4 Technical Realization of Field Propulsion System
From the discussion in Section 3.1 it has become clear
that a large magnetic field is needed to produce an appreciable
Heim-Lorentz force. In addition, Eq. (9) shows that
the velocity of the electrons in the current loop must be
large. Pulsed magnets can reach very high magnetic field
strengths up to 60 T (Sandia Laboratories), and initially it
was thought that these magnets could be used to provide
the magnetic field to generating the Heim-Lorentz force
needed for field propulsion. Regarding the equation for
the Heim-Lorentz force, however, a high velocity of the
electrons in the coil is needed. It is not sure that using a
pulsed magnetic field this can be achieved in an effective
way, since during the pulse period electrons need to be
quickly accelerated to the speed vc of the Cooper pairs, see
below. The effectiveness of a pulsed magnet system depends
critically on the ratio of pulse time and acceleration
time. Furthermore, it is not clear how a rapidly time-varying
Heim-Lorentz force would act on the structure of the
spacecraft. A more detailed analysis would have to be
carried out. At present, the usage of steady magnetic
fields is preferred.
................
<br>Therefor, Sandia's Z-pinch machine may not provide an adequate test bed for demonstrating the gravito-photon.
However, since that paper, a gravito-magnetic (?) force appears to have been experimentally substantiated. Which Hauser and Droscher relate to Heim Theory.
RAF
Neil Farbstein
2nd May 2006 - 11:33 PM
QUOTE (RAF+May 2 2006, 10:27 PM) QUOTE (hdeasy+May 1 2006, 03:32 PM) QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 30 2006, 01:45 PM) The z machine is an energy source that has earthside applications. I dont know why you wnat a minimum of enregy aboard your starship hdeasy?
You apparently haven't read the basic AIAA papers - to repeat (see previous posts for details): in http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...005-4321-a4.pdf , there is the famous table 1, which lists the Heim-Lorentz force corresponding to different values of magnetic induction - only for 27 Teslas or maybe 18 does one get a measurable value. As for suggested use of the Z-machine, that wasn't me, but in the original New Scientist article - http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...925331.200.html : "In its present design, Dröscher and Häuser's experiment requires a magnetic coil several metres in diameter capable of sustaining an enormous current density. Most engineers say that this is not feasible with existing materials and technology, but Roger Lenard, a space propulsion researcher at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico thinks it might just be possible. Sandia runs an X-ray generator known as the Z machine which "could probably generate the necessary field intensities and gradients"." AIAA2005-4321Letter.pdf, also at http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/ , contains this statement: | QUOTE | 4 Technical Realization of Field Propulsion System
From the discussion in Section 3.1 it has become clear
that a large magnetic field is needed to produce an appreciable
Heim-Lorentz force. In addition, Eq. (9) shows that
the velocity of the electrons in the current loop must be
large. Pulsed magnets can reach very high magnetic field
strengths up to 60 T (Sandia Laboratories), and initially it
was thought that these magnets could be used to provide
the magnetic field to generating the Heim-Lorentz force
needed for field propulsion. Regarding the equation for
the Heim-Lorentz force, however, a high velocity of the
electrons in the coil is needed. It is not sure that using a
pulsed magnetic field this can be achieved in an effective
way, since during the pulse period electrons need to be
quickly accelerated to the speed vc of the Cooper pairs, see
below. The effectiveness of a pulsed magnet system depends
critically on the ratio of pulse time and acceleration
time. Furthermore, it is not clear how a rapidly time-varying
Heim-Lorentz force would act on the structure of the
spacecraft. A more detailed analysis would have to be
carried out. At present, the usage of steady magnetic
fields is preferred.
................
<br>Therefor, Sandia's Z-pinch machine may not provide an adequate test bed for demonstrating the gravito-photon.
However, since that paper, a gravito-magnetic (?) force appears to have been experimentally substantiated. Which Hauser and Droscher relate to Heim Theory.
RAF I read the link you gave. I've been trying to get use of the Z machine myself
for nuclear fusion experiments. click here to read Vulvox's webpage The managers at Sandia wont read my report on
z-machine fusion. We offered them a copy and they would not read it even though
DOE regulations require them to do that before making a decision about renting their facilities to corporations requesting it. If you know scientists in the z-pinch or laser fusion fields who could review our report contact me at 516-921-5058 or at
protn7@att.net
Neil Farbstein
2nd May 2006 - 11:54 PM
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+May 2 2006, 11:33 PM) QUOTE (RAF+May 2 2006, 10:27 PM) QUOTE (hdeasy+May 1 2006, 03:32 PM) QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 30 2006, 01:45 PM) The z machine is an energy source that has earthside applications. I dont know why you wnat a minimum of enregy aboard your starship hdeasy?
You apparently haven't read the basic AIAA papers - to repeat (see previous posts for details): in http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...005-4321-a4.pdf , there is the famous table 1, which lists the Heim-Lorentz force corresponding to different values of magnetic induction - only for 27 Teslas or maybe 18 does one get a measurable value. As for suggested use of the Z-machine, that wasn't me, but in the original New Scientist article - http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...925331.200.html : "In its present design, Dröscher and Häuser's experiment requires a magnetic coil several metres in diameter capable of sustaining an enormous current density. Most engineers say that this is not feasible with existing materials and technology, but Roger Lenard, a space propulsion researcher at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico thinks it might just be possible. Sandia runs an X-ray generator known as the Z machine which "could probably generate the necessary field intensities and gradients"." AIAA2005-4321Letter.pdf, also at http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/ , contains this statement: | QUOTE | 4 Technical Realization of Field Propulsion System
From the discussion in Section 3.1 it has become clear
that a large magnetic field is needed to produce an appreciable
Heim-Lorentz force. In addition, Eq. (9) shows that
the velocity of the electrons in the current loop must be
large. Pulsed magnets can reach very high magnetic field
strengths up to 60 T (Sandia Laboratories), and initially it
was thought that these magnets could be used to provide
the magnetic field to generating the Heim-Lorentz force
needed for field propulsion. Regarding the equation for
the Heim-Lorentz force, however, a high velocity of the
electrons in the coil is needed. It is not sure that using a
pulsed magnetic field this can be achieved in an effective
way, since during the pulse period electrons need to be
quickly accelerated to the speed vc of the Cooper pairs, see
below. The effectiveness of a pulsed magnet system depends
critically on the ratio of pulse time and acceleration
time. Furthermore, it is not clear how a rapidly time-varying
Heim-Lorentz force would act on the structure of the
spacecraft. A more detailed analysis would have to be
carried out. At present, the usage of steady magnetic
fields is preferred.
................
<br>Therefor, Sandia's Z-pinch machine may not provide an adequate test bed for demonstrating the gravito-photon.
However, since that paper, a gravito-magnetic (?) force appears to have been experimentally substantiated. Which Hauser and Droscher relate to Heim Theory.
RAF
I read the link you gave. I've been trying to get use of the Z machine myself
for nuclear fusion experiments. click here to read Vulvox's webpage The managers at Sandia wont read my report on
z-machine fusion. We offered them a copy and they would not read it even though
DOE regulations require them to do that before making a decision about renting their facilities to corporations requesting it. If you know scientists in the z-pinch or laser fusion fields who could review our report contact me at 516-921-5058 or at
protn7@att.net Does it have to be superconducting current? Or could the experiment be perfomed
using electrons circulating in a hypothetical super synchrotron? What speed do cooper pairs travel at and what do cooper pairs have to do with gravitoelectromagnetic fields?
leovinus
3rd May 2006 - 11:15 AM
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+May 2 2006, 11:54 PM) Does it have to be superconducting current? Or could the experiment be perfomed
using electrons circulating in a hypothetical super synchrotron? What speed do cooper pairs travel at and what do cooper pairs have to do with gravitoelectromagnetic fields? Neil, I believe this is slightly off-topic  but you can find the info on cooper-pairs, rotating superconducting rings, and research on the gravitomagnetic moment in the following two links - the first being the ESA press release and the second the in-depth article on Arxiv. Enjoy. http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf(There may or may not be a link with HT, and HT gravitophotons, but I would prefer to see that link substantiated in a nice paper. Maybe it can all be explained with classic general relativity.)
will314159
3rd May 2006 - 12:04 PM
| QUOTE |
LQG theory doesn't uses hidden dimension concept at all, being just 3D+1T theory with compare to 6D (8D) Heims's theory.
The M-theory 2D brane of quantum foam is much more closer to Heim's theory metron concept.
<br>The main points of kinship between HT and LQG are
1. String and M-Brane theories are dependent on a background metric. Heim Theory and LCG are not superimposed on any co-ordinate system. This is because they are a result of a DIRECT quantization of spacetime albeit at different stages.
2. Consequently in HT & LQG matter springs directly as a resonance of spacetime.
A. HT matter-- Cyclic exchange processes of maxima of structure compressions
B. LQG matter -- States of the spin networks
C. String and Brane theories matter is always an OTHER-- Excitation states of strings/branes
from the table comparing the theories at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory
Take Care!
DataPacRat
3rd May 2006 - 04:20 PM
(Yet another newcomer here. Apologies for any faux pases.) I'm aware that Heim's mass formula can predict both masses and lifetimes for the fundamental particles; if I may ask, is it able to do the same for atomic nuclei? For example, current quantum theory suggests the possibility of an 'Island of Stability' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability ) with relatively long half-lives somewhere around elements 114 to 126; can the mass formula pin down any specifics about these nuclei before they're actually synthesized?
