of light. Einstein is using kinetic gas theory to describe the ether that forms the electromagnetic wave structure of light yet the ether does not physically exist.
The quantum electrodynamic(QED) particle structure of light uses electromagnetic fields that are formed by an ether yet light propagates in a vacuum that does not contain an ether. Electromagnetic fields do not physically exist; consequently, the quantum electrodynamic particle structure of light is invalid.
String theory uses a wave structure that medium is the string. The medium that propagates the string wave are the molecules that form the string yet light does not require a medium to propagate. Light propagates in a vacuum that does not contain a medium. String theory is an inappropriate analogy in describing light since light does not require a medium to propagate.
4. Conclusion
The water wave analogy is used to describe light: The particles of water molecules form a water wave. Light is being represented with infinitesimal size ether spheres that are used to represent the discrete particle structures that form the wave structure of light yet the ether does not physically exist. The wave theory of light is based on an ether yet light propagates in a vacuum that does not contain an ether which is proof that the wave theory of light is invalid.
5. References
Einstein, Albert. "On a Heuristic Point of View About the Creation and Conversation of Light". Ann. Physic. 17, 132, 1905.
Huygens, Christiaan. "Treatise on Light". 1690.
Maxwell, James. "The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell". Dover Pub. vol. 2. Edited by W.D. Niven. 1965.
Planck, Max. "On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum". 1990.
RAF
7th April 2006 - 07:00 PM
QUOTE (araven+Apr 7 2006, 02:57 PM) RAF, I am not sure what such a derivative will be good for, as was mentioned earlier, G is merely a scale factor in mass equation. CODE m = pow(G, -1/6) * f and so CODE dm/dG = -(1/6) * pow(G, -7/6) * f = -m/6/G With Planck's units we will have the same problem as now I believe. Only that we wouldnt be sure about the experimental masses, since we will have to convert them from the common units to the Planck' units using one of the G values.
By 'G' I meant the gravitational constant, 'gam'. However, it does appear to be a factor in 'amu' only, and the percent change in amu relative to the percent change in 'gam' appears to be something like 1/2. 'gam' appears in two terms of amu, but the main effect appears to be 1/sqrt(gam) = gam^-1/2. So the normalized derivative is 1/2. Change gam by 1% and amu should change by about 0.5%. -- Maybe I'm missing something here.
I added a column of cells to the mass_width.csv to calculate err(MeV)/mass(Mev) and see 0.78e-7, 0.78e-5%, is about the lowest error. It's for the electron. The proton and neutron are both about 0.85e-7, 0.85e-5%. It looks like the calculated values close to that error range.
Planck Units would show the relative values better. Perhaps as factors of 'amu'.
hdeasy
12th April 2006 - 02:53 PM
The latest article ny Haiko Lietz, author of the New Scientist article, is on Inflation Theory - an interview in the poplular German on-line magazine Telepolis: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/22/22362/1.htmlHis earlier Heim article there was more or less the precursor of the New Scientist piece: http://www.haikolietz.de/docs/special0105leseprobe.pdf(both in German)
hdeasy
13th April 2006 - 07:05 AM
Hauser & Droscher have posted a 7 page article - here's the blurb on the Hpcc-space.de site and the PDF link: 10 April 2006: In this non-mathematical overview we present a very brief introduction to some of the basic physical assumptions of Extended Heim Theory (EHT) as developed by Heim and Dröscher. We also explain the differences to the original 6-dimensional theory of Heim. These differences may be substantial, and we will show that a completely different picture of physical interactions is the result. EHT predicts six fundamental physical interactions. Heim had adopted Dröscher's idea of a 12-dimensional internal symmetry space from which the polymetric tensor, describing physical interactions, has to be constructed. Together with Dröscher, he published the book Strukturen der physikalischen Welt und ihrer nichtmateriellen Seite, Resch Verlag, 1996, Innsbruck, in which the physical consequences of this 12-dimensional internal space are discussed. Unfortunately, because of his failing health, Heim could not any more accomplish the task of rewriting his first two volumes on Elementarstrukturen der Materie, Resch Verlag, Innsbruck. The notes below are an excerpt from a forthcoming paper and are only a beginning http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...dHeimTheory.pdf
jal
13th April 2006 - 03:14 PM
hdeasy.... That was not a very stimulating way to drop a bomb... Here are a few quote.... QUOTE 12-dimensional internal symmetry space
Physical quantities (tensors in general) are connected by a specific
geometrical structure, termed affine connections that define parallel transport from one point in
space to another.
• From the duality principle, the existence of additional internal symmetries in Nature is deduced, and
thus a higher dimensional internal symmetry space should exist. The duality principle also
determines the relationship of internal symmetry space with Lorentzian four-dimensional spacetime.
universe was set into motion, it followed a path marked by a state of great order.
Since spacetime therefore is a quantum field, it should have corresponding quantum states,
described by a quantum field theory. Since spacetime is equivalent to gravity, gravity itself needs to
be described by a quantum field theory. That should motivate you to go read it. So far the presentations that I have been making are reflecting what is being said. See you there jal
Hans-Peter
13th April 2006 - 05:46 PM
Professor Dragon Universty of Hannover, Institute for theorectical physics wrote on 11 April 2005 in the German language forum Ureader re Heim's theory the following note. I quote first the original, below then my attempt of translation :
"Wie sollten auch meine Einwaende zaehlen, wo sie doch nur stoeren.
Auf die hier im Monatsabstand einschlagenden Fragen, was von der
Theorie zu halten sei, habe ich am 15.10.2004 festgestellt:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Zitatbeginn %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
An der "Theorie" kann kein Freundeskreis etwas retten.
Wer wie Heim feststellt, dass die Komponenten des Riemanntensors
R_klm^n
nichtlineare Funktionen der Komponenten der Konnektion Gamma_lm^n
und ihrer Ableitungen sind und daraus schliesst, dass es eine
nichtlineare Abbildung C_k gibt,
C_k: Gamma_lm^n --> R_klm^n
die Gamma_lm^n auf abbildet, hantiert mit unverstandenen Formelzeichen.
Es haengt beispielsweise R_121^2 nicht nur von Gamma_21^2 ab.
Grauslich wird es dann, wenn von den Eigenwerten dieser nichtlinearen
Abbildung gefaselt wird: C_k ist keine Selbstabbildung eines
Raumes, kann also fuer keinen Wert seiner Argumente ein Vielfaches der
identischen Abbildung sein.
Heim ist nicht unverstanden sondern hat nicht verstanden.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Zitatende %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~dragon
Date:11 Apr 2005 14:52:11 GMT Author: "
I translate now for the benefit of non German speakers, (correct me if I am wrong):
"What should my objections count, as they are just spoiling.... (the fun of posting pro Heim arguments, Hans-Peter's extension)
On the monthly coming up questions what to make of this (Heim's) theory I can only say, I stated on 15 October 2004:
%%%%%%%Begin of quote:
No circle of friends of Heim can save this theory. Who - like Heim did - states that the components of Riemann's tensor R_klm^n are non-linear functions of componens of the connection Gamma_lm^n and its derivatives and then concludes that a non-linear mapping C_k exists
C_k: Gamma_lm^n --> R_klm^n
which maps Gamma_lm^n on .....(missing..) , is working with not understood symbols. For example R_121^2 does not depend on Gamma_21^2 alone.
It gets really awful, when you blabber of Eigenvalues of this non-linear function: C_k
is not a mapping of a space on itself, hence cannot be for any value of its arguments a multiple of an identical mapping.
