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.
<br>it's the concept of convergence. it's math, not physics.
how does it go. you really can't ever get anywhere b/c you have to first have to cover half the distance then half the next distance then half the next and so forth. So you spend eterniity covering halves and never get there.
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/ 32+ ....... =1
But your fat foot has as infinite amount of points that covers all those little distances. And your minute hand covers an infinite amount of minutons
Take Care!
docbill
20th May 2006 - 02:33 AM
What happen to the energy of an object transfered into subspace?
As I understand it, in order to transfer and object into subspace, you need to reduce it's mass. But E=mc^2. So if I reduce the mass of an object in half before it enters subspace, I have (mc^2)/2 in energy. Unless there is somewhere for this energy to go, we just have a theory for building a better bomb.
Bill
jal
20th May 2006 - 03:07 AM
Hi docbill!
| QUOTE | As I understand it, in order to transfer and object into subspace, you need to reduce it's mass.
I've never seen that. Have you got a link for me to read?
jal
Neil Farbstein
20th May 2006 - 04:42 AM
QUOTE (metronhead+May 20 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. Why dont you take the cube of the plank lenght instead of quantizing the msallest are you can divide space into?
RAF
20th May 2006 - 06:14 AM
QUOTE (docbill+May 20 2006, 02:33 AM) What happen to the energy of an object transfered into subspace?
As I understand it, in order to transfer and object into subspace, you need to reduce it's mass. But E=mc^2. So if I reduce the mass of an object in half before it enters subspace, I have (mc^2)/2 in energy. Unless there is somewhere for this energy to go, we just have a theory for building a better bomb.
Bill I want to look more into similar matters . It seems transfer into a different space with a different 'G' can mean mass' = mass/n. Conservation of momentum would imply that mv is constant, so v' would be v*n in the 'other space'. For n = 10, conservation of momentum means (m/n) * (v*n); thus v' = 10 v. However, E = m*v^2. E' = (m/10) * 10*v^2 = 10*E. Where does this energy (in the other space) come from? Note Relativity doesn't have to come in much, since transfer to a different space only requires v = 0.1 *c or so. v^2/c^2 would only be 0.01. Not enough to change this simple analysis much. 'Gravito-photons' and 'vacuum energy' are mentioned in the 'Space Drive' papers, but I don't know if much of an explanation for where the extra energy comes from to travel at n*v in one of the other spaces. Nor do I know how one selects the appropriate 'alternate space' to get the n he desires. I do remember n<= 64K was mentioned.
docbill
20th May 2006 - 02:03 PM
QUOTE (RAF+May 20 2006, 06:14 AM) QUOTE (docbill+May 20 2006, 02:33 AM) What happen to the energy of an object transfered into subspace?
As I understand it, in order to transfer and object into subspace, you need to reduce it's mass. But E=mc^2. So if I reduce the mass of an object in half before it enters subspace, I have (mc^2)/2 in energy. Unless there is somewhere for this energy to go, we just have a theory for building a better bomb.
Bill I want to look more into similar matters . It seems transfer into a different space with a different 'G' can mean mass' = mass/n. Conservation of momentum would imply that mv is constant, so v' would be v*n in the 'other space'. For n = 10, conservation of momentum means (m/n) * (v*n); thus v' = 10 v. However, E = m*v^2. E' = (m/10) * 10*v^2 = 10*E. Where does this energy (in the other space) come from? Note Relativity doesn't have to come in much, since transfer to a different space only requires v = 0.1 *c or so. v^2/c^2 would only be 0.01. Not enough to change this simple analysis much. 'Gravito-photons' and 'vacuum energy' are mentioned in the 'Space Drive' papers, but I don't know if much of an explanation for where the extra energy comes from to travel at n*v in one of the other spaces. Nor do I know how one selects the appropriate 'alternate space' to get the n he desires. I do remember n<= 64K was mentioned. I think I figured it out. They are assuming the mass energy can be used to gradually accelerate the space ship. If I make the same assumption, then I can reproduce the computed transit times using subspace. i.e. You keep drawing off mass energy for a constant 1g acceleration and then you drop into 2x subspace. Repeat the procedure until you reach 3x subspace and so on. Unfortunately, as near as I can tell this is a faulty analysis. The reason is you can not withdraw small fractions of rest mass energy. Heim stated only values of 1/n will have the same eigen value solutions. Which means at other values you will not have the appropriate resonances for electrons, protons, and neutrons, etc to exist with the same laws of physics. So for the first subspace transition, you must take half the energy all at once. Certainly, you might be able to use parts of the ship as fuel by radiating them into subspace, but you can not do that with anything you want to maintain as part of your ship and crew... Another fault in the subspace analysis is they fail to take into account that the crew members will never actually observe the laws of physics changing. If they try measuring the speed of light while in subspace, they will measure the exact same values as they do here. If they try to measure G, they will also measure the exact same values as here. Anything else, and they simply could not exist. If you don't believe me, consider if they had a gyroscope clock on board. When they entered subspace, the gyro would spin twice as fast. In 1 minute our time, their gyro clocks would advance 2 minutes. The only way such a transition would not prove lethal to the crew and the structure of the ship is if the fast running clock was still the correct time. Meaning people in subspace age twice as fast. This means a speed of light of 2 c will still be measured as 1 c by the crew, because their clocks run at twice the speed. Consequently, people traveling in subspace would still need to prepare for a long voyage. Even though there journey to another star might take only a few months real time, according to their own clocks they would have traveled the journey the same as through real space. With relativistic corrections for a 1 g constant acceleration/deceleration that means they would age about 5 years during the voyage. The last serious problem I see is how to get back into normal space. While going into subspace gave 1/n of the mass in energy, coming back out will cost you n times your mass in energy. That means you can only shift 1/n of ship back into regular space, the rest will have to be destroyed. Bill
Reptile
20th May 2006 - 09:53 PM
Everybody may know this already, but I've copied in some preliminary results from the Fermi Lab neutrino beam experiment (MINOS) released 3/30/06. These indicate that the square of the mass difference between two of the oscillating neutrino types (perhaps electron and muon?) is delta M^2=0.0031 eV^2. How does this fit in with any of the updated neutrino mass calculations? I've excerpted key paragraphs of the release below, along with links. Also the Minos Pictures links with charts/graphs of the results from the previous experiments. My query does the square root of the mass difference correlate with any of the most recent Heim mass spectrum calculations? If so, this would indicate 1. which to neutrino types are oscillating, and 2. would enable us to convey a preliminary prediction of the absolute masses. This might, or might not, be of some use to the experimenters. I don't think this has been discussed... "...oscillations, and yields a value of delta m^2, the square of the mass difference between two different types of neutrinos, equal to 0.0031 eV^2 +/- 0.0006 eV^2, (statistical uncertainty) +/- 0.0001 eV^2 (systematic uncertainty). http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_re...osPictures.html Interactions News Wire #26-06 30 March 2006 http://www.interactions.org******************************************************************* Source: Fermilab Content: Press Release Date Issued: 30 March 2006 ******************************************************************* Press contact: Kurt Riesselmann, Fermilab Public Affairs, 630-840-3351, kurtr@fnal.gov Additional media contacts are listed at the end of the press release. Photos are available at: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/NuMI_photosA 12-minute streaming video on the MINOS experiment is at: http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_02/VMS/MINOS/MINOS.htmTwo scientific graphics summarizing the result are at: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_re...osPictures.htmlMINOS experiment sheds light on mystery of neutrino disappearance BATAVIA, Illinois—An international collaboration of scientists at the Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory announced today (March 30, 2006) the first results of a new neutrino experiment. Sending a high-intensity beam of muon neutrinos from the lab’s site in Batavia, Illinois, to a particle detector in Soudan, Minnesota, scientists observed the disappearance of a significant fraction of these neutrinos. The observation is consistent with an effect known as neutrino oscillation, in which neutrinos change from one kind to another. The Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search (MINOS) experiment found a value of delta m^2 = 0.0031 eV^2, a quantity that plays a crucial role in neutrino oscillations and hence the role of neutrinos in the evolution of the universe. ******[material omitted] Neutrinos are hard to detect, and most of the neutrinos traveling the 450 miles from Fermilab to Soudan—straight through the Earth, no tunnel needed—leave no signal in the MINOS detector. If neutrinos had no mass, the particles would not change as they traverse the Earth and the MINOS detector in Soudan would have recorded 177 +/- 11 muon neutrinos. Instead, the MINOS collaboration found only 92 muon neutrino events—a clear observation of muon neutrino disappearance and hence neutrino mass. The deficit as a function of energy is consistent with the hypothesis of neutrino oscillations, and yields a value of delta m^2, the square of the mass difference between two different types of neutrinos, equal to 0.0031 eV^2 +/- 0.0006 eV^2, (statistical uncertainty) +/- 0.0001 eV^2 (systematic uncertainty). In this scenario, muon neutrinos can transform into electron neutrinos or tau neutrinos, but alternative models—such as neutrino decay and extra dimensions—are not yet excluded. It will take the recording of much more data by the MINOS collaboration to test more precisely the exact nature of the disappearance process. [I][/I][I]
docbill
20th May 2006 - 11:04 PM
QUOTE (Reptile+May 20 2006, 09:53 PM) Everybody may know this already, but I've copied in some preliminary results from the Fermi Lab neutrino beam experiment (MINOS) released 3/30/06. These indicate that the square of the mass difference between two of the oscillating neutrino types (perhaps electron and muon?) is delta M^2=0.0031 eV^2. How does this fit in with any of the updated neutrino mass calculations? I've excerpted key paragraphs of the release below, along with links. Also the Minos Pictures links with charts/graphs of the results from the previous experiments. My query does the square root of the mass difference correlate with any of the most recent Heim mass spectrum calculations? If so, this would indicate 1. which to neutrino types are oscillating, and 2. would enable us to convey a preliminary prediction of the absolute masses. This might, or might not, be of some use to the experimenters. I don't think this has been discussed... "...oscillations, and yields a value of delta m^2, the square of the mass difference between two different types of neutrinos, equal to 0.0031 eV^2 +/- 0.0006 eV^2, (statistical uncertainty) +/- 0.0001 eV^2 (systematic uncertainty). http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_re...osPictures.html Interactions News Wire #26-06 30 March 2006 http://www.interactions.org******************************************************************* Source: Fermilab Content: Press Release Date Issued: 30 March 2006 ******************************************************************* Press contact: Kurt Riesselmann, Fermilab Public Affairs, 630-840-3351, kurtr@fnal.gov Additional media contacts are listed at the end of the press release. Photos are available at: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/NuMI_photosA 12-minute streaming video on the MINOS experiment is at: http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_02/VMS/MINOS/MINOS.htmTwo scientific graphics summarizing the result are at: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_re...osPictures.htmlMINOS experiment sheds light on mystery of neutrino disappearance BATAVIA, Illinois—An international collaboration of scientists at the Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory announced today (March 30, 2006) the first results of a new neutrino experiment. Sending a high-intensity beam of muon neutrinos from the lab’s site in Batavia, Illinois, to a particle detector in Soudan, Minnesota, scientists observed the disappearance of a significant fraction of these neutrinos. The observation is consistent with an effect known as neutrino oscillation, in which neutrinos change from one kind to another. The Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search (MINOS) experiment found a value of delta m^2 = 0.0031 eV^2, a quantity that plays a crucial role in neutrino oscillations and hence the role of neutrinos in the evolution of the universe. ******[material omitted] Neutrinos are hard to detect, and most of the neutrinos traveling the 450 miles from Fermilab to Soudan—straight through the Earth, no tunnel needed—leave no signal in the MINOS detector. If neutrinos had no mass, the particles would not change as they traverse the Earth and the MINOS detector in Soudan would have recorded 177 +/- 11 muon neutrinos. Instead, the MINOS collaboration found only 92 muon neutrino events—a clear observation of muon neutrino disappearance and hence neutrino mass. The deficit as a function of energy is consistent with the hypothesis of neutrino oscillations, and yields a value of delta m^2, the square of the mass difference between two different types of neutrinos, equal to 0.0031 eV^2 +/- 0.0006 eV^2, (statistical uncertainty) +/- 0.0001 eV^2 (systematic uncertainty). In this scenario, muon neutrinos can transform into electron neutrinos or tau neutrinos, but alternative models—such as neutrino decay and extra dimensions—are not yet excluded. It will take the recording of much more data by the MINOS collaboration to test more precisely the exact nature of the disappearance process. [I][/I][I] I would forget trying to compare predicted neutrino masses to experiment for the time being. I can not see how, the neutrino calculations are not correct. There is just no way it could be without the calculations taking into account the extreme difference between right and left handed neutrinos. (Provide both exist...) There is just no way I could see a tau neutrino being an excited muon neutrino. If it was, you would have expected Z boson decays to have shown some lepton flavor violations.