Hans-Peter
3rd May 2006 - 06:09 PM
I just hear from a German thread at quanten.de (Diskussionsforum) http://forum.quanten.de/read.php?f=1&i=26342&t=25766(btw very interesting to read, if you know German of course  ) that von Ludwiger is supposed to publish his new book on Heim's theory on 8 May. Maybe then we will learn more what the status on the research is within Heim's "Freundeskreis". (circle of friends)
will314159
3rd May 2006 - 10:01 PM
Hans-Peter My Systran will do the best translation it can QUOTE Author: contemporary (- - - 161.76.83.cust.bluewin.ch) Date: 01-05-06 23:32 Around the topic in approximately to round off still another reference to the "uniform field tensor". I addressed some points already in former times: In the "elementary structures of the subject" (Bd. 1) the home tensor is developed gradually (Unterkapitel "world dimensions", pages 43 to 47). I understood everything thereby; I admit that gladly. Only as much first: How it seems, home goes from one (pseudo) euklidschen space-time with therefore flat Metrik (space flat) out. The KIND however uses a Riemann Metrik. The cosmology confirms a to a large extent flat world with local curvature (masses). HEIM is closer in this regard in my view with the experience than theoretical physics. All transformations is the basis the global Poincarégruppe - so far I understood it. HEIM transfers the energy impulse tensor to a certain extent into the microbe realm. A functional operator C_p plays a determining role. , where that shows the homogeneous area local deviations from the flat Metrik and thus a structure, it is to be counted on subject quanta. Understood I it however - as said - only insufficiently. Due to complicated discussions HEIM comes in the end that the physical world must be sechdimensional (whereby 3 of these dimensions of imaginary shape is not exchangeable and). HEIM introduces in addition 2 hidden world dimensions; no hidden parameters as in the Bohm mechanics, but world dimensions with the coordinates x5, x6. The H^6 (like I will from now on call this Tensorium) resembles a komplexwertigen vector space in mathematical regard. This is the basis however a nontrivial Metrik (Partialstrukturen), which is still unknown with Einstein. Because the world is six-dimensionally and the metric fundamental tensor of nichthermitescher shape, the indexings of the functional operator C_p go through in the R_4 independently the numbers 1 to 4, so that altogether 64 operator equations for just as many point spectra are produced, from which however their 28 remain empty. From this thus 36 intermittent power densities result. With the transfer of the C_p of operator into the makromaren range a square tensor matrix with 36 components develops, from which 12 eigenvalue spectra disappear and/or reach zero. In results a tensor 2 hums. Stage, evenly the home tensor T_ik (like it from the relevant stencil representations admits is): A concretizing of the tensor elements at that time Professor Auerbach tried, which succeeded to it only incompletely however my knowledge. The connection between gravitation and electromagnetism is problematic. In this point the representatives of the Kaluza small theories seem to me further advanced. All in all therefore a very much complicated affair, in which I expect occasionally still further clarifying. p.s. 1) of Ludwigers new book appears by the way after consultation with the author on 8 May 06. Clarifications in the world net (in particular articles D) need however still some weeks, until it is so far. To it beteilgt are beside dipl. physical from Ludwiger also Dr. Gruener. 2) Professor Haeuser however and dipl. Ing. Are Droe with the "Extended HEIM Theory" - which requires a eight-dimensional area as well known - working at full capacity. From this side (AIAA) I expect experimental progress concerning a field drive. That will last something however according to experience. It hopes however that I experience it still at times. 3) one should differentiate fundamental between the original HEIM Theory (6-dimensional space) and the Extended home Theory (8-dimensional-space). Because the beginning of Droe goes partly beyond HEIM (one can understand the G^4 only by means of aspect-referred logic; this logic again has HEIM developed). First theory is described in the "Elementastrukturen of the subject" (2 volumes), the latters in "structures of the physical world and its not-material side". A current script to the EHT is with Haeuser/Droe: http://www.hpcc space.de/publications/documents/ExtendedHeimTheory.pdf Gruessle, zg
metronhead
4th May 2006 - 01:08 AM
Hi all-
One note of caution about the ESA superconducting ring experiments- the signal to noise ratio is only about 3.3. Signal to noise ratios of 3 are at the limit of detection, for analytical chemistry methods, for example. We really can't conclude that the effect exists at all, yet.
Very interesting experiment, very well done, I think, and interesting results- but they need to get a bigger signal or lower the noise somehow. They need a bigger and better experimental setup, or something. Just cooling the exterior electronics with a refrigerant or liquid nitrogen, the way astronomers sometimes do, might lower the noise, maybe.
hdeasy
5th May 2006 - 08:25 PM
QUOTE (leovinus+May 3 2006, 11:15 AM) http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf(There may or may not be a link with HT, and HT gravitophotons, but I would prefer to see that link substantiated in a nice paper. Maybe it can all be explained with classic general relativity.) No, the point of all the excitement over Tajmar et al.'s result is that the gain in weight of the Cooper pairs is many times the GR prediciton: "Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than
Einstein's General Relativity predicts. Initially, the researchers were reluctant to believe their own results. "We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement," says Tajmar, who performed the experiments and hopes that other physicists will conduct their own versions of the experiment in order to verify the findings and rule out a facility induced effect. " In this link, which also reported on the AIAA prize and Millis's comments, the´comments link Heim to the Tajmar experiment: http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=596
Zephir
5th May 2006 - 10:31 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+May 5 2006, 11:25 PM) We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement Everything is nice, but such results should be confirmed by some independent source, as usually.
Neil Farbstein
5th May 2006 - 11:13 PM
QUOTE (Zephir+May 5 2006, 10:31 PM) QUOTE (hdeasy+May 5 2006, 11:25 PM) We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement Everything is nice, but such results should be confirmed by some independent source, as usually. What's gaining weight? Cooper pairs are pairs of electrons in superconductors, but has their real mass been measured? or their reduced mass?
will314159
5th May 2006 - 11:23 PM
Defending the Heim Theory Article at Wikipedia is a constant struggle
It's been a busy week. first a "Freindly Neighbour" w/o even a friendly or neighbourly discussion on the talk/discussion page stuck an NPOV warning back up that had been removed by consensus. I took it down after a day. And it has stayed down.
Then this happens again without discussion. saw it on the history tab
" 15:55, 5 May 2006 Pjacobi (→Various Implementations of Heim theory mass formula - a web forum isn't a link of encyclopedic quality)" [deleted]
i think that's bull. I believe it was nice to be able to link to this forum from the encyclopedia article. this is a very informative forum. but i'm just too tired after jousting with "friendly" right now to stick it back up.
Take Care!
Zephir
6th May 2006 - 07:40 AM
QUOTE (will314159+May 6 2006, 02:23 AM) ..a web forum isn't a link of encyclopedic quality... Try to link directly the original implementations of Heim's formula at SourceForge. After all, this forum isn't serchable, it hasn't even history. Whoever can change own post in each moment, here....
will314159
6th May 2006 - 12:11 PM
the sourceforge link is still there.
this forum contains much valuable discussion, present company excepted.
DEK46656
6th May 2006 - 02:11 PM
I just joined the forum (newbie alert ), and wanted to compliment everyone on their efforts, both with the mass calculations and the general discussion on HT. Having read over this thread I have a question regarding the value of G that is being used, and it potential to correct some of the error in the results. According to the AIAA paper, the current value of G (Gravitational constant) is G = Gg + Ggp + Gq (graviton constant + gravitophoton constant + quintessence constant). Are the various programs using G or Gg? There would be a minor difference between the 2, and it might account for the error. I also seem to recall (if memory serves  ) some comment in one of the papers indicated that BH had used the graviton constant for his calculation.
Hal Porter
6th May 2006 - 07:32 PM
I've been observing/reading this forums for some months now, much regreting that I lack the technical ability to contribute to the development of a rigorously devised mass spectrum. The other stuff (space drives etc.) fascinates me too, but this is really a first things first task. And I think that a mass spectrum with predictive powers, even if some of the reasons for those predictions are obscure, could offer tremendous help to the experimental and theoretical communities.
Specifically I'm curious about the neutrino calculations. How confident are you guys feeling about the calculations? And are the differences between any of the the masses anywhere near the bounds of the mass differnce indicated by the early results of the Chicago to Minnesota neutrino beam experiment, which were just released. I know all of the results are crude, but if there is a correspondence it could offer a clue to the experimenters as to which two neutrino forms are osscilating.
Or am I being horribly naive.
Neil Farbstein
6th May 2006 - 10:26 PM
QUOTE (Hal Porter+May 6 2006, 07:32 PM) I've been observing/reading this forums for some months now, much regreting that I lack the technical ability to contribute to the development of a rigorously devised mass spectrum. The other stuff (space drives etc.) fascinates me too, but this is really a first things first task. And I think that a mass spectrum with predictive powers, even if some of the reasons for those predictions are obscure, could offer tremendous help to the experimental and theoretical communities.
Specifically I'm curious about the neutrino calculations. How confident are you guys feeling about the calculations? And are the differences between any of the the masses anywhere near the bounds of the mass differnce indicated by the early results of the Chicago to Minnesota neutrino beam experiment, which were just released. I know all of the results are crude, but if there is a correspondence it could offer a clue to the experimenters as to which two neutrino forms are osscilating.
Or am I being horribly naive. I dont think you are being horribly naive. Why do you doubt yourself?
Hal Porter
6th May 2006 - 11:00 PM
While I was an English major, I was also once in a preengineering program, so I'm not utterly ignorant. Ohms law, vector quantities, a year of calculus, a bit of linear algebra, (40 years ago) and voracious reading since my formal instruction.
Plus I have worked as a science reporter, among other things. But never in theoretical physics. I have been criticized for spending so much time checking and rechecking my facts.
I know just enough to know how little I know. I am not a modest person, but on the other hand, the glimmer of a great insignia may easily founder upon the rock of some basic principal that everybody learned in the second semester of college physics. So I proceed with cautious humility when I make any tentative suggestions in a forum such as this.
Which brings us back to the question I originally asked. Are the neutrino mass analyses far enough along to provide any potential insights in this cutting edge area of experimentation?? Would be great if they could.
Guest
6th May 2006 - 11:22 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Jan 15 2006, 08:57 AM) my understanding of Heim is that there are no quarks or gluons having an individual existence. the particles (baryons) themselves are the elementary building blocks. But the scattering experiments somehow manifest results consistent with those pesky things. So much for QCD.
at least that explains why you don't find quarks by themselves. I suspect Heim theory is incomplete, as I doubt you could derive QCD from Heim theory. However, I am fairly certain QED can be derived from Heim theory. Just because a theory is incomplete does not mean it is incorrect. Look at how much can be accurately calculated used classical physics. And just look how far adding Dirac's equation to QM gets us. So even if Heim theory can not explain QCD it is a big step forward. While the fact that it can predict hadron masses without the components of QCD is surprising, is shouldn't be dismissed as impossible. After-all, the quarks and gluons make a close system, and it is possible to predict properties of a system without understanding the components. As an example, you can accurately predict the Earth's orbit around he sun without knowing anything more than the Earth's mass and velocity. An even more accurate result might be obtained if you know the Earth's magnetic field strength and direction. While knowledge of the Earth's structure is necessary to correct for tidal effects, the calculations done without this information are extremely accurate. Bill
Guest
6th May 2006 - 11:35 PM
QUOTE (Guest+May 6 2006, 11:22 PM) QUOTE (will314159+Jan 15 2006, 08:57 AM) my understanding of Heim is that there are no quarks or gluons having an individual existence. the particles (baryons) themselves are the elementary building blocks. But the scattering experiments somehow manifest results consistent with those pesky things. So much for QCD.
at least that explains why you don't find quarks by themselves. I suspect Heim theory is incomplete, as I doubt you could derive QCD from Heim theory. However, I am fairly certain QED can be derived from Heim theory. Just because a theory is incomplete does not mean it is incorrect. Look at how much can be accurately calculated used classical physics. And just look how far adding Dirac's equation to QM gets us. So even if Heim theory can not explain QCD it is a big step forward. While the fact that it can predict hadron masses without the components of QCD is surprising, is shouldn't be dismissed as impossible. After-all, the quarks and gluons make a close system, and it is possible to predict properties of a system without understanding the components. As an example, you can accurately predict the Earth's orbit around he sun without knowing anything more than the Earth's mass and velocity. An even more accurate result might be obtained if you know the Earth's magnetic field strength and direction. While knowledge of the Earth's structure is necessary to correct for tidal effects, the calculations done without this information are extremely accurate. Bill I guess mass of the sun and relative positions would help as well. The point is you do not need to know how an object is made to predict how it will interact with something else. Heim theory just extends that idea to include predicting mass without understanding the internal structure of hadrons. Incidentally, I haven't seen any mention of how Heim theory does in predicting the masses of mesons. Also, does Heim theory explain why there are only right handed neutrinos? Does Heim theory explain things like KP asymmetry? Bill
jreed
6th May 2006 - 11:39 PM
QUOTE (Hal Porter+May 6 2006, 07:32 PM) I've been observing/reading this forums for some months now, much regreting that I lack the technical ability to contribute to the development of a rigorously devised mass spectrum. The other stuff (space drives etc.) fascinates me too, but this is really a first things first task. And I think that a mass spectrum with predictive powers, even if some of the reasons for those predictions are obscure, could offer tremendous help to the experimental and theoretical communities.