Therefore Heim is not misunderstood, but did not understand. %%%%%%%%%% End of quote
www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~dragon
Date:11 Apr 2005 14:52:11 GMT Author: "
END OF TRANSLATION
Now my questions. According to what I saw on the the German thread, this argument of Professor Dragon was acknowledged by others to be corrrect, but he was asked to concede that even if some parts of Heim's theory were wrong, however, the physical idea behind it was sound, as e.g. Nils Bohr's model of the atom was also wrong but still lead to new insights (another participant of that forum used this example)
Do the knowledgable people in this forum judge:
firstly that Prof Dragon's arguments are correct?
and
secondly that even if yes , it does not completely kill Heim's theory?
Thanks for sharing your insights.
Hans-Peter
jal
13th April 2006 - 06:05 PM
Hi Hans-Peter... QUOTE Nils Bohr's model of the atom was also wrong but still lead to new insights There is that funny thing with Heim.... particle mass... Everyone know my position. Why.... Even my simple visuals can be interpreted as a beginning (Nils Bohr's model ) What about you? What do you think? Are you a seeker? Can you give some knowledgeable inputs? There will be years of inputs.... jal
Hans-Peter
14th April 2006 - 12:28 PM
QUOTE (jal+Apr 13 2006, 06:05 PM)
What about you? What do you think?
Are you a seeker? Can you give some knowledgeable inputs?
There will be years of inputs....
jal
Hi jal, I think (or better hope) that Heim's theory is giving insights to the marriage of QT and GR , thereby paving the way to get some breakthrough in space propulsion (that's where the fascination comes for me beyond the mere understanding of mother nature ). Unfortunately my university years are already a couple of decades in the past, so actually contributing like some of you guys do here is beyond my capacity at the present. I would need to brush up my math seriously again. Coming back to Heim's theory , I see serious objections voiced by some heavy weights like Prof Dragon mentioned in my first posting or also Prof Bruhn of TU Darmstadt (see link here http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/IGW.html ) where I wonder if the flaws are so serious to actually pull the carpet away under the whole effort of getting this theory into the mainstream, in the sense that somehow the famous Mass formula will reveal itself to have been cooked, which would be a shame as then the idea of affordable interplanetary (or even interstellar) human space flight is again part of science fiction rather than science. Hans-Peter
will314159
14th April 2006 - 02:59 PM
Hans-Peter
As I have previously posted, Bruhn and critics of his ilk et al don't have a clue. they are just plain ignoramuses. And you can tell them I said so.
General Reliativity ("GR") in a nutshell (a la Wheeler) can be put as follows
Matter1, say the Earth, bends spacetime and matter2, the Moon, falls along the curves or geodesics in bent spacetime. This is gravity.
Bruhn's criticism is that in the absence in matter spacetime is flat . This is correct in classical GR. But when you QUANTIZE spacetime in HEIM THEORY as well as in LOOP QUANTUM QRAVITY, lo and behold, matter pops out of empty spacetime.
Since we all know that matter curves spacetime, ergo quantized spacetime cannot be flat. So for Bruhn to be right, not only Heim and Droscher would have to be wrong but also Smolin and all those loop quantum qravity theorists. I don't think so.
Take Care!
jal
14th April 2006 - 04:45 PM
Hi will314159 .... and all
Could you give me an explanation.
"Look up table"....
1. If the table is a tabulation of the observations that were obtained from experiments.... then that is not a look up table. Is that right?
2. If the table consist of a blend of derived/calculated constants and experimental results, what is that called?
3. If the table consist of only derived/calculated constants, what is that called when the table gives the same numbers as were obtained from experiments?
Which scenarios are we considering to be invalid? Explain to me why it is necessary to reject any of the above examples.
Should we not be looking a little deeper? Into the way that "constants" were derived?...into the interpretations of the experiments?
Can two wrongs make a right? What is right? What is wrong?
(Yes, I realize, it's better not to tell your boss that he's wrong if you want to keep your job)
Is it the METRON STORY that is not acceptable? (which could have nothing to do with the math.)
Is it the use of an unproved relationship of constants?
Wrong use of symmetry?
What is it?
jal
jreed
14th April 2006 - 05:43 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Apr 14 2006, 02:59 PM)
General Reliativity ("GR") in a nutshell (a la Wheeler) can be put as follows
Matter1, say the Earth, bends spacetime and matter2, the Moon, falls along the curves or geodesics in bent spacetime. This is gravity.
Bruhn's criticism is that in the absence in matter spacetime is flat . This is correct in classical GR. But when you QUANTIZE spacetime in HEIM THEORY as well as in LOOP QUANTUM QRAVITY, lo and behold, matter pops out of empty spacetime.
Since we all know that matter curves spacetime, ergo quantized spacetime cannot be flat. So for Bruhn to be right, not only Heim and Droscher would have to be wrong but also Smolin and all those loop quantum qravity theorists. I don't think so.
I've been trying to sort out Heim's equations for a week or so. Maybe that isn't enough time. The idea that somehow Heim has GR put in his formulation doesn't seem to be right as far as I can see. It looks like the metric is flat, with signature (1,1,1,-1,-1,-1). If general relativity is being used, the metric can't be flat, otherwise all the connection coefficients would be zero. The metric being used is closer to special relativity with two extra time dimensions. I would like to be able to derive Heim's mass formulas from his starting point, but it looks like a long and difficult journey. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can do this? jreed
will314159
14th April 2006 - 06:35 PM
JREED
| QUOTE | I would like to be able to derive Heim's mass formulas from his starting point, but it looks like a long and difficult journey. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can do this?
from HDeasy's previous post on this forum
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...=645#entry82597
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | I would like to be able to derive Heim's mass formulas from his starting point, but it looks like a long and difficult journey. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can do this?
from HDeasy's previous post on this forum
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...=645#entry82597
I think that one of the best places for the storyline, despite missing symbols in the html, is indeed that English translation of Heim's summary of his work: http://www.datadiwan.de/netzwerk/index_e.htm?dw_001e_.htm
Just reading through this, even without full understanding, gives a good impression of where the mass formula is coming from, how particles are formed by a projection from 6-D on 4-D etc. It cleared up a few things for me - and for this reason I'm looking forward to Von Ludwiger's transcriptions of the 40 (!) Heim tapes. These story-lines really do help one to orient oneself in longer works - like the mass formula derivation on http://www.heim-theory.com or the books themselves. It's good that the Heim theory group is working on a concise introduction to the theory, in normal notation - that will be much shorter and clearer than the original 3 volumes.
<br>there's no substitute for reading the old posts.
Take Care!
PNeilson
16th April 2006 - 12:44 AM
Hi jreed
Just a small suggestion, my GR is far too weak to do anything else. If I was trying to derive a mass formula I would start with one particle in empty (flat) space. Especially if I was Heim, because Heim says that curved space generates field mass and the field mass would interfere with the particle mass calculation. The field mass of curved space that the particle found it self in would add to the particle mass recursively. I think GR leaves out Heim's field mass.
Paul
jRidges
16th April 2006 - 02:48 AM
Greetings all. This is my first post so I hope you'll bear with me.
This is a little off-topic, as I know most of the discussion has been about the mass formulas, but I was hoping that one of you might know the answer to a question I have concerning the gravito-photon propulsion setup shown in the AIAA paper. In that setup, do the gravito-photons impart kinetic energy to the spinning torus, or to any matter inside the torus (or to both)? If it's just the torus, then the scenario I'm going to suggest doesn't work, but from the diagram and discussion in the paper I got the impression that kinetic energy in opposition to gravity would also be imparted to matter around the torus, including the inside. If that's the case, then is the following scenario plausible?
Attach the superconducting magnet and spinning torus system firmly to the earth, and enclose the apparatus in a vacuum chamber, so that any friction and cryogenic losses will be minimized. Once the magnet reaches full power, and the torus reaches full speed, it seems reasonable that very little energy would be required to maintain them. Construct a pipe through the apparatus that enters the vacuum chamber, runs through the center of the magnet and the torus, and exits the chamber so that a non-magnetic fluid (would water qualify?) would be pushed up through the pipe by the gravito-photons. Continue the pipe from the top of the apparatus to a turbine some distance away (so as to be minimally affected by the gravito-photons), and then back to the bottom of the apparatus to form a closed loop. Connect the turbine to an electric generator.