jreed
20th May 2006 - 11:25 PM
QUOTE (docbill+May 20 2006, 11:04 PM)
I would forget trying to compare predicted neutrino masses to experiment for the time being. I can not see how, the neutrino calculations are not correct. There is just no way it could be without the calculations taking into account the extreme difference between right and left handed neutrinos. (Provide both exist...) There is just no way I could see a tau neutrino being an excited muon neutrino. If it was, you would have expected Z boson decays to have shown some lepton flavor violations. I agree. Forget about trying to compare neutrino masses for now. Their values are not known well, only the difference masses of a known neutrino and something else. Is the something else a mixture of some of the other neutrinos or a single neutrino? I don't know. I looked at all differences of the masses from Heim's predictions and there was no agreement with experimental results that jumped out. Also, in Heim theory it's claimed that the tau lepton is an excited state of the muon lepton, but I don't know if it follows that the Tau neutrino is an excited state of the muon neutrino. The status of excited states in Heim theory is uncertain. I computed many of the boson excited states and tried to compare with experimental values. There were a few matches, but for the most part the comparisons were poor. This was using 1983 Heim theory. I have not tried computing excitations with the 1989 theory since this was not in the Fortran source code I received from the Heim Theory Group. jreed
DEK46656
21st May 2006 - 03:29 AM
Greetings all
Regarding the discussion that docbill and jal are on, I believe the answer was in the AIAA paper. From what I could follow, the transition into a different sub-space was due to the affect that positive gravito-photons (gp+) had on gravitons, whereas gp- had an affect on protons and neutrons (very minor effect on electrons), and that interaction produced the acceleration.
At certain discrete points in field strength (which I don’t understand yet), the perceived affect on gravitons changes the area within the field (the field affect for an area, not just the ship: a “warp bubble” if you will). With all the other factors being the same, the bubble can not possibly exist within our sub-space, and essentially moves into the other sub-space. As long as the field affect is maintained (the drive left on), the bubble continues, and so the ship travels in another sub-space.
The energy for the propulsion is not extracted from the strong magnetic field, but rather from vacuum energy as a result of the production of gp+ and gp- (If I understand what they are saying). I suppose that the stronger the production of gp’s, the more of a reaction that the vacuum has, thereby producing more acceleration. I’m sure I’m not saying this very well, but I believe that roughly covers it.
As to the missing energy, it is transferred to velocity. The AIAA paper indicates formula’s that at a certain velocity and certain field strength, the craft jumps to a different sub-space, and is experiencing a higher speed in the sub-space, even to the point of > C.
The implication in their paper is that the speed of light (limitation) is not violated. I’m not sure I read an explanation, but in my opinion it is one of 2 possible things; the speed of light is faster in that different sub-space, or more likely the perceived propulsion that the ship experiences is actually the movement of the “bubble” within this sub-space, and at a certain point it jumps to another sub-space, and it is still the bubble that is traveling (not the ship) at such high velocity. That would stay within the guidelines I’ve read elsewhere about circumventing the Vc limitation. Either way the authors indicated many multiples of C were possible (page 22 gives descriptions of a trip to Mars by achieving .4C, and an inter-stellar trip with a perceived velocity of 3300 C).
Mind you that this is all of my interpretation, and I would defer to the more educated individuals in this forum to add to these explanations.
docbill
21st May 2006 - 04:08 AM
QUOTE (jal+May 20 2006, 03:07 AM) Hi docbill!
| QUOTE | As I understand it, in order to transfer and object into subspace, you need to reduce it's mass.
I've never seen that. Have you got a link for me to read?
jal I have seen this mentioned in every publication that referred to subspace. However, none go into great detail. For starters, try section 3.3 of:
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...004-3700-a4.pdf
However, this particular paper assumes in section 3.4 you will directly jump into a subspace with a very large n value, and talks nothing about momentum and energy conservation at that point. So I dismissed section 3.4 as fluff.
NASA use to have a much more detailed article on their breakthrough propulsion site, but I can not find it anymore. I believe it was also at the location:
http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/theor...sicsaip2005.pdf
But it is not there anymore. Perhaps it was my comment that time runs faster in subspace because a gryroscope clock must maintain the correct time that caused them to withdraw the article.
Bill
Reptile
21st May 2006 - 04:17 AM
"Their values are not known well, only the difference masses of a known neutrino and something else. Is the something else a mixture of some of the other neutrinos or a single neutrino?"
Thanks for the answer. Actually, something like this occurred to me too. But I was sort of hoping against hope.....
But I figured you guys were way ahead on this. Just checking.
And thanks
docbill
21st May 2006 - 04:56 AM
QUOTE (DEK46656+May 21 2006, 03:29 AM)
The implication in their paper is that the speed of light (limitation) is not violated. I’m not sure I read an explanation, but in my opinion it is one of 2 possible things; the speed of light is faster in that different sub-space, or more likely the perceived propulsion that the ship experiences is actually the movement of the “bubble” within this sub-space, and at a certain point it jumps to another sub-space, and it is still the bubble that is traveling (not the ship) at such high velocity. That would stay within the guidelines I’ve read elsewhere about circumventing the Vc limitation. Either way the authors indicated many multiples of C were possible (page 22 gives descriptions of a trip to Mars by achieving .4C, and an inter-stellar trip with a perceived velocity of 3300 C). Anyone who describes it as bubble has watched too much Star Trek. Occam's razor says always take the simplest explanation. The simplest is that even though the laws of physics are different in subspace, you are incapable of observing them. Subspace uses the same laws of physics as our universe. You measure the speed of light, and you still measure c. You measure the gravitational constant, you still measure G. However, that is not to say the speed of light has not doubled. In just means your space-time mapping has changed so you can not observe the effect. It turns out you do not have to understand a thing about Heim theory to calculate the mapping either. All you have to do is perform a few simple thought with a mechanical clock that has momentum conserved to find out that time runs faster in subspace by a factor of n. One problem I have with the idea of subspace, is subspace should have all the elements we have here and they should form into stars and planets. Furthermore, since gravity interacts between subspace and normal space, many dark matter stars should form at the same location as real stars. Consequently, I would expect to find multiple dark matter planets in our solar system... However, recent experiments have found dark matter is likely in the form of a very hot ideal gas cloud on the same order as the size of the galaxy, held together by gravitational force. I believe I have thought of one alternative interpretation for subspace that would predict dark matter in this form and would conserve energy when transfering to and from subspace, but I am curious how the lack of dark matter planets in our solar system has traditionally been explained in Heim theory. Bill
Neil Farbstein
21st May 2006 - 05:37 AM
Where does the plank length come from? As I remember it is tied in to the schwarzschild radius-event horizon of a black hole with the weight of an electron.
Couldn't there be an even smaller unit of space defined by the minimum radius of
a particle smaller than the electron? Neutrinos are theorized to have small nonzero masses.
docbill
21st May 2006 - 02:19 PM
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+May 21 2006, 05:37 AM) Where does the plank length come from? As I remember it is tied in to the schwarzschild radius-event horizon of a black hole with the weight of an electron.
Couldn't there be an even smaller unit of space defined by the minimum radius of
a particle smaller than the electron? Neutrinos are theorized to have small nonzero masses. Actually, it is far simpler. A plank length the fundamental unit of length in a system that defines the fundamental constants as one. It makes the math much easier. For example, e = m c^2 with c == 1 becomes simply, e = m. The physical interpretation of this length varies, but most agree it has some fundamental meaning. Bill
Neil Farbstein
21st May 2006 - 04:05 PM
QUOTE (docbill+May 21 2006, 02:19 PM) QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+May 21 2006, 05:37 AM) Where does the plank length come from? As I remember it is tied in to the schwarzschild radius-event horizon of a black hole with the weight of an electron.
Couldn't there be an even smaller unit of space defined by the minimum radius of
a particle smaller than the electron? Neutrinos are theorized to have small nonzero masses. Actually, it is far simpler. A plank length the fundamental unit of length in a system that defines the fundamental constants as one. It makes the math much easier. For example, e = m c^2 with c == 1 becomes simply, e = m. The physical interpretation of this length varies, but most agree it has some fundamental meaning. Bill I dont follow you, its gibberish to me. What amde people assume those equalities are correct?
docbill
21st May 2006 - 06:09 PM
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+May 21 2006, 04:05 PM) QUOTE (docbill+May 21 2006, 02:19 PM) QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+May 21 2006, 05:37 AM) Where does the plank length come from? As I remember it is tied in to the schwarzschild radius-event horizon of a black hole with the weight of an electron.