I've been in this forum for several months or so. I've programmed up both the 1989 and 1983 mass calculation algorithms in Mathematica, and they both work. I have a Ph.D in physics and a degree from MIT. I think I understand physics pretty well. Having said that, I don't think I understand the theory behind Heim mass values. There is a difference between programming up the equations and understanding them. I've tried to read all the literature on Heim theory I could get hold of, English and German. I'm afraid that in Heim theory there are things that don't make sense to me. In the paper "Zur Herleitung der Heimschen Massenformel" at the very start, equation 1.3 Heim is finding the eigenvalues of a nonlinear operator. As Prof Dragon correctly pointed out (referenced in a previous post) eigenvalues of this nonlinear operator don't exist. Further, as Gerhard Bruhn pointed out and I also found, the metric is flat. Just by transforming coordinates you can't create curvature in the metric. Where does that leave Heim theory? I can't believe the mass equations that are developed from these apparently incorrect assumptions. Where do these mass equations come from? If you don't think you understand the mass spectra because you're not technically knowledgable, you aren't alone. I'm not sure anyone understands the Heim mass formulas. If anyone has detailed explainations of Heim's basic assumptions and the derivation of the mass formulas, it would really help in explaining and moving Heim theory into the realm of mainstream science. jreed
will314159
7th May 2006 - 01:01 AM
what is important is the quantum numers that go into the forumulas. those are the input to the programs. i've been understanding Heim by reading LQG from the linkis to Abhay Ashtekar's home page that I put to the Wikipedia article on LQG.
Basically HEIM and LQG are a subset of each other. they both directly quantize spacetime and are background dependent. HEIM theory just does it more directly but using inaccessible math. And as somebody related in a post above the quantization yeilds matter as a cosequence of spacetime. it is not an otHER. it is a resonation in spacetime. It becomes a graph theory. the winding order of the nodes yields the quantum numbers that go into the programs. Eigenvalue to equations, if you insist.
I have to go back through these 50 pages or so and lay it out.
I think there's a key in having somewhere in plain English.
In classical GR, matter curves spacetime and matter takes it instructions how to move from curved spacetime. But empty spacetime must of necessity be flat because there's no matter in it. BUT don't you see when yu quantize spacetime both in LQG and in HEIM matter pops up either as spin foam or metron lattice vibration. Spacetime with matter in it according to GR is curved. See the apparent contradiction. But we are dealing in the realm of quantum mechanics now and not in the classical world.
Guest_Bill
7th May 2006 - 01:19 PM
QUOTE (Olaf+Apr 18 2006, 09:02 AM) QUOTE (RAF+Apr 17 2006, 02:30 PM)
- the electron neutrino (1110)
- the muon neutrino (1111)
- the pion neutrino (1200)
|
OK. I assume these are for are for left-handed neutrinos. What quantum numbers would be used to predict masses for right-handed neotrinos? Bill
jreed
7th May 2006 - 02:16 PM
QUOTE (will314159+May 7 2006, 01:01 AM)
In classical GR, matter curves spacetime and matter takes it instructions how to move from curved spacetime. But empty spacetime must of necessity be flat because there's no matter in it. BUT don't you see when yu quantize spacetime both in LQG and in HEIM matter pops up either as spin foam or metron lattice vibration. Spacetime with matter in it according to GR is curved. See the apparent contradiction. But we are dealing in the realm of quantum mechanics now and not in the classical world. Yes, I understand that in GR, matter curves spacetime and spacetime tells matter how to move. The problem is how does Heim start with a flat metric space and then end up with matter. I have thought maybe the flat space is like the first order in perturbation theory. We should be looking at the higher orders of perturbation theory (?). In the paper by Ahner and Anderson that I read, the curvature was put into the metric of those two curled up dimensions and that was clear. That paper also had quantization built in due the factors of Exp[-ikr] in those dimensions. That was also clear. How do we formulate Heim theory with the mathematics of GR and quantum theory to make this equally clear? I'll read up on LQG. jreed
Reptile
7th May 2006 - 05:03 PM
RE JREED's comment: [concrete suggestions begin on paragraph 8, you can skip the rest if you wish] There is a difference between programming up the equations and understanding them. I've tried to read all the literature on Heim theory I could get hold of, English and German. I'm afraid that in Heim theory there are things that don't make sense to me. In the paper "Zur Herleitung der Heimschen Massenformel" at the very start, equation 1.3 Heim is finding the eigenvalues of a nonlinear operator. As Prof Dragon correctly pointed out (referenced in a previous post) eigenvalues of this nonlinear operator don't exist. Further, as Gerhard Bruhn pointed out and I also found, the metric is flat. Just by transforming coordinates you can't create curvature in the metric. Where does that leave Heim theory? I can't believe the mass equations that are developed from these apparently incorrect assumptions. FYI: Reptile is Hal Porter. I decided to register if I was going to participate with more than a few comments. Observations such as the following are what chill the blood: at the very start, equation 1.3 Heim is finding the eigenvalues of a nonlinear operator. As Prof Dragon correctly pointed out (referenced in a previous post) eigenvalues of this nonlinear operator don't exist. I agree that formula don't have to be entirely understood if they give correct responses. But this isn't Ohm's law. The Heim formulae appear complicated, the constants are still at the point of being refined, "small" differences in initial conditions yield large (relatively) differences in results. I have a delicate nose for crackpot science. Well earned. My first long magazine feature was about interpretations of markings on Upper Paleolithic mobiliary pieces in a major consumer magazine (Cro Magnon artifacts, some art, some not, some unknown). The article was very carefully written (whatever a botch the editor made of it when he cut for space--the only such complaint I can make in a 30-year career.) The scientist I was profiling, Alexander Marshack, was modest and extremely careful in the claims he was making, and it was a fascinating subject glimpsing the thought processes of our near ancestors 10,000 to 30,000 years ago. What a nerve I hit with the article, over 200 letters, usually with 20 page enclosures! Nazca lines, Van Daniken, just plain crazies...almost none of which had to do with the subject at hand. Maybe two or three responses, were appropriate or real letters to the editor. Yet I think Heim may not be a crackpot, for a variety of reasons. The fact that he earned a German Ph.D. is the least of it, a lot of nuts have Ph.D.s--and my wife is a university professor. The mass spectrum is the first article of evidence; plus colleagues who apparently took him seriously. That doesn't make him right, however. SUGGESTION: I have worked my adult life as a writer, editor, and proofreader at magazines, newspapers, and even ad agencies recently. When confronted with a mistake it is very helpful to try to figure out WHY a mistake was made. Sometimes one can correct the spelling of a word on page one and in Quark a mistake will magically appear on page three. Drives one crazy. If you can figure out what embedded coding might have been altered.... You get the point. With Heim you have a man who was at least legally blind, with no hands, and hard of hearing. Under the best of circumstances I think editing, copy editing, fact checking, and proofreading a document in theoretical physics must be a nightmare. With Heim, the first question might be "How was the document prepared? did he hunt and peck on a typewriter with a hook? Could he even read the page? Did he compose sections in his mind and then dictate? I read somewhere that he has diddling with pascal in the 1990s; could he see the results on a large screen? I imagine that, at the least, Heim developed prodigious facilities of memory. How did he perform calculations? For those that absolutely required computer runs, did friends prepare them and run them for him? How were the results checked. The problems are obvious. They certainly would have been obvious to his friends, associates, and any collaborators. I cannot conceive that he was able to do any detailed reading of proof sheets. He might have gone over them with a magnifying glass if he had that much vision or he might have had someone read the MS too him. So the point is, as a minimum one would have to reconstruct how the papers were, first, written, and then prepared for publication--those that were published. With that in mind, one could comb through looking for outright typos and even more obscure mistakes. It would illuminate the type of mistakes that were likely to occur. Who would-could do all these steps? I don't know. certainly not me with 2 semesters of college German. And I suppose everyone here has a life to lead. MODEST PROPOSAL: At the least, if someone in Germany could investigate this as much as possible. Ask his wife, if possible (alive?) other colleagues, publishers, God, typesetters if possible. People that worked in scientific publishing at the time. Lay out in 10-20 pages about how the man worked while still in living memory. It will save a lot of time later on if this actually turns out to mean something, to be significant. Also, any surviving galley proofs might offer clues as, obviously, galley drafts. And don't tolerate protective memories. If he could be irascible to secretaries, for example, that's important. Especially important would be HOW he mistreated them AND HOW THEY TENDED TO RESPOND. The response might have impacted on the work. Jreed: I suspect that if one asked Heim what he meant with equation 1.3, explaining why, he could have answered the question: (a). it's a typo, I meant .... ( It's a mistake, I should have included equation 1.2b first (or some such, and I absolutely guarantee there will be dropped lines, transposed lines, and transposed figures in his publications--I've seen such in drug insert texts I've proofed AFTER the text has received FDA approval) or even © you are correct, my understanding was flawed here, (and perhaps) however given my concept of ..... one can regard .... so the result turns out the same. It would be nice to interview people about what their understanding of Hem's concepts of the meaning of some of his idiosyncratic terminology. But then it would help to understand the outline of the theory first. But maybe I'm wrong. This is a nightmare for anyone else to work with and nearly unique that one would be putting so much effort into work that is flawed in these kinds of details. Heim's physical disabilities may justify making this a special case. Again it's only the mass spectrum that makes this worth my interest and all of the effort you guys have put into it worthwhile. If the mass spectrum "works" there's something there. Why does it work? Hope this might be of some help to people trying to read the originals. If something doesn't make sense, ask yourself "What kind of mistake could have been made for the original intent to have made sense?" Sometimes you'll get an answer, sometimes you won't. Sorry about the length of this. Now I have to get back to real life. By the way, another intuitive attraction to Heim was my intuitive feeling that space can't really be a continuous real number system like the fictions of Newtonian calculus. A Planck space and a plank time made intuitive sense to me as a kid in the 60s, not that I could ever have done anything with my discomfort.