Does this setup generate electricity? If not, where have I gone wrong?
jRidges
Robert W. Hawkins
16th April 2006 - 02:47 PM
['Heim´s Theory is defined in a 6-dimensional world, in 2 dimensions of which events take place that organize processes in the 3 dimensions of our experience. A very small natural constant, called a “metron“, is derived, representing the smallest area that can exist in nature. ']
Derived from what?
['This lead to the conclusion that space must be composed of a 6-dimensional geometric lattice of very small cells bounded on all sides by metrons.']
Wouldn't you say that is a leap of faith?
[' The existence of metrons requires our usual infinitesimal calculus to be replaced by one of finite areas. The unperturbed lattice represents empty vacuum.']
The unpeturbed lattice sounds almost like an astrological terminology.
[' Local deformations of the lattice indicate of something other than empty space. If the deformation is of the right form and complexity it acquires the property of mass and inertia.']
What is the lattice composed of again? Metrons? LOL, I'm lost! As any intelligent individual should be!
[" Elementary particles are complex dynamical systems of locally confined interacting lattice distortions. Thus the theory geometricizes the world by viewing it as a huge assemblage of very small deformations of a 6-dimensional lattice in vacuum. The theory also has significant consequences for cosmology. ']
So "elementary particles" are actually just interacting deformations in Heims' lattice?
WHAT A LOAD OF FERTILIZER'}
will314159
16th April 2006 - 03:41 PM
Mr. Hawkins
| QUOTE | WHAT A LOAD OF FERTILIZER'}
Take your complaint up with the Creator. He quantized the world. It comes at you in discrete quantized quantities. All a metron is a planck length square.
Whether Heim Theory or Loop Quantum Gravity theory turns out to be the ultimate answer, they are remarkably similar. They both involve slices of quantized spacetime as the ultimate reality with matter as resonations of spacetime. And they both make the best agreement and theoretical framework for particle existence and masses.
So if you don't like this version of realilty go smoke some dutch cleanser and dream up an alternate basis for reality of your own!
I sincerely mean that in the nicest possible way.
Take Care!
jreed
16th April 2006 - 05:33 PM
QUOTE (PNeilson+Apr 16 2006, 12:44 AM) Hi jreed
Just a small suggestion, my GR is far too weak to do anything else. If I was trying to derive a mass formula I would start with one particle in empty (flat) space. Especially if I was Heim, because Heim says that curved space generates field mass and the field mass would interfere with the particle mass calculation. The field mass of curved space that the particle found it self in would add to the particle mass recursively. I think GR leaves out Heim's field mass.
Paul That sounds good, except that GR uses a metric which isn't flat. When Heim starts with the time dimensions associated with imaginary quantities, this would seem to interfere with a non flat metric. In GR, imaginary time coordinates are never used. What is done in GR is to use covariant and contravariant quantities, first finding the metric tensor g[mu,nu] for raising and lowering indices (conversion of covariant to contravariant quantities). What is g[mu,nu] in Heim's theory? There are many unanswered questions in this theory. jreed
jreed
16th April 2006 - 05:39 PM
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Apr 16 2006, 02:47 PM) So "elementary particles" are actually just interacting deformations in Heims' lattice?
WHAT A LOAD OF FERTILIZER'} That was my first reaction on seeing Heim's theory. Then I programmed his equations for myself in Mathematica and was able to confirm the values for particle masses. When I can get agreement good to less than .001 % relative error on all those particles, it makes me think there's more here than fertilizer. How do you explain this? jreed
Robert W. Hawkins
16th April 2006 - 07:32 PM
Perhaps he discovered a mathematical relationship totally unrelated to his ideas, but which appears to re-enforce the idea.
Mathematical equations can be derived strictly from observations, without knowing the "why", "how" and "what" parts of said equation.
Take Einsteins' rough approximation in his famous mass = energy equation. He admits to using the speed of light as velocity in his famous e=mc2 . simply because it convieged the idea that ALOT of energy was contained withen a particular mass. I don't remember which of you related this to me on another topic, but you in fact did.
I always though the speed of light in the equation was arbitrary, and it turns out it is! Unless all of the particles withen the mass in question are traveling at a relative velocity of C, then "C" is a meaningless , baseless and arbitrarily arrived at bunch of bullshit.
beam
16th April 2006 - 07:54 PM
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Apr 16 2006, 07:32 PM) Perhaps he discovered a mathematical relationship unrelated to his ideas... <br>yes and "PERHAPS" he didn't, as far as I can see there are no "blind believers" in Heim's theory in this thread, instead people are trying to figure out "WHY" the mass formula works so well... If you have "CONCRETE" ideas on why it's bunk, you should list them, instead of just spouting off negative comments...
RAF
16th April 2006 - 07:58 PM
QUOTE (jreed+Apr 16 2006, 05:39 PM) QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Apr 16 2006, 02:47 PM) So "elementary particles" are actually just interacting deformations in Heims' lattice?
WHAT A LOAD OF FERTILIZER'} That was my first reaction on seeing Heim's theory. Then I programmed his equations for myself in Mathematica and was able to confirm the values for particle masses. When I can get agreement good to less than .001 % relative error on all those particles, it makes me think there's more here than fertilizer. How do you explain this? jreed I posted the 20 particle results of "leovinus" c translation of GPROG here and found the electron, proton, and neutron were something like 100 times closer that the 0.001% you mentioned. I think within 2 STD's of the to the particle group's .cvs listing of experimental masses I added one column of cells to the the .cvs listing in Excel (and saved it as an .xls spreadsheet) so the relative error range was displayed for all the particles that had limits -- hundreds of them. Most of the experimental errors were much larger than the 20 masses calculated by GPROG, though I don't think the program included a tau particle that also had a very small error band in the .cvs list. However, by increasing one search loop limit from 10 to 30 I found two small and unidentified negative mass particles. Seems unlikely they are real. I also found one mass with an e34 exponent, probably due to 'nan' or 'inf' coming up in the numerical computations. Likely due to a limit of the math resolution or some other numerical problem. Yes, it's Heim's mass calculations that give most of us any sense that there is something to his theory. 'photo-gravitons', cosmological elements, etc. are very speculative. One would really have to grasp the logic of the theory to have much faith in them.
Olaf
17th April 2006 - 12:44 PM
QUOTE (RAF+Apr 16 2006, 07:58 PM) However, by increasing one search loop limit from 10 to 30 I found two small and unidentified negative mass particles. Seems unlikely they are real. I also found one mass with an e34 exponent, probably due to 'nan' or 'inf' coming up in the numerical computations. In the calculation of K4 there exist cases, where ln(w4) gets negative. In this case a compensated surrogate protosimplex number is calculated by subtracting K3=K3-1, but the resulting value only has academically meaning. In the 1982 paper Heim states that those resonance allocations do not exist. The pascal version of GPROG then prints "resonance not allowed". The c version might miss this print, but those funny values mean the same. You also can check this by running the excel version. By the way the originally 1982 DESY version of GPROG was wrong in the case of ln(w4)<0. * * * QUOTE (RAF+Apr 16 2006, 07:58 PM) Yes, it's Heim's mass calculations that give most of us any sense that there is something to his theory. 'photo-gravitons', cosmological elements, etc. are very speculative. It is very important for us learning to distinguish between 6-dimensional Heim theory and the extended Heim theory (EHT) by Walter Droescher. In Droeschers 8-dimensional version some phenomena are predicted that do not exist in the Heim theory! For instance EHT has gluons and quintessence particles and virtual particles like classic physics. All of them are absent in Heim theory. Regarding to Heim inertia (and therefore energy and matter) results from the closed dynamic fluxes of structures whose spins must adjust orthogonal to the directions of expansion of the world. Droescher has put in some energy coordinates while HT completely is geometrics. The extended Heim theory does not produce a mass spectrum, but it explains quanta of effects and constants of effects. Vice versa in his EHT publications Prof. Hauser avoids to mention that a Heim mass formula exist, probably because this mass formula does not exist in the EHT that he is pushing into the NASA publicity. Some of the differences between HT and EHT are mentioned in the last paper by Prof. Hauser.