Couldn't there be an even smaller unit of space defined by the minimum radius of
a particle smaller than the electron? Neutrinos are theorized to have small nonzero masses. Actually, it is far simpler. A plank length the fundamental unit of length in a system that defines the fundamental constants as one. It makes the math much easier. For example, e = m c^2 with c == 1 becomes simply, e = m. The physical interpretation of this length varies, but most agree it has some fundamental meaning. Bill I dont follow you, its gibberish to me. What amde people assume those equalities are correct? There is no "assumption" of correctness. It is a system of units. Consider if I measure the speed of light in miles per second, I get an answer of 1.9*10^5 miles/second. If I measure in meters per second I get an answer of 3.0*10^8. If I measure in meters per hour I get an answer of 1.08*10^13. If I measure in light years per year, I get an answer of 1.0. The value depends on the units I use to measure time and distance. What plank units, are just appropriate distance, time, and mass units for us to find that c, h, and G all have values of 1. There is no "correct" or "incorrect" about it. It is just a definition which makes calculations easy. Gee, what was the speed of light again? Oh, yeah I know it is 1 plank-length-unit/plank-time-unit. It also allows us to keep all the calculations exact, without using variables until it is time to convert the units to another system of measurement. The "assumption" is that these values have any physical meaning. The reason we make this assumption is quantum theory only allows discrete values for many measurable properties. If we are dealing in planking units, these values are integers. That leads one to conclude that plank units are special. Most unified field theories treat a plank length as special. Heim realized that in order to prevent singularities (division by zero) in equations like F=G m_1 m_2 / r^2, only the square of a plank length needs to be "special". Incidentally in plank units, newtons gravitational equation becomes: F = m_1 m_2 / r^2 There is no need to keep the G in the equation, since it is equal to 1. In Heim theory, r^2 must be either a natural number. Bill
docbill
22nd May 2006 - 04:08 PM
I am still trying to make sense of the mapping between subspace and subspace. When I was only looking at energy and momentum conservation, and gravitational force, I thought I was making pretty good progress. I could make the mapping work by assuming there was a "apparent" change in the rate of time between space and subspace. I say apparent, because for energy conservation the time shift wouldn't really exist. It is just someone's final vision of this space would be a time shifted universe.
However, I run into problems when I try to add EM interactions. Since, k = c^2 * 10^-7, I find k' = n^2 * c^2 * 10^-7. However, when I apply the same arguments done to compute G', I find k' = k / n^3. The only way I can reconcile these values is to assume like mass, charge must also be reduced. I compute that:
q' = q/n^2.5
That is not a show stopper for Heim theory. In fact, it nicely explains why dark matter is dark. Our photons could not interact with subspace charges any more than we can receive 2m radio on an antenna that is the 1.41m in length. Only very excited particles in subspaces integer sqrt(n^5) values could interact with our photons.
However, this is a show stopper for travel to and from subspace. It means not only would we need to change effective mass, but we would also need to change effective charge at the same time. Furthermore, I would expect that strong and weak forces would produce similar results. I do not see anyway would could send anything more complicated than some types of elementary particles to subspace.
I am hopping I made a mistake in my calculations, but I do not know were to look. Can someone reference a document that shows the correct way to calculate the constants of subspace?
Update:
I am still looking for the above requested information, as it really helps to know what the correct answers should be. However, I have figured out the error in my calculations. I have been assuming since I am dealing with an object at rest in our standard 3 dimensions, that I can treat the object with Newtonian mechanics. However, it occurred to me that in order to reduce an object's real mass by a factor of n, it must have a relativistic velocity in one of Heim's extra dimensions. Ergo, I must apply Lorentz transformations to the calculations. When we change the speed or direction of an electron, we do not change it's charge. So likewise, the transformation into subspace should not change the charge of an electron...
Now I just need to repeat my calculations with the correct Lorentz transformations and see what happens.
Bill
Zephir
22nd May 2006 - 05:41 PM
QUOTE (docbill+May 22 2006, 07:08 PM) ...Only very excited particles in subspaces integer sqrt(n^5) values could interact with our photons... Yep, for example the neutrino doesn't interacts with photons... On the scheme bellow the axions generations are missing (i.e. superleptons) 
hdeasy
23rd May 2006 - 11:36 AM
On the Planch length again. One easy way to derive it is using dimensional analysis. I.e. solve for indices a, b and d in the expression: Planck-length = CODE h**a G**b c**d (a length which is a product of powers of the 3 constants) Taking dimensions in the mks system (meters m, kilograms kg and seconds s): CODE m = (kg m**2 s**(-1))**a (kg**(-1) m**3 s**(-2))**b (m s**(-1) )**d
(pardon formatting - howdya get powers in this thing?)
Matching up indices on the left and right sides, we get
Kg: a – b = 0
M: 2a + 3b + d = 1
S: -a – 2b – d = 0
From Kg, a = b . Putting in M and S, get:
5a + d = 1
3a + d = 0
Eliminating d:
1 – 5a + 3a = 0
So a = b = ½ and d = -3/2
Thus the Planck Length = Square_root_of (hG/c**3 )
DEK46656
24th May 2006 - 04:15 AM
Hey everybody. I had a couple of comments to bring up:
“Warp bubble” and Star Trek: well, that was all I could think of at the time, and it seems to fit. Exactly what shape would the Ggp+/- field take? I would assume that it would either be spherical, or possible the shape of 2 soap bubbles joined together. Either way, it seemed appropriate.
Planck’s constant: those were some nice, straight forward descriptions of the constant. It helped me get a better understanding of how it is used. It also brought up a question in regard to HT. Using hdeasy's description, if Planck’s constant is directly related to G (Gg?) and C, then wouldn’t it value change with the transition into a parallel universe as described in the AIAA paper? Baring in mind that relativity implies that you wouldn’t necessarily notice it, if all of matter (according to HT) is based on the size of the Metron being greater than a certain value (based on the constant) for matter to even exist (Heim cosmology), if the Metron size changes much, what is the affect on the rest of particle physics? I’m just wondering if you could jump into a parallel universe where matter is affected by the change: say to the point that matter couldn’t exist, or at least behaved “differently”?
One other item I recently gleaned from the AIAA paper. They reference that the acceleration of the craft isn’t produced from the magnetic field, but from the vacuum. Their reference was that the magnetic field produced the Ggp particles, but the net energy extracted from the vacuum (for the production of the particles) was 0. However there is a lot of energy being put into the craft. In section 1 of the article, they state that a craft of 10**5 Kg at a velocity of .01C has an energy content of 4.5 * 10**17 J. They go on further to state that a 100 MW nuclear reactor would take 143 years to produce that amount of energy. However… in section 3.4 they note that the same craft traveling at 1g acceleration for 34 days would reach .01C! It seems to me that this is a phenomenal source of energy to be utilized if it works, and (of course) some method of extracting / converting that energy could be engineered.
Reptile
24th May 2006 - 10:23 PM
The following is from Lubos Motl's web site: Reference Frame. Apparently a tightening up of the value for G and the Fine structure constant, along with a few comments. Motl is associated with Harvard somehow (Grad student, Post Doc, full professor? I'm not sure how). And seems quite up on the gravity debates. His sympathies are decidedly stringy. Also, a Czech immigrant, Motl's political views are stridently expressed on his blog and admit to very few shades of gray. But that doesn't mean his physics comments shouldn't be taken seriously. He seems very well connected and is quite articulate. Wednesday, May 24, 2006 New values of "g" and the fine-structure constant Gerry Gabrielse, an experimenter from Harvard University, and his collaborators are going to announce new, more accurate values of the fundamental constants. Using their single-electron quantum cyclotron, they can see that the new magnetic moment of the electron is * g/2 = 1.001 159 652 185 85 (76). As you can see, there are 13 significant figures or so - the value is six times more accurate than ever before. Using the cyclotron result for "g" above plus QED theorists from other universities, they can also deduce the value of the fine-structure constant. The theoretical calculation, starting with the terms * g/2 = 1 + alpha / 2 pi, requires to calculate 891 diagrams with up to four loops, and the result for the fine-structure constant * 1 / alpha = 137.035 997 710 (96) is ten times more accurate than the results from atom-recoil measurements. In fact, it is the first improvement of the accuracy in roughly 20 years. The precise value is sensitive on new physics at 130 GeV. All skillful numerologists are welcome to interpret the new data. posted by Lumo at 9:50 AM | 0 slow comments | fast comments (6) | Trackback (0) | links to this post THESE QUICK COMMENTS FOLLOWED LUBOS'S POST Gabrielse's q/M for protons and antiprotons (CPT invariance) is also superb. His cyclotron resonance experiments are sufficiently sensitive to test Special Relativity at deeply classical particle speeds - 0.0003 eV or 4.2 K equilibrium temp. One hungers for the Lamb shift of anti-hydrogen. http://hussle.harvard.edu/ ~gabri...kThesis2005.pdf Uncle Al | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 12:22 pm | # Gravatar for g/2 = 1.001 159 652 185 85 (76). numerologists are invited to start from the quotient between the mass of the muon and the mass of Z0, which is M_mu/M_Z= 0.001 158 694 (27) Alejandro Rivero | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 1:21 pm | # Gravatar I usually despise numerology and urban legends. However, a mixture of numerology and urban legend sometimes generates surprising amusement: the story of Wolfgang Pauli and the inverse of the fine-structure constant comes to mind. Rumor has it that Pauli checks into the hospital and insist upon having the room number 137. Undoubtedly, Pauli had the ominous notion that he was on the verge of death and wanted to be associated with this naked, mysterious number. In a similar vain, Richard Feynman assigned his 150 year old farmhouse with the address of 137 Eola Road. Like Pauli, Feynman is reported to have had a strange attachment to this constant in nature. Cynthia | 05.24.06 - 1:54 pm | # Gravatar Are you sure you not missed a 9? From the two previous best CODATA values we've got: 1/137.035 999 11(46) From the Quantum Hall effect. 1/137.035 999 76(50) Magnetic Moment Anomaly 1/137.035 999 41(15) The two Combined Any link to a preprint/webside would be very welcome. Regards, Hans Hans de Vries | 05.24.06 - 2:29 pm | # Gravatar In the hope not to annoy Cynthia.... http://www.physicsforums.com/sho...5&postcount=189Regards, Hans Hans de Vries | 05.24.06 - 2:45 pm | # Gravatar For reference, Dehmelt's results for g on electrons and positrons were 1 159 652 188 4 (4 3) and 1 159 652 187 9 (4 3) The new result should be reported in the PhD thesis of B. Odom, is it? Alejandro Rivero | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 3:56 pm | #
jreed
24th May 2006 - 11:37 PM
QUOTE (Reptile+May 24 2006, 10:23 PM) However, a mixture of numerology and urban legend sometimes generates surprising amusement: the story of Wolfgang Pauli and the inverse of the fine-structure constant comes to mind. Rumor has it that Pauli checks into the hospital and insist upon having the room number 137. Undoubtedly, Pauli had the ominous notion that he was on the verge of death and wanted to be associated with this naked, mysterious number. In a similar vain, Richard Feynman assigned his 150 year old farmhouse with the address of 137 Eola Road. Like Pauli, Feynman is reported to have had a strange attachment to this constant in nature.