Hans-Peter
7th May 2006 - 05:52 PM
Reptile wrote: QUOTE Who would-could do all these steps? I don't know. certainly not me with 2 semesters of college German. And I suppose everyone here has a life to lead. MODEST PROPOSAL: At the least, if someone in Germany could investigate this as much as possible. Ask his wife, if possible (alive?) other colleagues, publishers, God, typesetters if possible. People that worked in scientific publishing at the time. Lay out in 10-20 pages about how the man worked while still in living memory. It will save a lot of time later on if this actually turns out to mean something, to be significant. Also, any surviving galley proofs might offer clues as, obviously, galley drafts. And don't tolerate protective memories. If he could be irascible to secretaries, for example, that's important. Especially important would be HOW he mistreated them AND HOW THEY TENDED TO RESPOND. The response might have impacted on the work. UNQUOTE Some facts are know. Heim dictated when working to his wife, who is a non physicist. This may be the first and maybe major cause of errors. Also she refuses - as mentioned in some other discussion groups - to publish further material of Heim available only to her. This all doesn't help the cause obviously. People who worked with him in the last years of hils life are known as Forschungskreis Heimsche Theorie. My understanding is that Dröscher, Häuser, Illobrand von Ludwiger are some of them. They got criticised also for being almost as secretive as Heim, but without his disabilities, so no excuse for these guys. What must be done is to publish (what I wrote already before) an improved version of the derivation of the mass formula , the old one they took off the web because the original had too many errors. So we wait when that will happen. This Forschungskreis publish these websites: http://www.heim-theory.comand also http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/which have also some English pages. So that's what's officially available.
Reptile
7th May 2006 - 06:52 PM
Thanks. That explains a lot. Secretive wives and secretive acolytes of course the suspicion of crackpotism up orders of magnitude.
But I guess I'm not telling anyone here anything with that observation.
No third party intervention to get access to the archives, I suppose. Oh what fools we can be. Protect the image, protect the info that can make ME great, priority disputes, etc. etc.
Newton was worse, if what I read is correct, but that's no excuse.
What matters is the universe and what we can understand of the mind on God (so to speak)
The rest is vanity, vanity. Also, the German language guardians of the flame all sound like they have tenure, or are retired, to me. So they don't even have that for an excuse.
Neil Farbstein
7th May 2006 - 10:05 PM
QUOTE (Reptile+May 7 2006, 06:52 PM) Thanks. That explains a lot. Secretive wives and secretive acolytes of course the suspicion of crackpotism up orders of magnitude.
But I guess I'm not telling anyone here anything with that observation.
No third party intervention to get access to the archives, I suppose. Oh what fools we can be. Protect the image, protect the info that can make ME great, priority disputes, etc. etc.
Newton was worse, if what I read is correct, but that's no excuse.
What matters is the universe and what we can understand of the mind on God (so to speak)
The rest is vanity, vanity. Also, the German language guardians of the flame all sound like they have tenure, or are retired, to me. So they don't even have that for an excuse. Tesla said he believed in flying saucers but his inventions are timeless. Jimmy Carter was said he saw flying saucer but I would not discount everything he says as crackpotism. I dont believe in flying saucers nor do I think Heim was a crackpot. Heim never used pot. I dont think he was on pot when he said that.
Neil Farbstein
7th May 2006 - 10:10 PM
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+May 7 2006, 10:05 PM) QUOTE (Reptile+May 7 2006, 06:52 PM) Thanks. That explains a lot. Secretive wives and secretive acolytes of course the suspicion of crackpotism up orders of magnitude.
But I guess I'm not telling anyone here anything with that observation.
No third party intervention to get access to the archives, I suppose. Oh what fools we can be. Protect the image, protect the info that can make ME great, priority disputes, etc. etc.
Newton was worse, if what I read is correct, but that's no excuse.
What matters is the universe and what we can understand of the mind on God (so to speak)
The rest is vanity, vanity. Also, the German language guardians of the flame all sound like they have tenure, or are retired, to me. So they don't even have that for an excuse. Tesla said he believed in flying saucers but his inventions are timeless. Jimmy Carter was said he saw flying saucer but I would not discount everything he says as crackpotism. I dont believe in flying saucers nor do I think Heim was a crackpot. Heim never used pot. I dont think he was on pot when he said that. Why did heim theorize that particles have multiple dimensions?
jreed
8th May 2006 - 12:28 AM
QUOTE (Reptile+May 7 2006, 05:03 PM) Again it's only the mass spectrum that makes this worth my interest and all of the effort you guys have put into it worthwhile.
If the mass spectrum "works" there's something there. Why does it work?
Reptile: Thanks for the pep talk. The mass calculations are the only thing that keeps me interested in this. Many times I've said to myself: This must be all cooked up somehow. Then I've gone back into the Mathematica notebooks with the intent of proving this. After manipulating them and looking for obvious look up tables and other signs of equation manipulation, each time I've come away dumbfounded. There doesn't seem to be any sign of this going on. There is even some logic that indicates partial wave analysis contributing to the masses as there should be for spherically symmetric solutions. This is one of the biggest mysteries that I've seen. All these apparently correct complicated equations that seem to come from incorrect assumptions. There must be a lot missing from Heim theory that we may never recover. I'm trying to decide if I would like to spend several years looking into it. jreed
Neil Farbstein
8th May 2006 - 12:38 AM
QUOTE (jreed+May 8 2006, 12:28 AM) QUOTE (Reptile+May 7 2006, 05:03 PM) Again it's only the mass spectrum that makes this worth my interest and all of the effort you guys have put into it worthwhile.
If the mass spectrum "works" there's something there. Why does it work?
Reptile: Thanks for the pep talk. The mass calculations are the only thing that keeps me interested in this. Many times I've said to myself: This must be all cooked up somehow. Then I've gone back into the Mathematica notebooks with the intent of proving this. After manipulating them and looking for obvious look up tables and other signs of equation manipulation, each time I've come away dumbfounded. There doesn't seem to be any sign of this going on. There is even some logic that indicates partial wave analysis contributing to the masses as there should be for spherically symmetric solutions. This is one of the biggest mysteries that I've seen. All these apparently correct complicated equations that seem to come from incorrect assumptions. There must be a lot missing from Heim theory that we may never recover. I'm trying to decide if I would like to spend several years looking into it. jreed Do you say there's a conspiracy to bury this guy's theory or other theories. I know about a very suppressed inventor, myself. I've been told that I cannot have my government grants reviewed normally or at all at different at least 15 times. I cant stand this conspiracy it has ruined my life. You cant imagine how it has constricted my life.
Neil Farbstein
8th May 2006 - 12:41 AM
QUOTE (jreed+May 8 2006, 12:28 AM) QUOTE (Reptile+May 7 2006, 05:03 PM) Again it's only the mass spectrum that makes this worth my interest and all of the effort you guys have put into it worthwhile.
If the mass spectrum "works" there's something there. Why does it work?
Reptile: Thanks for the pep talk. The mass calculations are the only thing that keeps me interested in this. Many times I've said to myself: This must be all cooked up somehow. Then I've gone back into the Mathematica notebooks with the intent of proving this. After manipulating them and looking for obvious look up tables and other signs of equation manipulation, each time I've come away dumbfounded. There doesn't seem to be any sign of this going on. There is even some logic that indicates partial wave analysis contributing to the masses as there should be for spherically symmetric solutions. This is one of the biggest mysteries that I've seen. All these apparently correct complicated equations that seem to come from incorrect assumptions. There must be a lot missing from Heim theory that we may never recover. I'm trying to decide if I would like to spend several years looking into it. jreed What are superreds, are they vitamins?
beam
8th May 2006 - 01:36 AM
I'm curious, why is it not possible to take Heim's fundamental assumptions and re-derive everything? Is it because Heim created his own specialized mathematics to derive the mass equation?
I'm clueless in math so please forgive me if this is a silly post...
Neil Farbstein
8th May 2006 - 01:40 AM
QUOTE (beam+May 8 2006, 01:36 AM) I'm curious, why is it not possible to take Heim's fundamental assumptions and re-derive everything? Is it because Heim created his own specialized mathematics to derive the mass equation?
I'm clueless in math so please forgive me if this is a silly post... its completely different from QCD, gluon theory, QG, general relativity etc. he's dead so what means is there to interpret what happenned to his theory. Everybody is cluless too.
Neil Farbstein
8th May 2006 - 01:45 AM
QUOTE (beam+May 8 2006, 01:36 AM) I'm curious, why is it not possible to take Heim's fundamental assumptions and re-derive everything? Is it because Heim created his own specialized mathematics to derive the mass equation?
I'm clueless in math so please forgive me if this is a silly post... Can you help me find a lawyer who will sift through all the documents I have to sue the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and NASA? That's more important to me now than figuring out Heim's theory. It seems irrelevant.
will314159
8th May 2006 - 02:22 AM
Jreed Loop quantum gravity faces the same problems as heim theory. Any background dependent theory that quantizes spacetime is going to have a higgsless mechanism for creating particles with mass. Classical spacetime may have zero curvature but quantum spacetime with matter popping in and out is going to be different. I've been reading the special scientifc american issue atoms of space and time if you can't get your hands on it give me your email address April 2006 Scientific American Special Issue, A Matter of Time, has Lee Smolin LQG Article Atoms of Space and Time http://www.sciam.com/special/toc.cfm?issue...&sc=rt_nav_listTake Care!
will314159
8th May 2006 - 02:29 AM
| QUOTE | I'm curious, why is it not possible to take Heim's fundamental assumptions and re-derive everything? Is it because Heim created his own specialized mathematics to derive the mass equation?
I'm clueless in math so please forgive me if this is a silly post...
<br>Darn Good Question.Droscher and Hauser understand it pretty good. So does Olaf and Deasy. I keep on urging somebody to write a book "Heim made Simple w/ Kartoons"
But have you seen how complicated that article in the SicAm on LQG theory is. One thing I learned from teaching Algebra. One way to try to teach something is to try to split it up in even more pieces which makes it even harder to comprehend than fewer pieces. Sometimes you just can't win.
Take Care!
Reptile
8th May 2006 - 02:41 AM
Jreed and Will "pi":
Yes I have the Sci Am special on Time (and all else). It is fascinating.
May still be on the stands, folks. it's not one of the regular monthly issues.
More to the point here, Jreed comments:
This is one of the biggest mysteries that I've seen. All these apparently correct complicated equations that seem to come from incorrect assumptions. There must be a lot missing from Heim theory that we may never recover. I'm trying to decide if I would like to spend several years looking into it.
And if I tried to involve myself, it would take several more. (Many people, given my formal education in science would find that supremely arrogant, but I think I could learn the math and German to understand Heim theory in four or fice years.
Do I want to? What's frustrating: We shouldn't have to. At least for some of the work.
Oh well. Back to my original, original question, how do the latest neutrino oscillation results compare with the differences in masses of the various neutrino masses predicted by the Heim Mass spectrum. I could look up and provide a link to the initial results, released in the last week or so, if anyone wants. They are very preliminary with large margins of error as one might well imagine.
To everybody: I am NOT implying that there are any conspiracies out there to supress Heim theory! Sounds to me like bad luck and naivete have played large roles along with perhaps a touch of paranoia. From a North American perspective, however, it is outrageous that his manuscripts and manuscript revisions haven't been donated to some University library physics archive.
but there are plenty of similar cases in almost every discipline. Oh well!