RAF
17th April 2006 - 02:30 PM
QUOTE (Olaf+Apr 17 2006, 12:44 PM) QUOTE (RAF+Apr 16 2006, 07:58 PM) However, by increasing one search loop limit from 10 to 30 I found two small and unidentified negative mass particles. Seems unlikely they are real. I also found one mass with an e34 exponent, probably due to 'nan' or 'inf' coming up in the numerical computations. In the calculation of K4 there exist cases, where ln(w4) gets negative. In this case a compensated surrogate protosimplex number is calculated by subtracting K3=K3-1, but the resulting value only has academically meaning. In the 1982 paper Heim states that those resonance allocations do not exist. The pascal version of GPROG then prints "resonance not allowed". The c version might miss this print, but those funny values mean the same. You also can check this by running the excel version. By the way the originally 1982 DESY version of GPROG was wrong in the case of ln(w4)<0. * * * Here are a few lines from the table GPROG.C creates when nmax =30, a dozen lines below "neutrino5" (gam was also reduced by 0.5e-6) - = 1111#2-10#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.01126035965 - = 1101#111#1 = ref= -1 comp= -0.07392615382 - = 1101#201#1 = ref= -1 comp= -0.08162940363 - = 1000#100#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0 - = 2010#10-1#1 = ref= -1 comp= 1.440221183e-05 I found the 'not allowed' in the ln(w4) 'else' statement in the c version. 'not allowed' prints in the intermediate outputs when print is set to '3'. However, all the W4 values were positive in those blocks. Maybe the final table of the output prints lines it shouldn't. I have your Excel version, but it's a lot easier understand formulas that aren't defined in SS cells. While gprog.pas compiles under FPC, but faults when executed. FPC's debugger would be usful for watching loop variables, etc.
RAF
17th April 2006 - 02:47 PM
QUOTE (Olaf+Apr 17 2006, 12:44 PM) QUOTE (RAF+Apr 16 2006, 07:58 PM) Yes, it's Heim's mass calculations that give most of us any sense that there is something to his theory. 'photo-gravitons', cosmological elements, etc. are very speculative. It is very important for us learning to distinguish between 6-dimensional Heim theory and the extended Heim theory (EHT) by Walter Droescher. In Droeschers 8-dimensional version some phenomena are predicted that do not exist in the Heim theory! ...................... Vice versa in his EHT publications Prof. Hauser avoids to mention that a Heim mass formula exist, probably because this mass formula does not exist in the EHT that he is pushing into the NASA publicity. Some of the differences between HT and EHT are mentioned in the last paper by Prof. Hauser. I had the AIAA paper first and noted 'EHT' and 'LQG'. At that time I was mainly interested in what's behind the "Space Drive". Someone directed me to HDEASY's Wikipedia article on Heim Theory, that may be where I first ran into the 'mass spectrum'. I also have the paper presented in Holland last December. Prof. Hauser starts with more conventional drives, MHD, etc. Then, suddenly changes to the 'Space Drive'. If it weren't for the publicity last Jan on the Space Drive, most of use would never have heard of Heim. Of course, you knew him a decade ago, and Dr. Deasy wrote much of the Wikipedia article some time ago. Note Heim was talking about 'space drives' 50 years ago.
Olaf
18th April 2006 - 09:02 AM
QUOTE (RAF+Apr 17 2006, 02:30 PM) Here are a few lines from the table GPROG.C creates when nmax =30, a dozen lines below "neutrino5"
- = 1111#2-10#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.01126035965
- = 1101#111#1 = ref= -1 comp= -0.07392615382
- = 1101#201#1 = ref= -1 comp= -0.08162940363
- = 1000#100#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0
- = 2010#10-1#1 = ref= -1 comp= 1.440221183e-05
(...)
I have your Excel version, but it's a lot easier understand formulas that aren't defined in SS cells. Okay, now I understand. You try to calculate neutrinos! So again: Please have a look at my explanations about neutrinos given in the Excel version 0.65 or read the papers published at heim theory! We have to proof and understand the formulas, not to try wild calculations. If leovinus has added a simple implementation of heim's neutrinos it is your turn to learn how this works and what in addition is necessary to know. Explanation of neutrinos in 1982 Heim mass formulaHere we go again once more. In the Heim mass formula (1982) a particle mass consists of two main components: a) the mass of the protosimplexes running in that particle (K + G + H = KGH) b) the field's mass (Fi) of the energy of the complete substructures. The latter can have positive or negative value, depending from P+Q. When a modified particle is constructed with ni = -Qi then the protosimplexes are compensating in each zone so that their sums Ki = Qi + ni become zero. Therefore the ponderable mass of these over-all protosimplexes also becomes zero. This is because every mass term of the sum KGH contains a factor Ki (which is zero then). K1 = Q1 + n1 = 0, K2 = Q2 + n2 = 0, K3 = Q3 + n3 = 0, K4 = Q4 + n4 = 0 Now we have a particle that has no ponderable mass. Funny thing! But the field's masses Fi of this running structure still exist. This is was leovinus and I have implemented in C and Excel. We simply calculate a modified field's masses term Fi of a particle without the ponderable mass KGH. When you calculate this as Heim also did you find that there are a lot of results that make no sense in physics. This exactly is what you have found. That's why Heim formulated 2 additional conditions that must fit before the Fi term can be interpreted as a neutrino mass. (1) 1. Free neutrino radiation probably exist only for mesons (k = 1). 2. Neutrino mass only is possible when P*Q is even. In other cases you will get negative masses which makes no sense here. (Both conditions are mentioned in the excel sheet.) Taking this into account only three neutrino masses in the results make sense: - the electron neutrino (1110)
- the muon neutrino (1111)
- the pion neutrino (1200)
In addition in the equation of Fi there exists a field's mass component that is not depending from k. Heim called it the beta neutrino. But this is not calculated in our Excel and C version. Looking at your results(kPQkappa) #x q cs = mass 1111#2-1 0#1 => 0.01126035965 This is the muon neutrino. 1101#1 1 1#1 => -0.07392615382 P+Q is not even, this neutrino does not exist.1101#2 0 1#1 => -0.08162940363 P+Q is not even, this neutrino does not exist.1000#1 0 0#1 => 0 The eta particle has no field's mass.2010#1 0-1#1 => 1.440221183e-05 k = 2, this neutrino does not exist.Source: (1) Burkhard Heim, Elementary structures of matter, Vol. 2
will314159
18th April 2006 - 10:47 AM
Greetings
I think it would be understated to say that Olaf understands Heim Mass Theory more than any person alive. How about collaborating with Dr. Easy on a book.
Heim Theory Made Easy
I'd buy it, if Deasy had a lot of cartoons in it.
Take Care!