When he lectured at Cambridge University, Eddington always hung his coat on peg number 137 in the lecture hall. He was also fascinated by this number. Armand Wyler, a French mathematician found a remarkably accurate expression for the fine structure constant (or really it's inverse) in terms of the phase volumes of a five dimensional space. He was invited to come to the US to try to develop and explain his theory at Stanford's Institute for Advanced Study. After a year at the Institute he went back to France and was put into a mental hospital. I've been interested in the inverse fine structure constant for many years, and Heim's derivation of this number and its accuracy is what got me interested in his theory. jreed
hdeasy
26th May 2006 - 07:21 AM
Pauli may have been a bit of a numerologist, maybe from his deep association with Jung. He also was fascinated by alchemy, like Newton. Then there was the Pauli effect - he was the greatest jinx of all times: they knew he was in town if their experiments started failing. Did anyone do a statistical analysis of this seeming paranormal effect? Is it significant or coincidence?
Reptile
26th May 2006 - 05:59 PM
The Pauli Effect:
Sounds like my effect on a chemistry lab in high school!
Thank God I quickly realized that redox reactions were simple algebra problems so I could ace the tests.
DEK46656
27th May 2006 - 03:59 AM
Good evening everyone. While I was driving home from work tonight, I had an idea about how a test might be done on HT. The device mentioned in the AIAA paper uses an extremely strong electro-magnet, and a spinning torus of matter (hydrogen). The problem presently is producing the extreme magnetic field to produce the gravito-photons.
Does anyone remember a couple of years ago some news articles going around about how an EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) bomb could be made, and fairly easy (and cheap)? I’m not sure of the strength of the device, but I would imagine that it would be in the range of what the AIAA paper indicated was required. It would have to be to produce a disruption in electronic equipment over a range of miles.
Anyway, what about setting up a test environment where the torus is up and spinning, with all the measurement equipment in place, and then detonate one of the EMP bombs (at the appropriate proximity) to get a momentary occurrence of the required magnetic field. If the field is strong enough, and something was gravitationally detected, that should be enough of a “proof of concept” to actually investigate the phenomena more thoroughly.
Any opinions on this idea?
DEK46656
27th May 2006 - 04:01 AM
Sorry, I posted twice in a row. This is my equivalent of deleting the duplicate.
Reptile
27th May 2006 - 06:25 PM
My memory may be failing, but weren't the EMP pulses being talked about generated by nuclear explosives? This must be 25-35 years ago, and the fear was that EMP pulses would fry everybody's electronics in a nuclear conflict.
If that concern sounds weird under those circumstances... well, I agree.
DEK46656
27th May 2006 - 07:40 PM
QUOTE (Reptile+May 27 2006, 06:25 PM) My memory may be failing, but weren't the EMP pulses being talked about generated by nuclear explosives? This must be 25-35 years ago, and the fear was that EMP pulses would fry everybody's electronics in a nuclear conflict.
Actually, there is a conventional version now. I don't remember exact details, but a quick google search found these: The Electromagnetic Bomb - a Weapon of Electrical Mass Destruction. E-BombActually, the second link is the one I remember reading in the past.
will314159
28th May 2006 - 11:58 AM
you all have inspired me, i think i"ll ditch will314159, always amazed how many people never catch on, and start using will137.
Take Care!
Reptile
29th May 2006 - 12:49 AM
Will, Will:
Will pi works for me, it not for you. But Will fine structure constant? Will f.sc.? Will fsc?
Sounds...well..vaguely obscene.
But maybe that works for you....
And, hey, Will 3.14159, I suppose you should just have the will to do what you need to.
Reptile. (After an old friend of mine who once exclaimed: "I DO have standards! I only sleep with mammals!)
jal
29th May 2006 - 02:05 AM
Hi! I left a link for you to look at in... Entropy potential energyHas anyone come up with a better explanation of Heim's approach? jal
will314159
30th May 2006 - 10:47 AM
Reptile, you you scaly thing, no room to talk.
take care!
hdeasy
1st June 2006 - 08:50 PM
Why not Will271828? One thing that fascinates me about those mystic numbers is the ratios Pi ~ 22/7 and e ~ 19/7 ==> (Pi – 3) / (3 – e) ~ ½ . And the numerology goes even deeper...
hdeasy
1st June 2006 - 09:21 PM
I just added a section on "Heim in culture" to the Wikipedia page on him - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim#Heim_in_culture , where I cite Cocteau's drawing of "The Eye of Heim". That should redress the balance on all those ignorant Wikipedia editors who could only think of "Heim in popular culture". Of course the latter was pejoratively meant, and designed by Heim’s detractors to belittle his significance. Here’s “ one in the eye” for them (literally)! 
jreed
2nd June 2006 - 11:16 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Jun 1 2006, 08:50 PM) One thing that fascinates me about those mystic numbers is the ratios Pi ~ 22/7 and e ~ 19/7 ==> (Pi – 3) / (3 – e) ~ ½ . And the numerology goes even deeper... Here's another one for you that involves elementary particles: Mproton/Melectron = 1836.145 6* Pi^5 = 1836.118 jreed
Iori Fujita
3rd June 2006 - 04:04 AM
The General Hypothesis No.1 for the Two Dimensional Galaxy http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.htmlA portion of each spiral galaxy, outside of its central bulge, is crushed or curled up in a 2 dimensional disk with a certain depth. In a great structure like one galaxy, the three dimensional gravitational space must be transformed or shrinked into a disk in the outskirt area of the galaxy where the ordinary three dimensional universal gravity equation would not work for the relation between stars and the galaxy. "Kepler's third law" for the spherical symmetric space; (3) The squares of the planets' periods of revolution are proportional to the cubes of the planets' mean distances from the sun. It can be explained for the two dimensional space like; (3') The squares of the stars' periods of revolution are proportional also to the squares of the planets' mean distances from the center of the galaxy. Then I can explain that stars in the galaxy can move around the center of the galaxy with the same velocity, not related to the distances from the center. And now I don't have to assume the existence of the "Dark Matter" against the galaxy rotation problem. According to the Einstein Theory; Matter warps the continuum according to the amount (or mass) which exists in any locality. Then all motion along world lines in the vicinity must follow the warp.If world lines must follow warps in space, beams of light passing near the mass should be deflected with a certain angle. But here for me, the light can't be deflected one-sidedly. It should also affect back the gravity field. Beams of light will loosen the gravity field to the orthogonal direction slightly. And huge amount of beams of light or emissions will shove away the gravity field in a thin-depth disk. http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html
rpenner
3rd June 2006 - 04:55 AM
QUOTE (Iori Fujita+Jun 3 2006, 04:04 AM) Two Dimensional Galaxy futekisetu, suzitigai, mukankei Fujita-san is off-topic. However, his English is much improved from some previous posts I have seen. Good job, Fujita-san. Ganbatte kudasai.
Tim
6th June 2006 - 02:39 PM
I feel that I must qualify my post by making it known that I have no physics education. That being said...
1) I have not read the entire thread, but I've read a good portion of it. I was very impressed with spony's (Martin's) java based mass calculator. This program, using equations from HT, was written essentially by one man (I realize there were other contributors) over the course of less than a month.
2) My understanding of HT is VERY limited, but, unlike String Theory (or is it M-Theory now?) it just seems to make sense and, of course, it is able to make much more accurate mass predictions than any other current theory.
3) From what I've been able to follow, all of the fundamental particles basically result from cyclic deformations in the metron lattice
| QUOTE | From the abstract of Heim’s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures published by the Journal of Scientific Exploration,Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 217-231, 1992
"A very small natural constant, called a “metron“, is derived, representing the smallest area that can exist in nature. This lead to the conclusion that space must be composed of a 6-dimensional geometric lattice of very small cells bounded on all sides by metrons. The existence of metrons requires our usual infinitesimal calculus to be replaced by one of finite areas. The unperturbed lattice represents empty vacuum. Local deformations of the lattice indicate of something other than empty space. If the deformation is of the right form and complexity it acquires the property of mass and inertia. Elementary particles are complex dynamical systems of locally confined interacting lattice distortions. Thus the theory geometricizes the world by viewing it as a huge assemblage of very small deformations of a 6-dimensional lattice in vacuum."
<br>4) This lattice image stuck with me, though in my puny little brain it only existed in 3 dimensions.
5) Then I got to thinking. The extra dimensions, according to my limited understanding, are informational (imaginary). They aren't real dimensions in the physical sense, they're more like rules that dictate how the metron lattice distortions interact.
6) This percolated for a couple of days until cellular automata for some reason popped into my head. Wikipedia Article on Cellular Automata. I remembered vaguely reading about them awhile ago and thinking, they look kind of cool, but I can't see why someone like Wolfram would devote 10 years to them.
7) So my question... Can Heim Theory's metron lattice be in any way thought of as an extremely complex example of cellular automata? Individual metron "cells" interacting with one another based on a very complex set of rules derived from Heim Theory's extra dimensions?
Rule 110
Tim
6th June 2006 - 02:52 PM
| QUOTE | In 1969, however, German computer pioneer Konrad Zuse published his book Calculating Space, proposing that the physical laws of the universe are discrete by nature, and that the entire universe is just the output of a deterministic computation on a giant cellular automaton. This was the first book on what today is called digital physics.