And thanks for your answers and support.
will314159
8th May 2006 - 03:06 AM
Farbstein's here to make Jokes. And I thought the aether pix were distracting. In retrospect they weren't all that bad, they at least were about Physics insead of crap
Take Care!
Brum
8th May 2006 - 12:16 PM
Another new contributor here - albeit one who has been following this discussion for some time now (I hope I worked the forum right and this appears OK).
Some great work's been going on (e.g. programming the mass equations) and many contributions offering new views and valuable insights into HT. Shame about the few who seem disconnected from the purpose of the forum and maybe better off with an agony aunt.
What has triggered my input now is will314159's and Reptile's mention of the Sci Am issues. Maybe the issue on time hasn't reached the shelves in my part of the world yet but there was a similar special edition recently on The Frontiers of Physics. This issue is packed with a range of articles on physics beyond the standard model. I reached for this thinking I could get up to date on where physics had got to since my post grad days at nuclear school before a career in nuclear engineering. The scary thing is that one is left with a feeling that most so called main-stream theories are based upon little more than proposed but largely unproven concepts that in turn are based upon a pile of equally unproven ideas. My disquiet lead me to pick up Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" ... unease became disbelief, ST seems to be based upon little more than speculation that results in the need for a near religious belief to keep reading.
Frankly, despite the uncertainty and concerns rightly mentioned by jreed and others, HT seems to to have a more solid conceptual foundation than many current main-stream theories. Add to this the apparent accuracy of the mass calculations (hell, thanks to others I can now run the maths on a low end laptop whilst sitting on an air-plane!) - how can one not be at least inquisitive? Also the conceptually satisfying and frankly more believable cosmological outcomes that flow from HT than that delivered by the prevailing cosmological paradigms that seem to need a stack of subsequent 'adjustments' and what can really only be called 'inventions' (e.g. inflation theory) to fit the observations. Even then they leave a shopping list of problems such as that of the horizon, flatness, homogeneity and entropy, the element abundance issue and the need for dark stuff, too name just a few.
OK so HT has some issues that need working through. But from what I'm seeing, I'd be prepared to put considerably more money down on HT than ST or many of the other main stream theories currently holding sway.
Keep up the good work, lets hope we see more from our English speaking German friends soon.
will314159
8th May 2006 - 01:38 PM
that special issue can be digitally bought from Scientif American. It cost me $5 U.S. xxxxxxxxxx but PhysOrg seems to find itself on google in a flash. If you have trouble getting it email me. here is the reference again. the article i enjoyed was The Atoms of space and time. LQG is close to Heim because they are both background dependent theories that directly quantize spacetime albeit at different stages. They both come up with a Higgsless mechanism of mass creation and computation. Just LQG's mass computation formula, I understand, is a lot more cumbersome. (This doesn't mean that Heim can't accomodate the Higgs boson. There may be different mechanisms for the creation of Gravitational and Inertial mass at the quantum level) April 2006 Scientific American Special Issue, A Matter of Time, has Lee Smolin LQG Article Atoms of Space and Time http://www.sciam.com/special/toc.cfm?issue...&sc=rt_nav_list
millka
8th May 2006 - 03:09 PM
Hi, has anyone here ever heard about Hasselmann's Metron Theory ? How does it relate to Heim Theory ? The relevant papers are here: http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/institut/mitar...tron-model.htmlAbstract: | QUOTE |
The Metron model - Towards a unified deterministic theory of fields and particles
A deterministic model of a unified field and particle theory is developed from Einsteins vacuum gravitational equations, Ricci tensor R(LM) = 0, in a higher dimensional space. It is postulated that the equations support soliton-type solutions (metrons) which reproduce all the basic field equations of quantum field theory. The structure of the solutions (a coupled wave-mode/wave-guide system) is illustrated for a simplified scalar Lagrangian. Bell's theorem on the non-existence of hidden-variable models of quantum phenomena is circumvented through the time-reversal symmetry of all interactions on microphysical scales. Although only the basic strucure of the metron model is presented in this first four-part paper, it is shown that all relevant physical particle properties and constants (electric charge, mass, gravitational constant, fine structure constant, the coupling constants and symmetries of the Standard Model, etc.) can be derived from the properties of the metron solutions.
will314159
8th May 2006 - 03:41 PM
Hassleman Metron theory
thanks for the link Milka
the Metrons have little to do with Heim Metrons, It's just a Soliton theory. It's not a background dependent quantization of spacetime like HT or LQG
here's the flavor of it- from what I could see
a wave soliton theory
| QUOTE | The present approach clearly lies outside the main stream of modern unification
schemes. Rather than trying to unify gravity and quantum theory by quantizing
gravity [3], we attempt to apply the concepts of (higher-dimensional) gravity theory
to explain quantum effects. Thus our starting point is the Kaluza-Klein approach
of the twenties rather than the super-gravity and super-symmetry theories of the
eighties.
The theory contains a number of common elements with previous attempts to
develop a classical description of microphysical phenomena. As in Bohm [4] and de
Broglie [5], wave-like and particle-like properties are not regarded as contradictory
and mutually exclusive phenomena, but as simultaneously existing ‘objective’ realities
in a classical, deterministic sense. However, in contrast to the de Broglie-Bohm
pilot wave theory, waves and particles are not treated as separate entities, but appear
rather as the near and far field expressions of the same physical object: a finite
particle, or ‘metron’. The description of particles as objects of finite extent is clearly
reminiscent of the early attempts of Lorentz [6] to develop a theory of the electron
as a finite-sized charge distribution. The present particle model differs from that of
Lorentz in containing more space dimensions and more fields.
The particles consist of a localized, strongly nonlinear core and a set of linear far
fields which, in the particle rest frame, are either time independent (gravitational,
electromagnetic and neutrino fields) or periodic in time (de Broglie waves). A transitional
weak interaction region bridges the strongly nonlinear core and linear far
field regions. The core is the origin of the corpuscular properties of matter, while
the periodic de Broglie far fields give rise to the wave-like interference phenomena.
The de Broglie far field represents a trapped standing-wave field, so that radiative
damping does not occur.
These properties apply to physical spacetime. With respect to the extra-space
dimensions, the metron fields are multi-periodic: they consist of a superposition of a
finite number of fundamental periodic components and their higher-harmonic interaction
combinations (including zero-wavenumber fields). Different Fourier components
are identified with the different constituents (partons) of elementary particles,
which will be related in Part 4 to the partons of the Standard Model.
<br>Does the following mean the theory has a MASS formula?
I haven't read that far.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The present approach clearly lies outside the main stream of modern unification
schemes. Rather than trying to unify gravity and quantum theory by quantizing
gravity [3], we attempt to apply the concepts of (higher-dimensional) gravity theory
to explain quantum effects. Thus our starting point is the Kaluza-Klein approach
of the twenties rather than the super-gravity and super-symmetry theories of the
eighties.
The theory contains a number of common elements with previous attempts to
develop a classical description of microphysical phenomena. As in Bohm [4] and de
Broglie [5], wave-like and particle-like properties are not regarded as contradictory
and mutually exclusive phenomena, but as simultaneously existing ‘objective’ realities
in a classical, deterministic sense. However, in contrast to the de Broglie-Bohm
pilot wave theory, waves and particles are not treated as separate entities, but appear
rather as the near and far field expressions of the same physical object: a finite
particle, or ‘metron’. The description of particles as objects of finite extent is clearly
reminiscent of the early attempts of Lorentz [6] to develop a theory of the electron
as a finite-sized charge distribution. The present particle model differs from that of
Lorentz in containing more space dimensions and more fields.
The particles consist of a localized, strongly nonlinear core and a set of linear far
fields which, in the particle rest frame, are either time independent (gravitational,
electromagnetic and neutrino fields) or periodic in time (de Broglie waves). A transitional
weak interaction region bridges the strongly nonlinear core and linear far
field regions. The core is the origin of the corpuscular properties of matter, while
the periodic de Broglie far fields give rise to the wave-like interference phenomena.
The de Broglie far field represents a trapped standing-wave field, so that radiative
damping does not occur.
These properties apply to physical spacetime. With respect to the extra-space
dimensions, the metron fields are multi-periodic: they consist of a superposition of a
finite number of fundamental periodic components and their higher-harmonic interaction
combinations (including zero-wavenumber fields). Different Fourier components
are identified with the different constituents (partons) of elementary particles,
which will be related in Part 4 to the partons of the Standard Model.
<br>Does the following mean the theory has a MASS formula?
I haven't read that far.
it is shown that all relevant physical particle properties and constants (electric charge, mass, gravitational constant, fine structure constant, the coupling constants and symmetries of the Standard Model, etc.) can be derived from the properties of the metron solutions.
<br>Edit
After further reading, although not having seen a mass formula, I see where they might get one
!| QUOTE | In the Standard Model, the symmetry-breaking Higgs mechanism is invoked to generate
the fermion masses and the masses of the charged and neutral weak-interaction
bosons. We shall not resort to the Higgs mechanism to explain the fermion masses,
but attribute these simply to the mode-trapping mechanism, which we assume produces
a non-SU(2)-symmetrical particle state. However, an interaction analagous to
the Higgs mechanism in the Standard Model is needed to explain the boson masses in
the metron model, since the lepton-boson interactions alone yield either zero boson
mass, for the diagonal bosons, or a small mass of the order of the lepton mass, for
the non-diagonal bosons. In the following we therefore consider a simple interaction
which generates boson masses in a manner similar to the Higgs mechanism.
Take Care!
will314159
8th May 2006 - 07:55 PM
Excerpts from the the SciAm Smolin Paper "Atoms of Space and Time:
Whereas Heim just goes ahead and quantizes space at the stage of the Christoffel symbols, Smolin purports to prove w/o making assumptions that space is quantized, or so I read it.
| QUOTE | So we began searching for a way to do calculations without assuming that space is smooth and continuous. We insisted on not making any assumptions beyond the experimentally well tested principles of general relativity and quantum theory. In particular, we kept two key principles of general relativity at the heart of our calculations.
The first is known as background independence. This principle says that the geometry of spacetime is not fixed. Instead the geometry is an evolving, dynamical quantity. To find the geometry, one has to solve certain equations that include all the effects of matter and energy. Incidentally, string theory, as currently formulated, is not background independent; the equations describing the strings are set up in a predetermined classical (that is, nonquantum) spacetime.
The second principle, known by the imposing name diffeomorphism invariance, is closely related to background independence. This principle implies that, unlike theories prior to general relativity one is free to choose any set of coordinates to map spacetime and express the equations. A point in spacetime is defined only by what physically happens at it, not by its location according to some special set of coordinates (no coordinates are special). Diffeomorphism invariance is very powerful and is of fundamental importance in general relativity.