RAF
19th April 2006 - 06:14 AM
[QUOTE=Olaf,Apr 18 2006, 09:02 AM][QUOTE=RAF,Apr 17 2006, 02:30 PM]Here are a few lines from the table GPROG.C creates when nmax =30, a dozen lines below "neutrino5" - = 1111#2-10#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.01126035965 - = 1101#111#1 = ref= -1 comp= -0.07392615382 - = 1101#201#1 = ref= -1 comp= -0.08162940363 - = 1000#100#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0 - = 2010#10-1#1 = ref= -1 comp= 1.440221183e-05 (...) I have your Excel version, but it's a lot easier understand formulas that aren't defined in SS cells.[/QUOTE] Okay, now I understand. You try to calculate neutrinos! So again: Please have a look at my explanations about neutrinos given in the Excel version 0.65 or read the papers published at heim theory! We have to proof and understand the formulas, not to try wild calculations. If leovinus has added a simple implementation of heim's neutrinos it is your turn to learn how this works and what in addition is necessary to know. Explanation of neutrinos in 1982 Heim mass formulaHere we go again once more. In the Heim mass formula (1982) a particle mass consists of two main components: a) the mass of the protosimplexes running in that particle (K + G + H = KGH)  the field's mass (Fi) of the energy of the complete substructures. The latter can have positive or negative value, depending from P+Q. Taking this into account only three neutrino masses in the results make sense: - the electron neutrino (1110)
- the muon neutrino (1111)
- the pion neutrino (1200)
In addition in the equation of Fi there exists a field's mass component that is not depending from k. Heim called it the beta neutrino. But this is not calculated in our Excel and C version. Looking at your results(kPQkappa) #x q cs = mass 1111#2-1 0#1 => 0.01126035965 This is the muon neutrino. 1101#1 1 1#1 => -0.07392615382 P+Q is not even, this neutrino does not exist.1101#2 0 1#1 => -0.08162940363 P+Q is not even, this neutrino does not exist.1000#1 0 0#1 => 0 The eta particle has no field's mass.2010#1 0-1#1 => 1.440221183e-05 k = 2, this neutrino does not exist.... /QUOTE] Those 'particles' were past the five neutrinos listed by leovinus' grprog 0.65.c conversion. I changed 'print' to 3 to print more information and 'nmax' from 10 to 30 to process more resonances. The '5' neutrinos are displayed with the default constants. static const int print=3; /* set amount of outputs: 1=masses only, 2=basic */ static const int ant =1; /* 1=process particles only, 2=process also anti .. static const long nmax =30; /* maximum resonance to be processed, 0=ground 1= till maximum lme, others=up to this level */ static const int loop=40000; /* end of search loop for maximum excitation level */ /* originally hardcoded : nend = 112 , loop = 50000 */ static const int ja = 1; /* first multiplett to be calculated */ static const int je = 200; /* je<=15 last multiplet to be calculated. 200 for more input */ Output: Initially, 25 reference particles in list Used loop limits : nend, maximum excitation level = 0 loop, resonance search = 40000 ant, particle/antiparticle = 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************** Particle | description | reference mass | computed mass | name | kPQkap#x,qx,cs| | | ------------------------------------------------------------------- eta = 1000#100 = ref= 547.75 comp= 548.8023424 = e- = 1110#2-10 = ref= 0.51099892 comp= 0.5109988403 = mu = 1111#1-10 = ref= 105.658369 comp= 105.6585344 = K+- = 1101#111 = ref= 493.677 comp= 493.6779432 = K0 = 1101#201 = ref= 497.648 comp= 497.6695482 = pi0 = 1200#200 = ref= 134.9766 comp= 134.9615337 = pi+- = 1200#110 = ref= 139.57018 comp= 139.5658067 = lambda = 2010#10-1 = ref= 1115.683 comp= 1115.590914 = omega = 2030#1-1-3 = ref= 1672.45 comp= 1672.202025 = p = 2110#110 = ref= 938.27203 comp= 938.2720584 = n = 2110#200 = ref= 939.56536 comp= 939.5654806 = xi0 = 2111#10-2 = ref= 1314.82 comp= 1314.774411 = xi- = 2111#2-1-2 = ref= 1321.31 comp= 1321.306087 = sig+ = 2210#11-1 = ref= 1189.37 comp= 1189.354523 = sig0 = 2210#20-1 = ref= 1192.642 comp= 1192.426771 = sig- = 2210#3-1-1 = ref= 1197.449 comp= 1197.275508 = delta++ = 2330#120 = ref= 1232 comp= 1230.254981 = delta+ = 2330#210 = ref= 1232 comp= 1229.77606 = delta0 = 2330#300 = ref= 1232 comp= 1231.127646 = delta- = 2330#4-10 = ref= 1232 comp= 1235.669789 = neutrino1 = 1010#100#1 = ref= -1 comp= 1.440221183e-05 neutrino2 = 1110#100#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.005375600446 = neutrino3 = 1200#200#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.001459933636 = neutrino4 = 2110#200#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.03063322102 = neutrino5 = 2111#10-2#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.0980005272 = - = 1200#110#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.003923961217 = - = 1200#3-10 = ref= -1 comp= 139.5658067 = - = 1200#3-10#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.003923961217 = - = 1110#100 = ref= -1 comp= 0.5068787647 = - = 1110#2-10#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.005375600446 = - = 2110#110#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.02985923933 = - = 1111#1-10#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.01126035965 = - = 1111#2-10 = ref= -1 comp= 105.6585344 = - = 1111#2-10#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.01126035965 = - = 1101#111#1 = ref= -1 comp= -0.07392615382 = - = 1101#201#1 = ref= -1 comp= -0.08162940363 = - = 1000#100#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0 = - = 2010#10-1#1 = ref= -1 comp= 1.440221183e-05 - = 2210#11-1#1 = ref= -1 comp= -0.04774466982 = - = 2210#20-1#1 = ref= -1 comp= -0.02163096155 = - = 2210#3-1-1#1 = ref= -1 comp= -0.04774466982 = - = 2111#2-1-2#1 = ref= -1 comp= 0.09552283517 = plus ......... a few more lines. So, it appears the c code as it stands doesn't filter out all the "does not exist" particles.
leovinus
19th April 2006 - 08:50 AM
QUOTE (RAF+Apr 19 2006, 06:14 AM) Those 'particles' were past the five neutrinos listed by leovinus' grprog 0.65.c conversion. I changed 'print' to 3 to print more information and 'nmax' from 10 to 30 to process more resonances. The '5' neutrinos are displayed with the default constants.
[....]
So, it appears the c code as it stands doesn't filter out all the "does not exist" particles.
Hi, Correct, the C program is configured in such a way that it prints the "known" and "trusted" particles for "print=1". Those are the ones in particle table at the beginning of the C code. For "print=3", you are asking for verbose output. So it will print all "(kPQkappa) # x q cs # neutrino" combinations it can find, whether they have physical meaning or not. Purpose of this "overgenerating" was to just to see what kind of masses the theory and code actually computes for other "(kPQkappa) #x q cs" combinations. For example, you'll remember the discussion on the "tau" particle and I wanted to know whether we were just overlooking it Regarding the neutrino's - Olaf, thanks for the excellent explanation. That makes it possible to enhance the C code and filter out the "impossible" neutrino's, if people find that more intuitive. PS: You can also set nmax to 1 to explore >al<l resonances.
Vilvi
19th April 2006 - 09:10 AM
Hello again,
I'm sorry to find problems in Heim's theory, but here there are two of them:
1) I know three neutrinos, associated to electron, muon and tau, but I don't know a neutrino associated to pion.
2) According to document "Heim's Mass Formula 1989", the times of existence is expressed in formula (B47). The last factor in this formula is delta; delta is a function of N: delta=delta(N), defined in eq. (B7) in the way:
delta(0)= 1 (0 for N<>0)
that means that the life time of resonances will be zero, and I'm afraid that this is not real. I suppose formula (B47) is not enough good.
Bye.
RAF
19th April 2006 - 06:05 PM
QUOTE (leovinus+Apr 19 2006, 08:50 AM) QUOTE (RAF+Apr 19 2006, 06:14 AM) Those 'particles' were past the five neutrinos listed by leovinus' grprog 0.65.c conversion. I changed 'print' to 3 to print more information and 'nmax' from 10 to 30 to process more resonances. The '5' neutrinos are ..............