<br>Just came across this on the aforementioned Wikipedia article about cellular automata and followed it to the digital physics page. I don't like the deterministic reference, but I guess this is kind of what I'm asking about.
rshoemake
6th June 2006 - 02:56 PM
Is this just a way of sayng that you can use pie and some math to come up with any number?
jal
6th June 2006 - 03:25 PM
Go to this thread. Maybe you can help. cellular automatejal
Neil Farbstein
6th June 2006 - 04:32 PM
QUOTE (Iori Fujita+Jun 3 2006, 04:04 AM) The General Hypothesis No.1 for the Two Dimensional Galaxy http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.htmlA portion of each spiral galaxy, outside of its central bulge, is crushed or curled up in a 2 dimensional disk with a certain depth. In a great structure like one galaxy, the three dimensional gravitational space must be transformed or shrinked into a disk in the outskirt area of the galaxy where the ordinary three dimensional universal gravity equation would not work for the relation between stars and the galaxy. "Kepler's third law" for the spherical symmetric space; (3) The squares of the planets' periods of revolution are proportional to the cubes of the planets' mean distances from the sun. It can be explained for the two dimensional space like; (3') The squares of the stars' periods of revolution are proportional also to the squares of the planets' mean distances from the center of the galaxy. Then I can explain that stars in the galaxy can move around the center of the galaxy with the same velocity, not related to the distances from the center. And now I don't have to assume the existence of the "Dark Matter" against the galaxy rotation problem. According to the Einstein Theory; Matter warps the continuum according to the amount (or mass) which exists in any locality. Then all motion along world lines in the vicinity must follow the warp.If world lines must follow warps in space, beams of light passing near the mass should be deflected with a certain angle. But here for me, the light can't be deflected one-sidedly. It should also affect back the gravity field. Beams of light will loosen the gravity field to the orthogonal direction slightly. And huge amount of beams of light or emissions will shove away the gravity field in a thin-depth disk. http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html the hypothetical dark matter- where is it supposed to be? What is its' distribution? Also, wouldnt the mass-energy density of a region of space increase if very intense light beams were present in it? Woulnt you expect the increased mass-energy to cause a gravititational attraction?
TRoc
6th June 2006 - 05:22 PM
Tim,
| QUOTE | 7) So my question... Can Heim Theory's metron lattice be in any way thought of as an extremely complex example of cellular automata? Individual metron "cells" interacting with one another based on a very complex set of rules derived from Heim Theory's extra dimensions?
<br>
Yes. The link that jal provided is a conversation about just that.
rshoemake,
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | 7) So my question... Can Heim Theory's metron lattice be in any way thought of as an extremely complex example of cellular automata? Individual metron "cells" interacting with one another based on a very complex set of rules derived from Heim Theory's extra dimensions?
<br>
Yes. The link that jal provided is a conversation about just that.
rshoemake,
Is this just a way of sayng that you can use pie and some math to come up with any number?
<br>
That sounds like a loaded question. How abstract do you want the answer to be? Of course you could take pi and other numbers to come up with other numbers. What does that mean, is the question. If you don't have a good story-line, nobody is going to buy the book.
If you take a few ad hoc constants, mix in some imaginary numbers, allow for a "renormalization" factor, and have probabilistic expectations, are you really any better off than farting around with pi? Does adding "extra dimensions", that are deemed real by the imagination, in order to bail you out of the above condition, make for a good story? Well, yes, actually. It's just that not everyone wants to read science-fiction.
So, collectively, we need to find reason for the constants, we have to be honest and true with our number system, and we have to see the order behind probabilities. The thing that is nice about an autopoietic, recursive approach, like cellular automation, or Heim theory, is the simplicity of the method. It doesn't really matter how complex the parts are, just that the continued application of a particular pattern produces a match with the measurements we call reality.
T.Roc
rshoemake
6th June 2006 - 05:38 PM
What I meant was you probably can make pi and any group of other numbers equal just about any other number that you're trying to arrive at. Does you're ability to do this mean that there is another level of abstraction here? Not necessarily. It could just be a property of the number system and mathematics that you are working with. It's kind of like how everyone is finding 666 everywhere from Ronald Reagan to Napolean. Then they overlay some kind of cosmic meaning on top of that.
TRoc
7th June 2006 - 02:41 AM
rshoemake,
I know what you mean, and I agree.
| QUOTE | It could just be a property of the number system and mathematics that you are working with.
<br>That could be the understatement of the century!
T.Roc
will314159
8th June 2006 - 12:19 PM
Attention HDEASY and MILKA
there has been serious discussion at the WP site about a major rewrite of the article due to its lack of peer reviewed articles and sources. The matter of its sources needs to be addressed and footnoted.
Take Care!
millka
9th June 2006 - 07:30 AM
QUOTE (will314159+Jun 8 2006, 12:19 PM) Attention HDEASY and MILKA
there has been serious discussion at the WP site about a major rewrite of the article due to its lack of peer reviewed articles and sources. The matter of its sources needs to be addressed and footnoted.
Take Care! <i>* Millka puts on his helmet and ducks behind the sandbags ..  The nice thing about WP is thats it is so easy to revert changes, especially so called "major rewrites" ... About sources: i've read a bunch of papers, but i dont have Heim's books. But i assume HdEasy has them, so i guess he is better for the ultimate references. I suggest we compile a list of the various sources - at first on the talk page on WP. Those sources needed for the WP article should later be moved to the article link section. Suggested format for the table of sources: - short name, e.g. Heim Book 1, Auerbach paper, MBB lecture, .. - authors - classification according to WP rules: -- primary: stuff from Heim, Dröscher, Hauser -- secondary: papers from others, e.g. Ludwiger, Auerbach, .. -- tertiary: web sites, forums like this, ... - year or date - language - link - remarks, e.g. most important topics Then we wait for the questions of FN and other WP folks.
hdeasy
9th June 2006 - 10:30 AM
HI all you physicists:
I was asked to translate the contents of I. Von Ludwiger's book to English. Here is my effort (no soft version of the German available)- if you find something unclear or otherwise unsuuitable, please say:
Contents
0. The extraordinarily gifted Burkhard Heim.
A. The phenomenological unified field theory
1. The modification of Newtonian Gravitational theory by Burkhard Heim:
1.1 The unified field strength tensor of gravity and electromagnetism
1.2 Magnetic fields from rotating masses
1.3 The limits of the attractive gravitational field.
1.4 Red-shift in the quasi-static universe.
2 Classical field theory
2.1 Remarks on Special Relativity Theory.
2.2 Einstein’s General Relativity theory.
3 Heim’s Unified Field Theory.
3.1 Instead of proportionality, equivalence between Geometry and physics.
3.2 Operator equations instead of Field equations.
4. Extension of the world’s dimensional extent.
4.1 The six dimensional world as a consequence of the demand for invariance
4.2 The physical significance of the two additional dimensions
4.3 Can the world have even more than six dimensions?
B. The unified quantized structure theory
5. Fundamental geometrical units of the world.
5.1 The entire world consists only of quanta of area and their dynamics.
5.2 Difference calculations instead of differential equations
6. The origin of the cosmos.
7. The multiple geometry
7.1 The three interacting partial structures.
7.2 The world selector equation.
end
will314159
9th June 2006 - 07:50 PM
Heim Theory and Quarks T Auerbach, I von Ludwiger "Heim’s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures" Journal of Scientific Exploration,Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 217-231, 1992) http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/AuerbachJSE.pdf from T.Auerbach, I. von Ludwiger Heim´s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures page 7 of 10 cited above. The internal structural of the particles "The interior of an elementary particle must be viewed as consisting of a number of metronic condensations in various subspaces. The configuration which is projected into our 3-dimensional physical world consists of 4 concentric zones occupied by structural elements. " quarks: Ludwiger's view follows but I have seen otherwise although I can't presently find it "The actual mass and inertia are not a property of the 3-dimensional structures themselves, as might be thought. Instead, they are the secondary result of exchange processes between the 4 internal zones described above. These processes are the actual carriers of mass and inertia. For this reason, Heim’s elementary particles definitely are not composed of subconstituents such as quarks. The inner 3 structural zones are difficult to penetrate, the innermost being almost impenetrable. In scattering experiments they might create the illusion of 3 particles being present in the interior. Emperical predictions that have led to the formation of quark theory can be interpreted by Heim in geometrical terms." But from the Heim Theory WP talk page where a pair of Up quark and antiquark is created). However at small distances (like inside a hadron), quarks have asymptotic freedom, which means they behave as normal particles. It has been confirmed in particle accelerator experimenst that they behave like normal particles in high energy collisions and indeed thay masses have been measured. I'm not sure how HT can reproduce asymptotic freedom if it says quarks are not particles. By the way, the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2004/index.html was given "for the discovery of asymptotic freedom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_freedom in the theory of the strong interaction". Friendly Neighbour 07:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC) How vain is man and "Heim" thinking he/she has zeroed in on unltimate reallity, even quarks are thought to have subparticles, rishons, preons, and such, see A topological model of composite preons http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?...:hep-ph/0503213. Does it never end? Or is back to the particle zoo of the 60's? Take Care! --Will 18:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Edit I misspoke. I should have said Ulitmate particle not ultimate reality. the phisophers would say the question is one one of wrong language. The theologians would say the answer is the Logos, Duality, or to chant OM. When they named the nucleus of H the proton, Greek for "First," they thought that was the ultimate, but now quarks. But the quarks are thought to have rishons inside them and preons. What does that say about the planck scale and the uncertainty principle? Take Care!
hdeasy
11th June 2006 - 09:47 AM
Hi Will(pi) Those scattering experiments that give the impression of quarks tending toward asymptotic freedom but never quite getting there: in various places Heim and his successors point out that those structural zones can scatter particles in a way reminiscent of quarks. For a recent picture of these interacting zones with the interactions scetched in see http://heim-theory.com/Inhalt/Neuigkeiten/...lett_media.html - one could imagine that system getting stretched out, hence giving the impression of quarks separating etc. Take care! Hdeasy
will314159
12th June 2006 - 08:36 PM
the problem w/o having QUARKS and QCD is the particle zoo returns. How do you explain the multipicity of the baryons. the quarks kind of reproduce them like the periodic chart reproduces the elements using protons and neutrons.
Too bad HT doesn't condense into quarks or preons and rishons.
Take Care!
TRoc
19th June 2006 - 06:04 PM
hdeasy, Can you include the equations too since they don't need interpretation? Even posting relevant paragraphs here in German could be beneficial to the conversation. I, along with a few others, speak enough German to get by, but everyone has access to 'babel.fish', or some Internet translator. will314159, It sounds like you have doubts on Heim theory in the realm of the quarks & below? It would seem that the entire spectrum, between the metron @ e-70, and Planck @ e-34 would need to be "filled" with new labels?? I hope not! The zoo is already too big for me!  T.Roc
will314159
22nd June 2006 - 02:23 AM
| QUOTE |
There are some discrepancies between the original "Heim Theory" and the extended versions proposed by his successors. For example, in its original version Heim theory used 6 dimensions, which was sufficient to derive the masses of elementary particles. Droescher first extended this to 8, in order to demonstrate that the quantum electrodynamics and QCD structures of the standard model could be found within this expanded version of the original Heim theory. Later, 4 more dimensions were used in the 12 dimensional version that involves extra gravitational forces one of which corresponds to quintessence.