By carefully combining these two principles with the standard techniques of quantum mechanics, we developed a mathematical language that allowed us to do a computation to determine whether space is continuous or discrete. That calculation revealed, to our de¬light, that space is quantized. We had laid the foundations of our theory of loop quantum gravity. The term “loop,” by the way, arises from how some computations in the theory involve small loops marked out in spacetime.
<br>This is the equivalent LQG metron
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | So we began searching for a way to do calculations without assuming that space is smooth and continuous. We insisted on not making any assumptions beyond the experimentally well tested principles of general relativity and quantum theory. In particular, we kept two key principles of general relativity at the heart of our calculations.
The first is known as background independence. This principle says that the geometry of spacetime is not fixed. Instead the geometry is an evolving, dynamical quantity. To find the geometry, one has to solve certain equations that include all the effects of matter and energy. Incidentally, string theory, as currently formulated, is not background independent; the equations describing the strings are set up in a predetermined classical (that is, nonquantum) spacetime.
The second principle, known by the imposing name diffeomorphism invariance, is closely related to background independence. This principle implies that, unlike theories prior to general relativity one is free to choose any set of coordinates to map spacetime and express the equations. A point in spacetime is defined only by what physically happens at it, not by its location according to some special set of coordinates (no coordinates are special). Diffeomorphism invariance is very powerful and is of fundamental importance in general relativity.
By carefully combining these two principles with the standard techniques of quantum mechanics, we developed a mathematical language that allowed us to do a computation to determine whether space is continuous or discrete. That calculation revealed, to our de¬light, that space is quantized. We had laid the foundations of our theory of loop quantum gravity. The term “loop,” by the way, arises from how some computations in the theory involve small loops marked out in spacetime.
<br>This is the equivalent LQG metron
The possible values of volume and area are measured in units of a quantity called the Planck length. This length is related to the strength of gravity, the size of quanta and the speed of light. It measures the scale at which the geometry of space is no longer continuous. The Planck length is very small: 10–33 centimeter. The smallest possible nonzero area is about a square Planck length, or 10–66 cm2. The smallest nonzero volume is approximately a cubic Planck length, 10–99 cm3. Thus, the theory predicts that there are about 1099 atoms of volume in every cubic centimeter of space. The quantum of volume is so tiny that there are more such quanta in a cubic centimeter than there are cubic centimeters in the visible universe (1085).
<br>This is what the discrete LQG word looks like, the equivalent to the Heim metron lattice or protosimplex
| QUOTE | These spin networks describe the geometry of space. But what about all the matter and energy contained in that space? How do we represent particles and fields occupying positions and regions of space? Particles, such as electrons, correspond to certain types of nodes, which are represented by adding more labels on nodes. Fields, such as the electromagnetic field, are represented by additional labels on the lines of the graph. We represent particles and fields moving through space by these labels moving in discrete steps on the graphs.
Moves and Foams
PARTICLES AND FIELDS are not the only things that move around. According to general relativity, the geometry of space changes in time. The bends and curves of space change as matter and energy move, and waves can pass through it like ripples on a lake [see “Ripples in Space and Time,” by W. Wayt Gibbs; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, April 2002]. In loop quantum gravity, these processes are represented by changes in the graphs. They evolve in time by a succession of certain “moves” in which the connectivity of the graphs changes
<br>I hope that helps some
Take Care!
Zephir
8th May 2006 - 08:15 PM
QUOTE (will314159+May 8 2006, 10:55 PM) ..This is the equivalent LQG metron... LOQ doesn't uses hidden dimensions concept, so it can have nothing to do with Heim's theory, which is operating in 6 - 8(12)D. It's evident, as Heim's theory becomes interesting, everybody begins with claims about equivalence of his and Heim's theory. The true is, (nearly ?) nobody knows, how Heim's theory really works.
Reptile
8th May 2006 - 10:18 PM
I don't even know if Smolin has ever HEARD of Heim, much less studied him. So I'm sure he wasn't jumping on any bandwagon. Furthermore, I know enough about magazine lead times to know that this special issue was put together long before the New Scientist article. Sometimes Sci Am will repackage articles from the monthly magazine for specials like this one, but I have the impression this one is mostly or entirely original. But I can't swear to it.
To the lay reader, the crude similarities between LQG and Heim Theory are obvious. The conceptual differences are much more obscure. Yes, I found Smolin's article to be very literate but also difficult going much beyond (or even including) what you excerpted. Going from the Planck volume and Planck time as fundamental units to spacetime itself as being described by (or just being) spin networks was certainly a leap I could not follow.
But this is hardly a criticism of the theory as much as a commentary on my ignorance.
Will "pi": I think you did an excellent job excerpting from the article.
FYI: It's "A Matter of Time" $5.95 U.S. and $7.95 Canadian on the stands at the moment. According to the cover, it will be on sale until June 26, 2006. And of course it can be accessed/purchased and www.sciam.com
will314159
8th May 2006 - 11:02 PM
Zephyr
An elephant has tusks and a giraffe has a long neck so according to your analysis they have no commonality. But they both are herbivores and are large mammals possesing four legs and tails.
Perhaps I misspoke. I shouldn't have used the word "equivalent." let me search for the proper word. The "comparable." Like in the American Army they have corporals and in Germany they have "unterofficers." Generals vs. Strategos. Units serving the same function?
I never said the kinship between HT and LQG was on all fours. But the similarities are that they both
1. are background independent theories
2. they both wind up with quantizations of spacetime
3. they both wind up with matter (particles) as a result of this quantization and not as a STRANGE OTHER.
4. they both have a mass formula, even though it is not in the SciAm article.
Yes, there are differences in the dimensions, and the maths, never said they were exactly the same. I know HT has extra dimensions.
But at the same time since there is only reality out there, when you have two systems come pretty close to describing it, there's some isomorphism going on,
Maybe it comes from my math reading in high school 40 years ago, how a subset of 2x2 matrices are equivalent to the set of complex numbers. I try not to get too hung up on notation but look at results.
Take Care!
edit
in Heim the quantization of spacetime is direct, the attitude is that it must be done so let's do it at the level of the Christoffel symbols.
in LQG there seems to be the fiction that we let the math make the decision for us whether spacetime is quantized. But it seems to me that must pop out of trying to marry quantum mechanics w/ geeral relativity. that's the way it impresses me.
Reptile
9th May 2006 - 07:20 PM
In LQG there seems to be the fiction that we let the math make the decision for us whether spacetime is quantized. But it seems to me that must pop out of trying to marry quantum mechanics w/ general relativity. that's the way it impresses me.
Will pi:
I agree. But reading Smolin I have the impression that he originally intuited that the fundamental quanta of spacetime were the Planck length, area, space, and time. Later he participated in the development of mathematical techniques that allowed the discreteness of spacetime to emerge so beautifully from the equations (though, unfortunately, I must accept the latter on faith). Furthermore, they then had the tools to develop further useful insights.
The descriptions of Heim's thinking seem similar. I believe I've read that he used "difference calculus" to develop his theory since, ultimately, he was dealing with phenomena that violated the criteria of functions in the continuous real number system, if I'm reading correctly.
I. Did Heim develop or extend these mathematical techniques? Seems like to me there would be a lot of phenomena for which a "difference calculus would be helpful. Frankly, Heim's math doesn't sound as exotic as does some of the math that the string theory and LQG guys have developed (though the latter may be beautiful). If I'm correct, there might be more people out there who could "check" Heim's math if the actual manuscripts could be cleaned up. But maybe I'm totally off base here.
2. If the more geometrically minded theoretical physicists out there had all the methodologies at their collective fingertips, one would think that each approach might offer insights for the other. Also, some problems might more easily be resolved using one formalism, others might be approachable using another.
3. All of this assumes that Heim was following a fruitful line of research. And one would hope, that the emergence of the mass spectrum from first principles would be clearer, even if it eventually proves incomplete or off base in important respects. Hell, even the solar system model of the hydrogen atom was helpful to physicists trying to visualize the thing, even if it was quickly proven wrong. And the metron sounds a lot closer to Smolin's fundamental units than the solar system model was to the Bohr atom.
4. I think that what I am asking/proposing must be very difficult, however. I suspect that learning the maths for both systems would be a years-long task at best, even for the most brilliant student. A terrible risk in one's career up for what may be a blind alley, nor one likely to pay the rent without some other positive results, probably deriving from the mass spectrum (so we come full circle), to justify tenure and a modest grant or two.
5. I feel very nervous contributing to this forum. I'm skating will beyond the thin ice of any formal training or even informal learning. I'm out there letting my intuitions involving research in very different fields (anthropology plus journalism) provide support. I've edited 7 or 8 dissertations and maybe 20 journal articles, so I'm hoping my intuitions about research in other fields might be useful here. What I don't want to do is waste everybody's time asking the too obvious.
will314159
9th May 2006 - 07:47 PM
Rep read the article at wikipedia on selector calculus. Especially look at the talk/discussion page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selector_calculushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Selector_calculusThere is an equivalent discrete method for tensors invented by Courant in 1942 but that was unavailable to a handicapped disabled veteran such as Heim. So he developed his own. I wouldn't go to all the trouble to learn German or Selector Calculus right now. This is a period of rapid development. Ludwiger has written a new popularization book and other books and papers are coming out. Moreover, afficiandos are porting over the theory from Selector Calcus to Conventional notation. I look at Selector Calculus kind of like the Dirac Delta funtion. An unusual creature with magical properties but which can be defined rigorously. Take Care!
Zephir
9th May 2006 - 09:13 PM
QUOTE (Reptile+May 9 2006, 01:18 AM) ...I don't even know if Smolin has ever HEARD of Heim, much less studied him.... LOL...  QUOTE (will314159+May 9 2006, 01:18 AM) ...An elephant has tusks and a giraffe has a long neck so according to your analysis they have no commonality.... "Just 3D" theories are conceptually quite different from 6D theories. Frankly, it's a totally different way of thinking. From this point of view, the superstring theory with 2D brane concept (i.e. M-theory) is much more closer to Heim's theory, than LQG, I can't help myself.
Reptile
9th May 2006 - 09:28 PM
Will:
Thanks. I see there HAS been a long discussion. really fascinating history. And in terms of Heim, it seems that the US attempts to formalize solutions to some of these issues were one course and eight years after I took calculus.
Of course since I haven't USED calculus since I took it (2005-2006/10 credits), shall we say I have forgotten much. But oddly enough, I remember the basic philosophical issues. I think these were much in the mind of my professors (one of which, the head of the department at the U of Miami) was set upon revolutionizing the teaching of mathematics along Wiestraussian (sp?)principles and was writing his own text.) I think that a lot of unconscious input came from the location of the US Weather Bureau's hurricane forcasting computer on the Coral Gables (main) campus. This was 1965/1966, the computer was brand new, five stories tall, in a building which actually had a trace of classical elegance about it. And you could SEE the computer, all five stories tall through the glass windows.
The Math department, and leading edge IBM scientists, programmers, and researchers, had been much involved in programming and bringing the computer on line during the previous year. This thing, weather forcasting and the avoidance of catastrophe (a la Katrina-a 4-year-earlier experience with Donna on the Keys) was hot and demanding stuff. Lots of new problems to solve. Some of the excitement even crept down to the level of the introductory math courses--computers solved integrals differently than human beings. My teachers really hated "infinitesmals" and tried to ban even offhand references to such things from common human speech.