So, it appears the c code as it stands doesn't filter out all the "does not exist" particles.
Hi, Correct, the C program is configured in such a way that it prints the "known" and "trusted" particles for "print=1". Those are the ones in particle table at the beginning of the C code. For "print=3", you are asking for verbose output. So it will print all "(kPQkappa) # x q cs # neutrino" combinations it can find, whether they have physical meaning or not. Purpose of this "overgenerating" was to just to see what kind of masses the theory and code actually computes for other "(kPQkappa) #x q cs" combinations. For example, you'll remember the discussion on the "tau" particle and I wanted to know whether we were just overlooking it ................. PS: You can also set nmax to 1 to explore >al<l resonances. Ah, it wasn't clear that the comment /* .. 3 = print intermediate results */ meant gprog.c would print non-existent particles in the final table. I set print to back to 1, left nmax at 30 and the table stopped after the five neutrinos. Which you now know how to limit to three. If some of the constants were defined as user input, it would be easier to experiment, as is, I've had to recompile gprog.c to try different values. Usually one can redirect an ASCII file into such a program to automatically supply the user responses. At times I've written batch files to create many combinations of program data lists in one run. RAF
hdeasy
22nd April 2006 - 02:23 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Apr 18 2006, 10:47 AM) Greetings
I think it would be understated to say that Olaf understands Heim Mass Theory more than any person alive. How about collaborating with Dr. Easy on a book.
Heim Theory Made Easy
I'd buy it, if Deasy had a lot of cartoons in it.
Take Care! Hi Will314159, Olaf etc. I've been away for Easter and just saw this. I agree that Olaf shows the greatest grasp of the mass formula on this forum. It would be fun to colaborate on a book, if Olaf was interested. Thanks for mentioning my cartooning skills - sure, if they were useful. 
rpenner
22nd April 2006 - 08:16 PM
QUOTE (jreed+Apr 3 2006, 02:06 PM) The Mathematica code with five neutrino masses is located here: http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/4410c772_9f6c...CS7SMEBdg7_dUEOjreed Many of the particles (baryons, mesons) that Heim theory predicts masses for seem to be composite particles by experimental science, and the Standard Model seems to be capable of calculating interaction cross-sections and half-lifes to the limits of experimental science. I have 2 questions: How does Heim theory predict masses of these particles without having a analogue of QCD? Could you repost your Mathematica notebook? I would like to see evidence that this is more than just high-dimensional curve-fitting. Edit: As an example of high-dimensional curve-fitting, I give you Heim's fine-structure constant at 1/137.03601 from the http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/F_Hei...ormula_1989.pdf (which has references as late as 2002) But the current best value for this value is 1/137.03599911(46) http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/reviews/consrpp.pdf which is more closely approximated as (e^(1/2)+2^(1/3))^(-1/3)/96 http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Fi...reConstant.html
will314159
22nd April 2006 - 11:29 PM
"curve fitting"="look up table" we've had that conversation before Olaf can speak to the theory about where the quantum numbers that appear in the programs are derived from, their origin: protosimplexes which represent vibrations in the metron lattices or he's already done it at his protosimples site, he probably feels, here we go again pr peruse back posts for source codes http://sourceforge.net/projects/heim-theoryhttp://www.daimi.au.dk/~spony/HeimMassForm...HeimCalculator/http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/new.htmTake Care!
beam
23rd April 2006 - 12:26 AM
jreed's original link for his mathematica notebooks is still valid, just in case anyone else is interested... Here it is: http://briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/ka5qep@sbcgl...cuments&.view=l
will314159
23rd April 2006 - 07:23 AM
And here's the Maxima text again. Maxima is close enough to Mathematica and it's FREE http://www.zeena.org/Heim/Maxima/heim_maxima.txtTake Care!
jreed
23rd April 2006 - 02:04 PM
QUOTE (beam+Apr 23 2006, 12:26 AM) jreed's original link for his mathematica notebooks is still valid, just in case anyone else is interested...
http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/4410c772_9f6c...BCQz4SEBXzosNo1This should work for the Mathematica link. The old link no longer works. jreed
Hans-Peter
23rd April 2006 - 02:13 PM
http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/4410c772_9f6c...BCQz4SEBXzosNo1Hi Jreed, I get an error message that is forbidden to access this site.
sophisticatedZombie
24th April 2006 - 06:33 AM
Its not a lattice being imposed on space-time. The lattice is space time. The hypervolumes" within the lattice are nothing. The connecting edges are everything. The only reason that you even have to define the "shape" is to get the winding orders and connectivity of the nodes correct. Its essentially a discrete graph theory of the nature of space time. Personally I love it, as it makes more sense to me than most of modern physics. Then again, I'm a computer scientist.
All in all, I think Heim theory is essentially loop quantum gravity with some smart starting points. Since those starting points lead to very accurate predictions of particle masses, the starting points and metron concept may be close to correct. I'm eager to find out what the mass of the neutron is.
While waiting for "further Heim ring experiments", you might want to search on-line for the photos of flying objects with glowing rings on their undersides taken in the desert southwest of the US. Just a tip.
sophisticatedZombie
24th April 2006 - 06:34 AM
Derp, I meant neutrino ofcourse.
leovinus
24th April 2006 - 09:47 AM
QUOTE (will314159+Apr 22 2006, 11:29 PM) Hi, I would be nice to consolidate all software on SourceForge. I tried to contact MMC (the administrator) about checking in the the gprog.c code, but no answer. Can anybody help with checking in code at SourceForge? Thx, L.
will314159
24th April 2006 - 09:59 AM
Sophisticated QUOTE Its not a lattice being imposed on space-time. The lattice is space time. The hypervolumes" within the lattice are nothing. The connecting edges are everything. The only reason that you even have to define the "shape" is to get the winding orders and connectivity of the nodes correct. Its essentially a discrete graph theory of the nature of space time. Personally I love it, as it makes more sense to me than most of modern physics. Then again, I'm a computer scientist.
All in all, I think Heim theory is essentially loop quantum gravity with some smart starting points. Since those starting points lead to very accurate predictions of particle masses, the starting points and metron concept may be close to correct. I'm eager to find out what the mass of the neutron[ino] is.
<br>You have got it! Since it's the same reality out there, Heim theory and LQG would have to be isomorphic. Leovinius when you go to sourceforge, it not so obvious how to download the Mathematica. I haven't been able to figure it out. But as far as the single reference. Just go to Heim theory on wikipedia and all the links are in one place. That's where I grabbed them. There's a link there to an article on neutrino mass. I always thought they were massless. Take Care ! QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Its not a lattice being imposed on space-time. The lattice is space time. The hypervolumes" within the lattice are nothing. The connecting edges are everything. The only reason that you even have to define the "shape" is to get the winding orders and connectivity of the nodes correct. Its essentially a discrete graph theory of the nature of space time. Personally I love it, as it makes more sense to me than most of modern physics. Then again, I'm a computer scientist.
All in all, I think Heim theory is essentially loop quantum gravity with some smart starting points. Since those starting points lead to very accurate predictions of particle masses, the starting points and metron concept may be close to correct. I'm eager to find out what the mass of the neutron[ino] is.
<br>You have got it! Since it's the same reality out there, Heim theory and LQG would have to be isomorphic.
Leovinius
when you go to sourceforge, it not so obvious how to download the Mathematica. I haven't been able to figure it out. But as far as the single reference. Just go to Heim theory on wikipedia and all the links are in one place. That's where I grabbed them. There's a link there to an article on neutrino mass. I always thought they were massless.
Take Care
!