<br>now QCD stand for quantum chromo dynamics or the theory of quarks
quarks have colour, charm,
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model
What gives?
Best Wishes!
TRoc
22nd June 2006 - 06:09 AM
will314159,
Will, I'm not clear on your question "what gives?"
Are you inferring QCD is similar or dissimilar to Heim?
T.Roc
hdeasy
22nd June 2006 - 06:55 AM
Hi Will314159, Troc etc.,
Droscher found the structures of the Standard Model in his 8 dim extension of Heim theory. The same zoo of particles is produced using the condensation zones of Heim or the quark model.
On the propulsion front, more exciting news: Droscher & Hauser have done it - reproduced Tajmar et al.'s findings - they derive the gravitophoton effect in Tajmar's
experiment - and reproduce the value of the Quantum London moment almost exactly (H & D's value is 1.3 x 10**-4 g, compared to 1.0 x 10**-4 g measured by Tajmar et al., where g is acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface!! This sort of agreement, considering the complexity of their calculation, is a sensation, as they say - considering that GR gets the answer wrong by many orders of magnitude. The paper may cause a lot of interest when presented to the AIAA in July in Sacramento, California. Tajmar et al.'s trick was that they used bosons in his coils in the form of Cooper pairs, whereas Droscher & Hauser had always used good old fermions in their propulsion coils. Now they see that with bosons the threshold is lower, so they want to switch - they might not need the Z-machine any more! A relatively cheap lab set-up like Tajmar's would do the job - I've seen the pre-print of the paper which they will present - in July it will be generally available.
hdeasy
will314159
22nd June 2006 - 02:43 PM
In Ludwiger's paper it says flat out that in Heim Theory Quarks do not exist. The concentric zones of particles give the appearance of the action of quarks and asymptotic behavior. BUT in the Wikipedia article it says the Droscher extensions allow for QCD. QCD is the THEORY OF QUARKS.
Does the Droscher extension contradict the original Heim theory and allow for Quarks? that's what I meant with "what gives?"
It had to be Hdeasy or Milka that wrote that paragraph in WP
Too bad Droscher doesn't participate in this forum. We need to look up his email address and contact him!
Take Care!
EDIT Sorry guys. I wrote the post before I hit the refresh button. Still, I sure wish Droscher was more available and would publish peer reviewed papers to gain more respectability
will314159
22nd June 2006 - 02:53 PM
I think the WP article needs to be amended to include the clarification
"Droscher found the structures of the Standard Model in his 8 dim extension of Heim theory. The same zoo of particles is produced using the condensation zones of Heim or the quark model."
That makes more sense than the "QCD structures are reproduced"
that leads one to think that colour, srange, charm, up down, etc are back.
Take Care!
will314159
22nd June 2006 - 03:20 PM
I made the following edit to the WP Heim Theory article.
| QUOTE | There are some discrepancies between the original "Heim Theory" and the extended versions proposed by his successors. For example, in its original version Heim theory used 6 dimensions, which was sufficient to derive the masses of elementary particles. Droescher first extended this to 8, in order to demonstrate that the quantum electrodynamics is included and the structures of the Standard Model, i.e. the same zoo of particles is produced using the condensation zones of Heim as in the quark model- QCD. Later, 4 more dimensions were used in the 12 dimensional version that involves extra gravitational forces one of which corresponds to quintessence.[citation needed]
<br>If somebody can do it with better clarity, have at it.
Take Care!
TRoc
22nd June 2006 - 03:25 PM
hdeasy, will_pi ...
I think that there were (are) several key changes/contradictions between Ludwiger's paper, and Heim's original one. To me, that's not too important, because I don't hold Heim up to "Hero" status; in the end his ideas were not complete, or without the need for serious correction. Average upper Scientist. The bottom line is the end result that they are working on, and we are talking about. If it turns out solid, then all is well.
Whether it is "QCD structures are reproduced", or "Droscher found the structures of the Standard Model in his 8 dim extension of Heim theory. The same zoo of particles is produced using the condensation zones of Heim or the quark model.", still must correspond with QCD, right? Or, are you saying the quark vibrations are made in HT without the need for color, gluons, etc?
Either way, if HT starts at the metron level, and works its' way up to quark level, what is in between? And you still need to explain why an "unbreakable but measurable" triad is formed for the case of the proton/neutron, and why the "unbreakable and unmeasurable" triad is formed for the electron. There needs to be a reason why the protosimplex produces these two distinct entities.
T.Roc
will314159
22nd June 2006 - 05:33 PM
" saying the quark vibrations are made in HT without the need for color, gluons, etc."
Yes that is the meaning intended. That's what i was trying to clear up. I guess, I must not have done the job I intended.
Best Wishes
Neil Farbstein
22nd June 2006 - 05:49 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Jun 22 2006, 06:55 AM) Hi Will314159, Troc etc.,
Droscher found the structures of the Standard Model in his 8 dim extension of Heim theory. The same zoo of particles is produced using the condensation zones of Heim or the quark model.
On the propulsion front, more exciting news: Droscher & Hauser have done it - reproduced Tajmar et al.'s findings - they derive the gravitophoton effect in Tajmar's
experiment - and reproduce the value of the Quantum London moment almost exactly (H & D's value is 1.3 x 10**-4 g, compared to 1.0 x 10**-4 g measured by Tajmar et al., where g is acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface!! This sort of agreement, considering the complexity of their calculation, is a sensation, as they say - considering that GR gets the answer wrong by many orders of magnitude. The paper may cause a lot of interest when presented to the AIAA in July in Sacramento, California. Tajmar et al.'s trick was that they used bosons in his coils in the form of Cooper pairs, whereas Droscher & Hauser had always used good old fermions in their propulsion coils. Now they see that with bosons the threshold is lower, so they want to switch - they might not need the Z-machine any more! A relatively cheap lab set-up like Tajmar's would do the job - I've seen the pre-print of the paper which they will present - in July it will be generally available.
hdeasy Cooper pairs behave like bosons but they are really composed of pairs of electrons. I forget- are electrons bosons or fermions?
DEK46656
23rd June 2006 - 02:03 AM
| QUOTE | Cooper pairs behave like bosons but they are really composed of pairs of electrons. I forget- are electrons bosons or fermions?
If the graphic I just looked at is correct, they are Fermions (Leptons).
will314159
I was under the impression that the original theory (with 6 dimensions) missed on GP, that the additional dimensions I2 (that addressed "information") were needed, and that the final 4 were "probability".
From the paper "Extended Heim Theory, Physics of Spacetime, and Field Propulsion"
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Cooper pairs behave like bosons but they are really composed of pairs of electrons. I forget- are electrons bosons or fermions?
If the graphic I just looked at is correct, they are Fermions (Leptons).
will314159
I was under the impression that the original theory (with 6 dimensions) missed on GP, that the additional dimensions I2 (that addressed "information") were needed, and that the final 4 were "probability".
From the paper "Extended Heim Theory, Physics of Spacetime, and Field Propulsion"
Heim and Dröscher developed a unified theory introducing a 12-dimensional internal space. They found that this space comprised the subspaces IR3, T1, S2, I2, and G4 where space G4 governs events in our spacetime, without the use of energy by directly changing possibilities (probabilities). It was found that G4 is not needed to describing physical interactions and therefore an internal symmetry space H8 is sufficient. It is, however, important to note that according to EHT, no direct transformation of photons into gravitons seems to be possible.
Instead, in EHT, the interaction between the electromagnetic and gravitational fields occurs through the conversion of photons into gravitophotons. This is in contradiction to Heim's original theory, where a direct coupling between Maxwell equations and gravitation was obtained. However, this is not surprising, since Heim's original six dimensions did not consider subspace I2, see Table 2, which is the carrier space for information waves. From Table 2 it is directly obvious that, disregarding subspace I2, the metric for the gravitophoton, H5, degenerates into the metric of the graviton, H1.
<br>In your WP posting, you imply that the dimensions were added as needed, but it seems to me that all 12 were accounted for in the beginning, and that a math mistake was made, thereby implying that 6 dimensions were sufficient to describe everything. After the mistake was caught, it was noted that (in fact) 8 were actually required.
will314159
23rd June 2006 - 10:51 AM
bosons obey bose-einstein statistics and can occupy the same place at the same time. when you turn a light bulb on, the photons flooding the room don't collide with each other. Photons are the classic bosons.
fermions obey fermi-dirac statistics and can't occupy the same space at the same time. Electrons are fermions. That's why atoms have different orbitals, s, p, d, f and so forth. That's why your butt doesn't fall thru the chair you're sitting in.
cooper pairing can produce bosons from fermions.
I did not write the WP paragraph. I just edited. I believe HDeasy and Milka are the original authors. I think Heim started w/ more dimensions and reduced then Droscher extended so he could have a unified field theory.
take care!
jreed
23rd June 2006 - 01:19 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Jun 23 2006, 10:51 AM) bosons obey bose-einstein statistics and can occupy the same place at the same time. when you turn a light bulb on, the photons flooding the room don't collide with each other. Photons are the classic bosons.
fermions obey fermi-dirac statistics and can't occupy the same space at the same time. Electrons are fermions. That's why atoms have different orbitals, s, p, d, f and so forth. That's why your butt doesn't fall thru the chair you're sitting in.
It's more accurate to say many bosons can be in the same state at the same time, in fact more likely that they are, but two fermions can't be in the same state at the same time. Cooper pairs consist of two electrons that have their spins in opposite directions so they aren't in the same state. They are bound by an attractive force mediated by phonons. Cooper pairing is the phenomona that makes superconductivity possible. jreed
hdeasy
23rd June 2006 - 02:39 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Jun 22 2006, 02:53 PM) I think the WP article needs to be amended to include the clarification
"Droscher found the structures of the Standard Model in his 8 dim extension of Heim theory. The same zoo of particles is produced using the condensation zones of Heim or the quark model."
That makes more sense than the "QCD structures are reproduced"
that leads one to think that colour, srange, charm, up down, etc are back.