That five-story-tall wonder must have had less capacity than the old Dell I'm typing on, but I'm not surprised that by the early seventies new differentiation techniques had become standardized in engineering to solve problems that involved discontinuities, shall we say.
I am relieved that aficionados are porting over, and able to port over, to more conventionalized notation.
Your referecnce to Courant in 1942 was hilarious.
DEK46656
9th May 2006 - 09:59 PM
I just wanted to follow up on a question I asked back on 2006-05-06 but hadn't seen any response: what value of "G" is being used in the mass calculations?
I was wondering if the value is the standard model value of G, or the HT value Gg.
If it is the standard model value, the difference between the two might account for some of the error between the results and the measured values they are being compared to.
Thanks.
will314159
9th May 2006 - 10:14 PM
Reptile I f you want to freshen up your calcuus. Download a copy of free Maxima. It is a LISP interpreter programming language. Artificial intelligence. Not only will it give you number crunching calculations for derivatives and integrals, but also symbol manipulation. It will also do vector calculus, matrices, tensors, Chirstoffel symbols, general relativity 3D plotting, you name it. it has a tutorial. I wonder what the profs do for homework these days knowing the kids have access to tools llike that. Windows or Linux versions http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4933sample output (%i2) integrate (1/x,x); (%o2) log(x) We also have a Heim Mass Calculator in Maxima Enjoy and Take Care!
jreed
10th May 2006 - 01:59 PM
QUOTE (DEK46656+May 9 2006, 09:59 PM) I just wanted to follow up on a question I asked back on 2006-05-06 but hadn't seen any response: what value of "G" is being used in the mass calculations?
I was wondering if the value is the standard model value of G, or the HT value Gg.
If it is the standard model value, the difference between the two might account for some of the error between the results and the measured values they are being compared to.
Thanks. I computed the mass of the Xi minus particle with the 1989 Mathematica version of Heim's theory using several different gamma values. Here are the results: gamma was given the following values: gamma min 6.663 X 10^-11 Heim group value 6.672237X10^-11 Schulz (1982) 6.6732X10^-11 UW recent experiment 6.6739X10^-11 CODATA 6.6742X10^-11 gamma max 6.683X10-11 Here are the computed values for the Xi minus mass (in Mev) 1321.62, 1321.32, 1321.29, 1321.26, 1321.25, 1320.96 The observed value for the mass of Xi minus is 1321.32 Mev. jreed
will314159
11th May 2006 - 02:23 PM
What do you all think of the following conversation?
I see world sheet just a kind of time cone cocept, nothing ultimate
I also read that particles are assumed to be, a priori, strings, or intersections of branes.
Am I wrong?
_______________________________________________
Will:
There are all gradations of Non-Mainstream. For one, there is the hydrino theory of Dr. Mills. Classical Quantum Mechanics. This theory entirely denies all the Dirac-Feynman wave-particle quantum theory and resets the clock. The electron probabililty cloud of the 1s orbital of the hydrodgen atom is replaced by a spherical electon orbitsphere. On the other hand, Heim REJECTS NONE of the prior theory of his generation. He builds on it and combines GR and QM. We all are aware of the problems, chiefly: the selector calculus, instead of standard math, the growth of the theory in isolation- not peer reviewed, the seeming impenetrabity. The afficiandos are working on that. There are papers and books in the works. What do they see in Heim. An entirely different view of the universe. Matter springing organicaly and geneticaly out of spacetime. A marriage of the two. Until Loop quantum gravity matured, HT was unique in this view. STRINGER has heartburn with the comparison of HT and LQG. The similarities are they are both background independent, use a quantized spacetime, and have a view of matter as emerging out of an "oscillation" of a spacetime "matrix." String theory has no explanation for matter. It is assumed a priori to be a brane/string. For my taste, fine as that goes, but not an ultimate theory.
STRINGER:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "STRINGER has heartburn with the comparison of HT and LQG." I do find the comparison rather inappropriate, as LQG is (deservedly) part of mainstream physics while Heim Theory is (deservedly) not. Trying to link the two is highly unflattering to LQG, and I'm sufficiently fond of good science (and of educating people about good science) that I'll work to debunk such misleading comparisons when I see them. I've already explained at length (and summarized above) some of the major flaws and warning signs that I see in Heim Theory as a professional physicist. I'm very happy to see people fascinated by the sorts of questions that Heim tried to answer, but I consider it a duty of any scientist to help channel that interest toward high quality, plausible approaches to answering them.
Meanwhile, I'm also rather puzzled by your comments about string theory: every string theorist would readily agree that spacetime is intrinsically quantum mechanical. In string theory, spacetime itself (like matter) emerges from vibrations of interacting strings (yes, current work in string theory always starts with some choice of background metric, but changing from one "background" to another is nothing more than a coherent state of strings: no particular background is preferred or special). It's not clear to me why assuming "a priori" that matter and spacetime are both reflections of underlying string worldsheet physics is any less "ultimate" than assuming that matter reflects lumps in some underlying spacetime physics. But that is all rather off topic with regards to this article, so I'll leave it at that. If you'd like to learn more about how these things actually work in string theory, there are some really good books and articles out there.
WILL:
I've reread the WP String theory article. Based upon that and having listened to and read Witten's power point online lectures, I'm still inclined to my opinions. But I"ll consider STRINGER'S point of view and continue to read further. Take Care!
DEK46656
12th May 2006 - 02:22 AM
will314159
Regarding the conversation with STRINGER, I’m not in the position to comment on the hard science side of your dialog with STRINGER, but I do think that his responses seem symptomatic of someone who is entrenched in one scientific perspective just prior to a paradigm shift.
I think the best thing to do to promote HT is to assist (ensure) well thought out and accurate publications in a peer reviewed forum. No one in the existing physics community is going to pay much attention to HT until something is published that is insightful, logical, and offers possible predictive tests, i.e. based on the scientific process.
I believe that the work taking place in this forum is in line with that goal, and is the best response to those that refuse to look beyond what they have been taught, developed, or adopted due to “acceptance by the majority”. From what I read about B. Heim, he had the respect of his contemporaries, many of which were founding fathers (and mothers) of the current theories.
Everyone
Keep up the good work! I hope to offer my own contributions to the effort over time.
Brum
12th May 2006 - 10:56 AM
QUOTE I'm very happy to see people fascinated by the sorts of questions that Heim tried to answer, but I consider it a duty of any scientist to help channel that interest toward high quality, plausible approaches to answering them. Am I missing something? Aside from being a theory developed by a man working in isolation, and who had to invent his own maths tools (no I don't mean Newton!), I can't see any reason why HT is any less plausible than ST. We may not as yet have full access to, and understanding of, all of Heim's work but can anyone explain why HT isn't at least plausible?
will314159
12th May 2006 - 11:59 AM
What is missing in Heim is a clear step by step tutorial in standard notation in English w/o a lot of hand waving. There should be sufficient interest in HT by now to make it professionaly and financially renumerative.
I don't know if Ludwiger's new book fits the bill; but, I'm sure it's a start.
Take Care!
UncleMatt
12th May 2006 - 01:27 PM
Has the new book been released yet? If so, where can I find it for sale on line, or offline for that matter?
jreed
12th May 2006 - 01:47 PM
QUOTE (will314159+May 11 2006, 02:23 PM) What do you all think of the following conversation?
I see world sheet just a kind of time cone cocept, nothing ultimate
I also read that particles are assumed to be, a priori, strings, or intersections of branes.
Am I wrong?
_______________________________________________
STRINGER:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "STRINGER has heartburn with the comparison of HT and LQG." I do find the comparison rather inappropriate, as LQG is (deservedly) part of mainstream physics while Heim Theory is (deservedly) not. ! Where is the rest of this conversation? I'm interested in learning why a string theory expert thinks LQG is acceptable while Heim Theory is not. I'm not sold on string theory and Brian Greene's presentations that I've seen on Nova look like mediocre science fiction to me. Star Trek is much better. jreed
will314159
12th May 2006 - 01:53 PM
jreed
That's as far as that conversation went. More of criticsm of heim theory can be see on the wikipedia heim theory discussion page.
As far as mainstream theories, obviously, I'm more impessed by LQG than String/Brane theory.
Take Care!
will314159
14th May 2006 - 02:58 PM
Observed Matter & Matter Artifacts This is an interesting subject. I have always advocated the kinship between HT and LQG. Many of the objections to LQG port over to HT. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Loop_qua...s_to_the_theoryThey are due to the direct quantization of space and the assumption that general relatiivity holds at the Planck length scale. But here is an interesting observation- that such implementations result in matter and energy artifacts. Of course that is the strength of Heim theory- the origin of the theory of matter as a metron lattice oscillaton and the mass formula. The question then arises whether that artifact matter is the same as observed matter. From the WP article on LQT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity| QUOTE | Many string theorists believe that it is impossible to quantize gravity in 3+1 dimensions without creating matter and energy artifacts. This is not proven, and it is also unproven that the matter artifacts, predicted by string theory, are exactly the same as observed matter. Should LQG succeed as a quantum theory of gravity, the known matter fields would have to be incorporated into the theory a posteriori. Lee Smolin, one of the fathers of LQG, has explored the possibility that string theory and LQG are two different approximations to the same ultimate theory
<br>Take Care!
Zephir
14th May 2006 - 03:09 PM
QUOTE (will314159+May 14 2006, 05:58 PM) ...The question then arises whether that artifact matter is the same as observed matter... Each theory should be able to explain the field existence on background of ordinary matter. Here's no "different mass" concepts, just different states of matter. Till now is the most consistent view of superstring theory, because string concept doesn't differs form ordinary mass concept. Surprisingly enough, the superstring theory doesn't uses this concept at all, although it enables to explain the quantum effects and constant speed of light natively, i.e. without using some ad-hoc postulates.
leovinus
15th May 2006 - 11:33 AM
FYI - there is a new version 0.66 of the "gprog" C code to compute particle masses according to HT. Added since the last version are cmd-line parameters to change gamma/G, the verbosity level, maximum excitation level, and several other parameters. Computed masses are still the same as in v0.65.
Also added are the "tau" particle, and a choice on how to compute neutrino masses (which will undoubtly generate some discussion). As far as I can see, when you compute e/mu/tau netrino's, the computed masses are about 3 orders of magnitude too high (since latest estimates are around 10^-2 eV (not MeV!) and lower. Looking forward to any explanations, suggestions, corrections, etc. Graciously hosted by Olaf at www.engon.de/protosimplex Enjoy.