A wandering relic neutrino
Found itself in a crowded casino,
So it calmly elected
To pass undetected
Through a shapely young female Latino.
Submitted by Jack Uretsky
February 15, 2006
leovinus
24th April 2006 - 10:17 AM
QUOTE (will314159+Apr 24 2006, 09:59 AM) There's a link there to an article on neutrino mass. I always thought they were massless.
My understanding is that neutrino's were assumed to be massless in the 80's. At some point, we discovered that there was a neutrino deficiency w.r.t to one or more types of neutrino's emitted by the sun. Evidence was found that neutrino's can change from one type to another, but in order for that to work, they have to have mass. As far as I know, there are three flavours - electron, mu and tau neutrino's. The measurements on their masses, the probabilities for them to change from one type to another ("mixing"), are one of physics hot topics. This leads to a question for the physics guys The names electron, mu and tau neutrino's, are they just "designators" or is there a deeper relationship with electron, mu and tau particles?? I mean, I just don't know whether it was observed that there where three types which are hence designated electron, mu and tau neutrino for reasons of symmetry within the standard model, OR, whether the standard model says something about a correspondence or family or relationship of the three leptons e, mu, tau with three neutrino's? Reason I am asking is that HT would enable you to compute neutrino masses, one way or the other, as the "field" mass of electron, mu and tau particle. Currently, in gprog, it is done differently. In other to clean up the code, and clarify the neutrino calculation, I wanted to get some more insight L.
Vilvi
24th April 2006 - 10:46 AM
QUOTE (leovinus+Apr 24 2006, 10:17 AM) I mean, I just don't know whether it was observed that there where three types which are hence designated electron, mu and tau neutrino for reasons of symmetry within the standard model, OR, whether the standard model says something about a correspondence or family or relationship of the three leptons e, mu, tau with three neutrino's? Reason I am asking is that HT would enable you to compute neutrino masses, one way or the other, as the "field" mass of electron, mu and tau particle. Currently, in gprog, it is done differently. In other to clean up the code, and clarify the neutrino calculation, I wanted to get some more insight L. In the standard model there is a strong correlation for the three families of leptons (e, mu, tau), neutrinos (for e, mu tau) and the three families of quarks, even some types of cosmological predictions are related to the existence of three families. But the question is that on Heim theory, the numbers for neutrinos are: • the electron neutrino (1110) • the muon neutrino (1111) • the pion neutrino (1200) According to the last interpretation, tau particle is a resonance of mu, so the number used to calculate the third neutrino (for tau) must be the same that for mu, i.e: (1111) and not (1200), which corresponds to the pion. Bye.
leovinus
24th April 2006 - 11:05 AM
QUOTE (Vilvi+Apr 24 2006, 10:46 AM) According to the last interpretation, tau particle is a resonance of mu, so the number used to calculate the third neutrino (for tau) must be the same that for mu, i.e: (1111) and not (1200), which corresponds to the pion. That's what I was looking at. The code is easy to change. Will give it a try. Thx, L.
jreed
24th April 2006 - 05:20 PM
QUOTE (leovinus+Apr 24 2006, 11:05 AM) QUOTE (Vilvi+Apr 24 2006, 10:46 AM) According to the last interpretation, tau particle is a resonance of mu, so the number used to calculate the third neutrino (for tau) must be the same that for mu, i.e: (1111) and not (1200), which corresponds to the pion. That's what I was looking at. The code is easy to change. Will give it a try. Thx, L. Using the Mathematica program I developed from Olaf's 1982 Pascal code, the mass of the second resonance of mu(1111) is 1783 MeV. This is what the tau lepton is supposed to be. jreed
metronhead
24th April 2006 - 07:53 PM
Hi JReed- Regarding your post on the + + + - - - metric of Heim theory, I don't know much about it. But Heim was upset about the following paper, which he considered very heavily based on his theories. Because this Ahner and Anderson theory is a peer reviewed similar theory, it might contain the answers to your questions: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v1/i2/p4...&qseq=3&show=10Higher-Dimensional Field Theory Henry F. Ahner* Adelphi University, Garden City, New York 11530 James L. Anderson Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey 07030 | QUOTE | Received 9 May 1969
An attempt to construct a theory that links the macroscopic and microscopic properties of matter is presented. This is done using a space of more than four dimensions. Equations for microscopic-particle fields are investigated in a fixed six-dimensional metric space. The topology of the space is solely responsible for the quantization of mass and charge. The metric contains terms which transform like the Yang-Mills B field. These terms appear appropriately in all particle equations. Without the B field, the symmetry group of the theory is P×SU(2)/Z(2). The presence of the B field lowers this symmetry. Particle mass spectra are presented for six-dimensional scalar, spinor, and vector fields, and a coupling-constant ratio is predicted. The later part of the paper deals with the cosmological implications of the microscopic model presented in the first part of the paper. It is shown that Einstein's equations for the metric are consistent if a massless cosmological vector field is introduced. A critique of previous higher-dimensional field theories along with a summary of the results of an eight-dimensional theory is given. Since all symmetries dealt with result as approximations to the equations of the model, the no-go theorems are not applicable. Nevertheless, the six- and eight-dimensional models contain the shadows of the P×SU(2)/Z(2) and P×SU(3)/Z(3) symmetries in all particle-field representations.
©1970 The American Physical Society
<br>
yquantum
24th April 2006 - 08:31 PM
Hi jreed & metronhead,
Not sure if it was just a typo sure it was, but just wanted to know. I believe that the tau-minus is a electron-like particle with a mass of 1.784 GeV/c2. Its antiparticle, the tau-plus, has the same mass but a positive electric charge.
| QUOTE | 1783 MeV. This is what the tau lepton is supposed to be.
<br>ciao_
yquantum
leovinus
24th April 2006 - 09:35 PM
QUOTE (jreed+Apr 24 2006, 05:20 PM) QUOTE (leovinus+Apr 24 2006, 11:05 AM) QUOTE (Vilvi+Apr 24 2006, 10:46 AM) According to the last interpretation, tau particle is a resonance of mu, so the number used to calculate the third neutrino (for tau) must be the same that for mu, i.e: (1111) and not (1200), which corresponds to the pion. That's what I was looking at. The code is easy to change. Will give it a try. Thx, L. Using the Mathematica program I developed from Olaf's 1982 Pascal code, the mass of the second resonance of mu(1111) is 1783 MeV. This is what the tau lepton is supposed to be. jreed Hi jreed, The calculation of tau mass is clear. My question was more related to the tau-neutrino. In the gprog.c program, there are 5 neutrino's just called neutrino1-5. The same for Olaf's Excel sheet. I was wondering whether a tau-neutrino, according to Heim, shouldn't be derived from the tau particle? If you look at the list of particle descriptions for neutrino 1-5, you'll see that none of those are derived from (1111) . That was strange to me. Therefore, I was experimenting with computing the "field mass" aka neutrino for the tau particle. Will post the code when ready What is your thought? Are we looking at the correct 5 (or 3) neutrino's? Are we deriving from the correct "k P Q kappa" tuples? Shouldn't a mu-neutrino and tau-neutrino be derived from (1111)? Which of the neutrino 1 to 5 correspond with electron, mu and tau neutrino in the standard model? L.