Take Care! Hi Will31415926 Agreed. Could you go ahead with the edit. It's best not to mix QED and QCD as well - in one of your versions the sentence started with one and ended with the other. Yes, as fermions are particles with n+1/2 spin, and bosons have integer spin, in Cooper pairs the electron spins cancel and you have 0, like photons. Some examples of bosons being in the same state are (1) photon bunching, hwere photons crowd together (2)A Bose-Einstein condensate = a large number of supercooled atoms collapse into the lowest quantum state of the individual atom, Leading to macroscopic scale quantum effects. That's a recent animal, and rather exciting, don't you think? I agree that the explanation of particles in terms of protosimplex must show how the projection from 8 dimensions into 4 sometimes looks like a Baryon, Meson or Lepton. I think it is in there somehwere - just a matter of reading through it. Have a nice weekend!
Neil Farbstein
23rd June 2006 - 03:07 PM
QUOTE (jreed+Jun 23 2006, 01:19 PM) QUOTE (will314159+Jun 23 2006, 10:51 AM) bosons obey bose-einstein statistics and can occupy the same place at the same time. when you turn a light bulb on, the photons flooding the room don't collide with each other. Photons are the classic bosons.
fermions obey fermi-dirac statistics and can't occupy the same space at the same time. Electrons are fermions. That's why atoms have different orbitals, s, p, d, f and so forth. That's why your butt doesn't fall thru the chair you're sitting in.
It's more accurate to say many bosons can be in the same state at the same time, in fact more likely that they are, but two fermions can't be in the same state at the same time. Cooper pairs consist of two electrons that have their spins in opposite directions so they aren't in the same state. They are bound by an attractive force mediated by phonons. Cooper pairing is the phenomona that makes superconductivity possible. jreed The "objects" that obey boson statistics in superconducting rings etc. are not real particles. I did not think that copper pairs can influence electrogravitic fields. If there is an electrical component to gravity, I guess it is possible that bosonic cooper pairs could affect those fields.
millka
24th June 2006 - 04:22 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Jun 23 2006, 10:51 AM) ... I believe HDeasy and Milka are the original authors. ...
Nope, just HdEasy. I just mess around on the WP talk page ..
will314159
24th June 2006 - 05:02 PM
something else about the WP article.That intro paragraph ought to come out and say the HT picture of the particle is not a quark pix but a monolithic particle made out of zones and show the pix of the zones like Olaf does, see if Olaf will license one of the pix. Any pix on WP has to be released from copyright.  maybe I"ll email him i've learned to upload images see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Will314159Take Care!
Zephir
24th June 2006 - 05:37 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Jun 24 2006, 08:02 PM) HT picture of the particle is not a quark pix but a monolithic particle made out of zones The Heim's model of particles is based on quantum foam, composed from protosimplexes of metrons  I'd recommend you to include the pictures int hyperlink, so you can observe it at original resolution after clicking.
Olaf
25th June 2006 - 09:59 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Jun 24 2006, 05:02 PM) That intro paragraph ought to come out and say the HT picture of the particle is not a quark pix but a monolithic particle made out of zones and show the pix of the zones like Olaf does ... Hi Will, the picture taken from the protosimplex site only illustrates the density zones of protosimplexes in particles. When I draw that image in 1994 I had no clear idea of the whole arrangement inside a particle.  Illobrand von Ludwiger has made a much better illustration of density zones and the protosimplexes. Lastly this was published in front of the audio book on Burkhard Heim. Another version has been included in the Heim-theory.com papers.
will314159
25th June 2006 - 10:14 PM
r u referring to this? 
Neil Farbstein
25th June 2006 - 10:23 PM
QUOTE (Olaf+Jun 25 2006, 09:59 PM) QUOTE (will314159+Jun 24 2006, 05:02 PM) That intro paragraph ought to come out and say the HT picture of the particle is not a quark pix but a monolithic particle made out of zones and show the pix of the zones like Olaf does ... Hi Will, the picture taken from the protosimplex site only illustrates the density zones of protosimplexes in particles. When I draw that image in 1994 I had no clear idea of the whole arrangement inside a particle. Illobrand von Ludwiger has made a much better illustration of density zones and the protosimplexes. Lastly this was published in front of the audio book on Burkhard Heim. Another version has been included in the Heim-theory.com papers. Einstein's theory says that mattter warps spacetime not that spacetime leads to mass properties of matter embedded in the space-time continum. That's different than heim's theory that says differnet zone of space time are organized inside and around particles and that the properties of metronized space-time causes mass to be associated with particles. Somebody stated some time ago that those two concepts were analogous but that Heim's theory took it a little further.
Reptile
26th June 2006 - 03:13 AM
Neil:
"The "objects" that obey boson statistics in superconducting rings etc. are not real particles. I did not think that copper pairs can influence electrogravitic fields. If there is an electrical component to gravity, I guess it is possible that bosonic cooper pairs could affect those fields.
Uniting EM and gravity was what Einstein was trying to do with a unified field theory, after all. This is the cutting edge of cutting edge experimentation at the moment--or should I say London Moment?
Also, remember that cooper pairs are typically created at very low temperatures, at least in superconducting environments. High magnetic fields often destroy the superconducting behavior. Quantum effects at very low temperatures also increase the effective "size" of the electrons though I don't know if the probability waves of the electrons overlap in a cooper pair.
Finally, I don't know if anyone has shown yet that cooper pairing adequately describes the superconducting behavior of High Temperature superconductors (those in say the 90 to 100 degrees K. range).
All in all this is, to the non-physicist, a bit of a mess. But a very exciting mess!
hdeasy
27th June 2006 - 03:07 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Jun 24 2006, 05:02 PM) something else about the WP article.That intro paragraph ought to come out and say the HT picture of the particle is not a quark pix but a monolithic particle made out of zones and show the pix of the zones like Olaf does, see if Olaf will license one of the pix. Any pix on WP has to be released from copyright. maybe I"ll email him i've learned to upload images see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Will314159Take Care! Hi Will, Now I just made some minor changes to the opening paragraph (some citations). Later, when I have time I'll do some more along your lines, I hope. But NOT wit this image from Olaf 1994, but as Olaf himself says above, from the latest audio-book image of Von Ludwiger, that you yourself reproduce above. As Olaf points out, that shows more clearly how hte condensation areas might be confused with quarks. The purely concentric image gave the wrong impression. Oh yes, I also changed the definiton of Metron to compare it to LQG's spin network and not a Brane - as Steuard rightly pointed out in the discussion, the brane comparison was inappropriate.
hdeasy
27th June 2006 - 03:11 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Jun 24 2006, 05:02 PM) something else about the WP article.That intro paragraph ought to come out and say the HT picture of the particle is not a quark pix but a monolithic particle made out of zones and show the pix of the zones like Olaf does, see if Olaf will license one of the pix. Any pix on WP has to be released from copyright. maybe I"ll email him i've learned to upload images see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Will314159Take Care! Hi Will, Now I just made some minor changes to the opening paragraph (some citations). Later, when I have time I'll do some more along your lines, I hope. But NOT with this image from Olaf 1994, but as Olaf himself says above, from the latest audio-book image of Von Ludwiger, that you yourself reproduce above. As Olaf points out, that shows more clearly how the condensation areas might be confused with quarks. The purely concentric image gave the wrong impression. Oh yes, I also changed the definition of Metron to compare it to LQG's spin network and not a Brane - as Steuard rightly pointed out in the discussion, the brane comparison was inappropriate. Lol, Hugh
will314159
27th June 2006 - 03:32 PM
The introductory WP HT parapgraphs are coming along. Steuard and freindly are making constructive changes.
What I'd like to see is a paragraph along the following lines:
"
Unlike the standard model in which composite hadrons such as the proton or neutron have an internal structure composed of quarks held together with gluons, in HT the composite hadrons are monolithic and are NOT composed of quarks. However, HT allows for four internal zones. See Figure xxx. Reflections back from these zones give the appearance of quark asymptotic behavior although HT does not have quarks nor gluons."
One pix is worth a thousand words.
Best Wishes!
will314159
27th June 2006 - 03:40 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_quarkEdit. Quarks are not directly observed but are deduced from "jets." The top quark produced at the Fermilab's Tevatron presents a challenge for HT b/c it is said to be able to be observed in isolation and does not immediately "hadronize." Hadronization is the process where quarks are thought to be pulled together by gluons to form the composite particles. Take Care!
hdeasy
30th June 2006 - 07:40 AM
The football casts one’s mind back to the first time Germany won the World Cup in 1954. That was the time that Heim was publishing articles on his rotating magnet field drive. Ironically in those days there was no Tajmar doing an experiment with superconducting spinning disks as proof of concept, and so Heim didn’t realize that he should concentrate on bosons instead of Fermions and thus reduce the size of the magnetic field needed. Thus he felt impelled to go the way of the mass formula to prove the theory. If only someone had tipped him off then about the bosons then we might be playing this years final on Mars. Another thing - winning the World Cup might have distracted German investors from Heim.
Oh and I changed the intro to the Heim Theory page on Wikipedia a bit - a negative spin had been put on it. It's still not quite right, but I contented myself with those preliminary edits, which in turn have been modified a bit by you-know-who.
C.U.
will314159
3rd July 2006 - 10:40 PM
Portugal Ouch
My brother in law said Obviously England has the best players but they always flub the penalty points
All I can say, the fans, they obviously know how to consume their weight in beer, from the reports they have put the breweries into overtime
I don't know enough about the game to follow it
Vive le France
Neil Farbstein
3rd July 2006 - 11:14 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Jun 27 2006, 03:40 PM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_quarkEdit. Quarks are not directly observed but are deduced from "jets." The top quark produced at the Fermilab's Tevatron presents a challenge for HT b/c it is said to be able to be observed in isolation and does not immediately "hadronize." Hadronization is the process where quarks are thought to be pulled together by gluons to form the composite particles. Take Care! I posted something to a wikipedia article for the first time yesterday at 3:58 AM. Its in the "Interstellar travel" section on subluminal spaceflight. At the end of the section.
hdeasy
6th July 2006 - 09:54 AM
HI Neil, That's a nice bit you added on the Casimir effect etc. I just added a small bit there as well about the Heim drive. By the way, the AIAA conference where Hauser & Droscher will reveal their solution to the ' Tajmar effect' will be from 9 - 12 July: in a few days! So if you're near California, get to it! http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230&lumeetingid=1178Actually their papaer will be in the 'Faster than Light' section - ( see bottom of http://www.aiaa.org/agenda.cfm?lumeetingid...=1&formatview=2 ) The NFFPTC is proud to sponsor another Monday Night Popular Session. The 2006 session will be on Faster-than-Light (FTL); Foundations, Difficulties and Possibilities. The speed of light “c” is arguably the most stringent limit in physics. It is far and away the ultimate propulsion barrier. While interstellar travel is possible at sub-light speeds, practical interstellar travel is not. This session will feature three talks covering the foundations of the difficulties and the most likely possibilities for defeating the speed of light. Some of the potential solutions to this problem would also have dramatic impacts on general propulsion offering novel ways to get around the exponential scaling of the rocket equation. The program of that session is right at the bottom of http://www.aiaa.org/agenda.cfm?lumeetingid...teGet=10-Jul-06 Session 50- NFF-3 Faster-Than-Light 312 Chaired by: R. FRISBEE, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, and D. LEHMANN, Novatia Labs, Folsom, CA 1900 AIAA-2006-4607 Faster- than- Light Paradoxes in Special Relativity B. Cassenti, Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford, CT 1930 AIAA-2006-4608 Spacetime Physics and Advanced Propulsion Concepts J. Hauser and W. Dröscher, Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, Innsbruck, Austria 2015 AIAA-2006-4609 Quantum Entanglement – Can Reality Really be this Weird? A. Goff, Novatia Labs, Folsom, CA C' est ca - pas mal, non?