L.
hdeasy
15th May 2006 - 02:44 PM
QUOTE (UncleMatt+May 12 2006, 01:27 PM) Has the new book been released yet? If so, where can I find it for sale on line, or offline for that matter? Audio-book (ca. 280 Min.) ; ISBN 3-8312-6128-8 Book (120 pages) ; ISBN 3-8312-0345-8 Orders under: http://www.komplett-media.de/katalog/H%C3%...150,2987,d.htmlBy the way - if anyone knows of an English language publisher who might be interested in an English version of the book and/or CD, then Von Ludwiger would like to know. Any ideas?? HD
Hans-Peter
15th May 2006 - 05:04 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+May 15 2006, 02:44 PM) QUOTE (UncleMatt+May 12 2006, 01:27 PM) Has the new book been released yet? If so, where can I find it for sale on line, or offline for that matter? Audio-book (ca. 280 Min.) ; ISBN 3-8312-6128-8 Book (120 pages) ; ISBN 3-8312-0345-8 Orders under: http://www.komplett-media.de/katalog/H%C3%...150,2987,d.htmlI am a little bit surprised to see that this new Heim book does not mention who worked over the manuscript, or if changes (euphemism for major corrections) have been made to the original theory. Also here obviously only the 6 dimensional original heim theory is mentioned in the introduction , no word here (but maybe in the book itself) about the extensions to 8 dimensions
will314159
15th May 2006 - 08:47 PM
Systrans translation of German of Book Description
" English newspapers saw in it "new Einstein". "is a new conception of the world approaching for the Germans?" the star asked 1957 in an article over the nearly blind and deaf as well as hand lots physicist Burkhard Heim. It looks in such a way, as if the question could be answered today with "".
Heim completes Einstein's beginnings to a uniform field theory. It geometrisiert not only the gravitational field, but all physical fields.
In Heim theory all elementary particles can be indicated as dynamic, quantized geometrical structures. The masses of the elementary particles are shown very exactly, which so far neither the stringer, still the loop quantum theory to be able!
A Big Bang does not take place in the cosmological model of Heim. The cosmos developed after Heim very, for a very long time only as an empty area - as pure quantized geometry.
By the introduction conception of the world the uniform description of physical, biological and psychological processes and thus the solution body soul of the problem succeeds to a aspect-referred logic in Heim 6-dimensionalem.
The hearing book wants to make attentive on the meaning, which has the new modern conception of the world for each particular of us. It draws a hope-fuller and more meaningful picture existence than it only space-time is able.
With numerous interviews and lectures of Burkhard Heim.
Speaker: Detlef Kuegow
"
Take Care!
Guest_anonymous
16th May 2006 - 09:44 PM
not to seem too disparaging, but illobrand von ludwiger is a known UFO hunter.
will314159
16th May 2006 - 09:50 PM
Unidentifizierte Flugobjekte
UFO in German also it appears
That doesn't bother me. My wife saw one of those unexplained phenom. I never have, but I certainly don't discount them.
Take Care!
hdeasy
17th May 2006 - 03:04 PM
Yes, he became interested in Heim Theory and a friend of Heim before developing his interest in ' anomalous aerial phenomena' - though having said that, his group is probably the most scientifically top-heavy one in that field, which unfortunately is more noted for attracting nutters.
nolandpete
18th May 2006 - 07:12 AM
Has anybody seem this 51 pages PDF on Heim's Theory. This the first page:
The Physics of Burkhard Heim and its Applications to Space Propulsion by Illobrand von Ludwiger, M.Sc.
www.MUFON-CES.org/docs/heimphysics.pdf page 1 of 51
The Physics of Burkhard Heim and its Applications to Space Propulsion
by Illobrand von Ludwiger, M.Sc., prepared for the presentation at the First European
Workshop on Field Propulsion, January 20-22, 2001 at the University of Sussex, Brighton, GB
Abstract
If one is searching for field propulsion systems for a real interstellar spaceflight, one has to
look for a theory which offers the possibilities for
•generating gravitational fields,
•producing gravitational waves
•lowering inertia
•superluminal velocity.
All of these four requirements seem to be fulfilled by the 6-dimensional unified fully
geometrized quantum field theory of Burkhard Heim, which has been proven to be correct,
because it supplies a suitable formula for all known particle masses (ground and excited states),
as well as the correct values of coupling constants.
The knowledge of the internal structure of elementary particles makes it possible, in principle,
to alter their properties, such as inertia.
The physicist Burkhard Heim, who deceased on January 14th , 2001, in Northeim, near
Goettingen, was the German equivalent to Stephen Hawking and one of the greatest German
physicists. Since he left the Max-Planck-Institute in Goettingen in 1954 because of his bodily
handicap (he lost his eyes, his hearing and his hands by an accident) he worked privately. When
he published his theory in two voluminous books (written in German, about 600 pages) in
1979 and 1984, nobody could believe that Heim discovered the unified mass formula. And
nobody remembered that he had become famous in 1959, when he proposed a new propulsion
system for spaceflight.
In this paper the author will give a short overview of Heim’s theory and then will deduce some
experiments to manipulate gravity. Heim started with Einstein’s General Relativity Theory, but
modified it for application in the microscopic range. Here, the field equations become
Eigen value equations. For invariance reasons Heim had to introduce a 6-dimensional manifold.
The existence of a smallest area required the computation with differences rather than with
You can not find at MUFON anymore.
hdeasy
18th May 2006 - 12:46 PM
Yes, Von Ludwiger said he withdrew it from that location for the same reason that he withdrew the " Zur Herleitung der Heimschen Massenformel" from Heim-theory.com - they want to rework those articles as some things were incorrectly phrased. Yes, they're taking their time about it, I know, but I suppose it's better if it's all correctly formulated. Von L seems to be busy with diifferent projects, which is probably one reason for the delay -there's his (audio) book, and now there might be a documentary film on Heim on one of the most serious and best European TV channels - ARTE (French- German co-productions). Negotiations on that are on-going. The proposed director has done some excellent work on themes relating to Space, Europe, WW-II etc. So if he does the film, it should be a wonderful job.
Welll, at least those of us who made hard-copies of those papers beforethey were removed can still peruse them.
Regards,
Hugh
Zephir
18th May 2006 - 11:16 PM
DEK46656
19th May 2006 - 03:13 AM
Greetings everyone; I’ve been thinking about the post Will314159 made back on 2006-03-11 14:23:00 about his dialog with STRINGER.
I’ve been reading “Three Roads To Quantum Gravity” by Lee Smolin, and one section he wrote gave me a little insight into why “main stream” physicist might not accept Heim Theory (keeping in mind that I’m not exactly the expert on HT).
In the beginning of chapter 12, the author describes how all 3 theories he is presenting (LQG, Sting Theory, and Black hole thermodynamics) all have “proofs” that space-time must be quantized to Planks units (length, area, etc). These theories reinforce the concept due to implied evidence and the applied logic.
I don’t remember that HT does that. HT states that space is such (quantized), describes all the conditions (no big bang, but the 3 expanding spheres, the eventual reduction in size of the basic unit to cause matter to spontaneously exist “everywhere”), and provides the math to measure (and predict) particle masses and potentially new particles (neutral electron). However, in my reading of HT, I don’t recall how the “proof” that space must be quanitized was presented; it was more of an assumption or requirement.
I think that is one of the issue main stream physicists might have. Mind you, I’ve probably forgotten the proof, overlooked it, or mis-understood it when I read it.
Is there a proof written in HT that logically enforces that space is discreet at Plank scale? If there is, that is where I would start any paper that I would publish (for peer review) about HT.
Opinions?
will314159
19th May 2006 - 05:43 AM
The way I recollect the discussion on this forum HT assumes that General Relativity must be quantized to harmonize it with Quantum Mechanics. The quantization is done at the level of the Christoffel Symbols.
The discussion is in the back pages where I asked if Heim Theory could be phrased in about 25 words or so.
QM is assumed to be quantized to accord with experimentation such as blackbody radiation, photoelectric effect, and such.
Take Care!
hdeasy
19th May 2006 - 08:37 AM
QUOTE (DEK46656+May 19 2006, 03:13 AM)
I don’t remember that HT does that. HT states that space is such (quantized), describes all the conditions (no big bang, but the 3 expanding
I think that is one of the issue main stream physicists might have. Mind you, I’ve probably forgotten the proof, overlooked it, or mis-understood it when I read it.
Is there a proof written in HT that logically enforces that space is discreet at Plank scale? If there is, that is where I would start any paper that I would publish (for peer review) about HT.
Opinions? I recall quoting either one of Heim's books or an on-line paper about this some time ago on this forum or elsewhere. Ah yes found it: I pointed out that in a Datadiwan article, on the derivation of the metron (only problem is English version has some symbols missing (** here) - the German version is better in that regard ) - " A single elementary particle is characterized not only by *** and the limiting distances of its gravitational field, but also by its Compton wavelength. R– vanishes in empty space when the mass of the field source approaches zero, while R +, **, and the Compton wavelength all diverge. However, since the smallest geometrical unit must be a real number and a property of empty space its value has to remain finite. As shown in [1], only a single product having this property can be formed from the 4 characteristic lengths above. The result is an area, , bounded on all sides by geodesics, whose present size turns out to be 6.15´10 –70 m 2 . This quantity, called a metron, represents the smallest area existing in empty space and requires the differential calculus to be replaced by a calculus of finite areas. Accordingly, a whole chapter in [1] is devoted to the development of a difference calculus considering the finite area, . This enables any differential expression to be metronized. It follows that in any subspace R n , whose dimensionality n is divisible by 2, the geometrical continuum is replaced by a metronic lattice formed by n–dimensional volumes bounded on all sides by metrons. Thus, R 6 and R 12 are 6–dimensional and 12–dimensional metronic lattices, respectively. Since all dimensions are metronized, even time proceeds in finite, calculable steps. By the use of a difference calculus it becomes possible to introduce into the nonlinear system of geometric structures in R 6 ." Also, in that removed ' Herleitung' paper, there is this: "From Heim's calculation of 2 extremum principles on the Gravitational field quantum and its associated smallest mass, a product of two lengths emerged as a natural constant. This smallest area is the square of the Planck length, that is estimated by Treder (1974). It is called the 'Metron' by Heim. Etc...." So it seems that Heim does go through a calculation that justifies use of the Metron - it is not just assumed. I think that this, together with the proof of LQG, can be seen as sufficient grounds for accepting that Heim was right when he became the first to incorporate a quantum of area into his theory. Take care...
Neil Farbstein
19th May 2006 - 09:59 PM
Einstein was the only person who could understand Heim's metron theory.
metronhead
20th May 2006 - 01:48 AM
Regarding a smallest unit of time and space:
It really is hard to understand why the limit of of the sum of an infinite series can be a finite number (Zeno's Paradox), if space is truly infinitely divisible. Mathematically, it can be done, and calculus does it all the time, but I always thought that there was some contradiction between the accepted definition of limit at infinity, and the concept of infinity itself. In other words, it has seemed to me that Zeno was at least partially right.
But all of those considerations go away if there is a smallest unit of time and/or space. It might be possible to construct a space-time that is infinitely divisible, but the difficulties with it kind of make you wonder why God (or whatever) would bother.
Von Ludwiger, at least, makes the argument that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle implies that no physical objects can be smaller than the square of the Planck length.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