Neil Farbstein
25th April 2006 - 12:22 AM
QUOTE (leovinus+Apr 24 2006, 09:35 PM) QUOTE (jreed+Apr 24 2006, 05:20 PM) QUOTE (leovinus+Apr 24 2006, 11:05 AM) QUOTE (Vilvi+Apr 24 2006, 10:46 AM) According to the last interpretation, tau particle is a resonance of mu, so the number used to calculate the third neutrino (for tau) must be the same that for mu, i.e: (1111) and not (1200), which corresponds to the pion. That's what I was looking at. The code is easy to change. Will give it a try. Thx, L. Using the Mathematica program I developed from Olaf's 1982 Pascal code, the mass of the second resonance of mu(1111) is 1783 MeV. This is what the tau lepton is supposed to be. jreed Hi jreed, The calculation of tau mass is clear. My question was more related to the tau-neutrino. In the gprog.c program, there are 5 neutrino's just called neutrino1-5. The same for Olaf's Excel sheet. I was wondering whether a tau-neutrino, according to Heim, shouldn't be derived from the tau particle? If you look at the list of particle descriptions for neutrino 1-5, you'll see that none of those are derived from (1111) . That was strange to me. Therefore, I was experimenting with computing the "field mass" aka neutrino for the tau particle. Will post the code when ready What is your thought? Are we looking at the correct 5 (or 3) neutrino's? Are we deriving from the correct "k P Q kappa" tuples? Shouldn't a mu-neutrino and tau-neutrino be derived from (1111)? Which of the neutrino 1 to 5 correspond with electron, mu and tau neutrino in the standard model? L. Can Heim's theory predict neutrino oscillations?
will314159
25th April 2006 - 09:49 AM
pix worth thousand words What does it mean? what is the theoritical or physical significance of the vertical line up of the electron, the muon, the taun, and their respective neutrinos?  The Standard Model is a theory devised to explain how sub-atomic particles interact with each other There are 16 particles that make up this model (12 matter particles and 4 force carrier particles). But they would have no mass if considered alone The Higgs boson explains why these particles have mass. Particles acquire their mass through interactions with an all-pervading field, called the Higgs field, which is carried by the Higgs boson.
Zephir
25th April 2006 - 01:31 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Apr 25 2006, 12:49 PM) What does it mean? what is the theoritical or physical significance of the vertical line up of the electron, the muon, the taun, and their respective neutrinos? Well, it can mean the same topology of vibrations, but in different space-time convolution level... In terms of Heim's theory it can mean the same number of protosimplexes, but in different hermeneutic sphere.    
jreed
25th April 2006 - 02:13 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Apr 25 2006, 09:49 AM) pix worth thousand words What does it mean? what is the theoritical or physical significance of the vertical line up of the electron, the muon, the taun, and their respective neutrinos? This diagram is showing the comparison of structure between quarks and leptons. For every lepton there is a neutrino associated with it, for example the electron is associated with an electron neutrino. In the same way, an up quark is associated with a down quark. This was noted in studying particle experiments. As far as what it means to Heim theory, I can't say since there are no quarks in Heim's theory as such. There are some quantum numbers in Heim's theory that can be interpreted as quarks. Thanks for the reference to that paper from Phys Rev D. It sounds like it is related to Heim's theory, but I will need to read it first. jreed
Neil Farbstein
25th April 2006 - 03:31 PM
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 25 2006, 01:31 PM) QUOTE (will314159+Apr 25 2006, 12:49 PM) What does it mean? what is the theoritical or physical significance of the vertical line up of the electron, the muon, the taun, and their respective neutrinos? Well, it can mean the same topology of vibrations, but in different space-time convolution level... In terms of Heim's theory it can mean the same number of protosimplexes, but in different hermeneutic sphere. What are hermaneutic spheres and what is a protosimplex? Heim's terminology is foriegn to me.
TRoc
25th April 2006 - 03:58 PM
Everyone:
If you are going to quote someone, please DO NOT paste their images or diagrams as well. This will keep the thread more free of clutter, and keep page loading times down. You can use the standard cut and paste on your keyboard, or, if using this forums' "QUOTE" function, then delete un-necessary parts of the original post while in the EDIT mode.
Thanks.
Neil,
You are asking a very BASIC question about the protosimplex that was talked about on PAGE ONE. Please read this thread from the beginning before jumping in on the conversation on PAGE 47. Zephir can tell you about hermeneutic spheres.
Regards,
T.Roc
will314159
25th April 2006 - 03:59 PM
QUOTE
What are hermaneutic spheres and what is a protosimplex? Heim's terminology is foriegn to me. you can't have it all handed to you on a silver plate. you have to google a little bit, and read on your own. http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/px_protosmplxe.htmQUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
What are hermaneutic spheres and what is a protosimplex? Heim's terminology is foriegn to me.
you can't have it all handed to you on a silver plate. you have to google a little bit, and read on your own.
http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/px_protosmplxe.htm
Protosimplex
What actually does 'Protosimplex' mean?
By uniting field theories and quantum mechanics German physicist Burkhard Heim designed a six-dimensional space, containing characteristics of both of these sections of our world at the same time.
Heim shows that different patterns of cyclic internal condensations are born from internal characteristics of this space, which can run circularly. These are so-called Protosimplexes – the simplest dynamic structures of our world.
One Protosimplex however can't exist alone. It exists only in connection to other protosimplexes, with which it is in exchange. A complete arrangement of such dynamic deflections closed in itself then in the world appears as elementary particle.
(Therefore you will never observe stable sub elements of elementary particles because they only exist in connection.)
A mathematical description of these dynamic arrangements supplies the mass spectrum of all ponderable elementary particles. All masses observed so far are included in this mass spectrum.
Thereby Heim's quantum field theory explains existence and mass characteristics of elementary particles by geometrical characteristics of six-dimensional physical space. Therefore a particle in space does not exist in space but it is space (space which is condensing cyclically in all six dimensions.)
Correctly you would have to say space is electroning around, protoning ...
Except in the Heim theory no further calibration factors are used.
Most detailed explanation of elementary particles' interior life is given by Illobrand von Ludwiger in
Brand, Illo; Die einheitliche 6-dimensionale Quanten-Geometrodynamik nach Burkhard Heim , particularly pp. 292-297
(uniform 6-dimensional quantum geodynamics of Burkhard Heim)
Brand, Illo; Die innere Struktur elementarer Subkonstituenten der Materie, particularly S. 378-384
(Internal structure of elementary sub constituents of matter),
"Protosimplexes are quanta of metric deformation. Because of the 6 coordinates there are six different Protosimplexes which can step into internal correlation forming 'basic processes of flow'. A Protosimplex still has no material characteristics. Only if several Protosimplexes step into interrelation or exchange processes they will show material characteristics, i.e. inertia will appear.
As a function of 6 absolute Cartesian coordinates six different Protosimplexes appear, which can step into internal correlation's forming basic processes of flow. These basic flows can form chains, which will close again ...
... Thus structure of the 4 different kinds of physical condensing (graviton, photon, mass, charged mass) is formed from Protosimplex correlation. A ponderable term is existent if initial conditions of the entire structure are re-created at least one time."
from "Die einheitliche 6-dimensionale Quanten-Geometrodynamik nach Burkhard Heim", p. 294
(uniform 6-dimensional quantum geo dynamics of Burkhard Heim)
The figure on the left shows the density of protosimplexes inside of an elementary particle.
There are 4 zones with different densities:
* centre – cubic increasing density
* internal – quadratic increasing density
* meso – linear increasing density
* extern – only some protosimplexes here
When I told to Heim in 1996 that the Berlin group wanted to call itself 'Protosimplex' he was very pleased because – as he said – "this is the simplest thing existing in the whole world".
TRoc
25th April 2006 - 04:05 PM
will314159,
| QUOTE | you can't have it all handed to you on a silver plate. you have to google a little bit, and read on your own.
<br>
Thanks for your patience!
T.Roc
Zephir
25th April 2006 - 07:02 PM
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 25 2006, 06:31 PM) What are hermaneutic spheres and what is a protosimplex? Hermetric spheres are density layers of protosimplexes forming particle, i.e. bubbles of dynamic multidimensional quantum foam, formed by metrons (2D walls separating bubbles).     I suppose, such foam is the analogy of foam formed by phase transition of supercritical vapor or vortices in B-E condensates.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|