UncleMatt
6th July 2006 - 04:33 PM
"1930
AIAA-2006-4608
Spacetime Physics and Advanced Propulsion Concepts
J. Hauser and W. Dröscher, Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, Innsbruck, Austria"
Do you have any idea when this be available online, or at any other source? I would love to attend the conference, but I spent all my conference money on a new metal lathe to turn out steam and rocket nozzles. Please let us know.
will314159
6th July 2006 - 11:09 PM
"Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft"
systran says
"Institut for border areas of the science"
i"m sure something got lost in the machine translation
Take Care!
Vive Le France!
Neil Farbstein
6th July 2006 - 11:25 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Jul 6 2006, 09:54 AM) HI Neil, That's a nice bit you added on the Casimir effect etc. I just added a small bit there as well about the Heim drive. By the way, the AIAA conference where Hauser & Droscher will reveal their solution to the ' Tajmar effect' will be from 9 - 12 July: in a few days! So if you're near California, get to it! http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230&lumeetingid=1178Actually their papaer will be in the 'Faster than Light' section - ( see bottom of http://www.aiaa.org/agenda.cfm?lumeetingid...=1&formatview=2 ) The NFFPTC is proud to sponsor another Monday Night Popular Session. The 2006 session will be on Faster-than-Light (FTL); Foundations, Difficulties and Possibilities. The speed of light “c” is arguably the most stringent limit in physics. It is far and away the ultimate propulsion barrier. While interstellar travel is possible at sub-light speeds, practical interstellar travel is not. This session will feature three talks covering the foundations of the difficulties and the most likely possibilities for defeating the speed of light. Some of the potential solutions to this problem would also have dramatic impacts on general propulsion offering novel ways to get around the exponential scaling of the rocket equation. The program of that session is right at the bottom of http://www.aiaa.org/agenda.cfm?lumeetingid...teGet=10-Jul-06 Session 50- NFF-3 Faster-Than-Light 312 Chaired by: R. FRISBEE, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, and D. LEHMANN, Novatia Labs, Folsom, CA 1900 AIAA-2006-4607 Faster- than- Light Paradoxes in Special Relativity B. Cassenti, Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford, CT 1930 AIAA-2006-4608 Spacetime Physics and Advanced Propulsion Concepts J. Hauser and W. Dröscher, Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, Innsbruck, Austria 2015 AIAA-2006-4609 Quantum Entanglement – Can Reality Really be this Weird? A. Goff, Novatia Labs, Folsom, CA C' est ca - pas mal, non? Hi! What can you tell me about yourself HD? We've been writing to each other and everybody else for some time now. We have some interests in common.
Neil Farbstein
7th July 2006 - 12:01 AM
Reality[SIZE=7]can[SIZE=7]Be[SIZE=7]THIS[[color=red]SIZE=14][COLOR=blue]WIERD![[COLOR=blue]
hdeasy
7th July 2006 - 06:50 AM
Hi Uncematt, Neil, First, Hauser usually makes his papers available at his publications site http://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/index.html soon after they have been presented. So that should be in a few weeks. And Neill, as for myself - I' trained as a physicist and astronomer and am now involved in Satellite control. I became intersted in Heim theory after meeting one of the Heim-Theory group some years ago and as there was little in English on him at that stage I started the Wikipedia pages on him and his theory. That's about it - reality can indeed be that weird! How about yourself? A bientot!
Neil Farbstein
7th July 2006 - 02:52 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Jul 7 2006, 06:50 AM) Hi Uncematt, Neil, First, Hauser usually makes his papers available at his publications site http://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/index.html soon after they have been presented. So that should be in a few weeks. And Neill, as for myself - I' trained as a physicist and astronomer and am now involved in Satellite control. I became intersted in Heim theory after meeting one of the Heim-Theory group some years ago and as there was little in English on him at that stage I started the Wikipedia pages on him and his theory. That's about it - reality can indeed be that weird! How about yourself? A bientot! I graduated witha degree in neurobiology and started a biotechnology consulting firm. I folded that and put it into my pocket and started Vulvox Nano/biotechnology a few years ago. We have some exciting projects on the drawing board. Silencer RNA and DNA circles. The DNA circle project might result in a product that reverses aging! My company webpage link; Vulvox Inc.
hdeasy
8th July 2006 - 01:27 PM
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Jul 7 2006, 02:52 PM) I graduated witha degree in neurobiology and started a biotechnology consulting firm. I folded that and put it into my pocket and started Vulvox Nano/biotechnology a few years ago. We have some exciting projects on the drawing board. Silencer RNA and DNA circles. The DNA circle project might result in a product that reverses aging! My company webpage link; Vulvox Inc. Interesting - I find Neuroscience fascinating as well as genetics. Heim also had an angle on consciousness, information flow in genes etc. Von Ludwiger describes how some of the extra dimensions could be relevant to the experienced inner world of subjective consiousness - an idea reminiscent of Colin McGinn's great book 'Mysterious Flame', where he points out that what we see is never the outer world but an inner dimension. Good luck in your quest for immortality - let me know if you have anything usable soon!
will314159
8th July 2006 - 07:44 PM
Neil Farbstein
8th July 2006 - 09:05 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Jul 8 2006, 07:44 PM) I was going to name the company volvox but a friend suggested it should be changed to Vulvox. I get all sorts of mispellings such as Velvex and Vulvex but the company is called Vulvox.
Neil Farbstein
8th July 2006 - 09:13 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Jul 8 2006, 01:27 PM) Interesting - I find Neuroscience fascinating as well as genetics. Heim also had an angle on consciousness, information flow in genes etc. Von Ludwiger describes how some of the extra dimensions could be relevant to the experienced inner world of subjective consiousness - an idea reminiscent of Colin McGinn's great book 'Mysterious Flame', where he points out that what we see is never the outer world but an inner dimension. Good luck in your quest for immortality - let me know if you have anything usable soon! Erwin Schoedinger wrote a book about the quantum underpinnings of life. Crick and Watson read it and most of the first genration of molecular biologists were very influenced by it.
will314159
8th July 2006 - 09:55 PM
i have gotten in more trouble in anatomy class with words having "vulv" in them. one describes the part of the soft palate that projects down like a finger and guards food from entering your airway. it's involved in the swallowing response.
Another one describes a part of the female anatomy.
i got placed on report in anatomy class one time for mixing them up and mispronouncing them. The prof thought it was intentional and I was trying to give offense instead of just having a bad memory and bad pronunciation. It's a sore subject with me.
That's why i looked at amusement at "vulvox". i have much more benign feeling toward "volvox," which is a very interesting colonial plant, some would say animal, but I studied it in botany class. The daughter cells fall inside the sphere. very interesting!
Take Care!
Edit
Even now I struggle with them
uvula
vulva
will314159
9th July 2006 - 01:04 AM
now I remember how I got in trouble. I said, pardon me, this is just how stupid i was, "uvulva"-- referring to the throat thingy in connection to the gag reflex to check on one of the cranial nerves.
Edit.
The whole problem comes from being a visual learner instead of an auditory learner and then confusing the visual cues and conflating them together. I just need to hear the sound in my head and then pronounce it. that would have kept me out of trouble.
She actually turned me in to the dean. She also locked me out of class for being 5 minutes late. that never happened in Physics class!
Take Care!
hdeasy
9th July 2006 - 09:35 AM
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Jul 8 2006, 09:13 PM) Erwin Schoedinger wrote a book about the quantum underpinnings of life. Crick and Watson read it and most of the first genration of molecular biologists were very influenced by it. Yes, the book was ' What is Life?' - also the title of later masterpiece by Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan. Consiousness articles often quote the daring conclusion of Schroedinger's book where he highlights the supreme mystery and miracle of subjective consciousness, implying that the thesis that we are all divine is not so crazy as it might seem. This almost blasphemous (for that time) statement made it difficult to find a publisher. Here's a quote from one of my favourite essays on 'homuphobia' by Keith Sutherland: http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/online/homuphob.html"Schroedinger encapsulated the problem of consciousness in the form of two premises: * My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the laws of nature. * Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them. To avoid a contradiction here, he said, "The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I -- I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said or felt 'I' -- am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according to the laws of nature." And this would lead you to say, Schroedinger provocatively suggested: "Hence I am God Almighty". Though even today to many western ears such a statement sounds both "blasphemous and lunatic" -- and in 1943 it caused the rejection of What is Life? by its original (Catholic) publisher -- the idea is hardly new. As its author noted, this "grandest of all thoughts" was recorded in the Upanishads more than 2,500 years ago, and has long been considered the deepest insight in Indian philosophy. Surely, said Schroedinger, the singularity of consciousness is more intuitively convincing than the western idea of a plurality of consciousnesses, which leads inevitably to the invention of souls -- as many as there are bodies -- and to unhelpful questions such as whether the soul survives death and whether animals (and bacteria) have souls? Towards the end of his life Schroedinger stated: "The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions and memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own, But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence." Schroedinger would have been quite happy with Metzinger's constructivist theory of experience and the world (and fell out with Einstein over this, and other issues). But he would have concluded that the notion that the self was a construct was as incoherent as the idea of a sentence without a subject. ' I find Volvox, Paramecium and Amoeba fascinating also from the consciousness point of view. Margulis refers to the 'protists' and Penrose refers to experiments where Paramecium seems to learn to avoid an obstacle, be selective in its food etc. - all without brain... All a bit off-topic maybe, but why not, now and then?
will314159
9th July 2006 - 11:31 AM
"a bit off topic maybe"
that was the whole point of my "uvulva" discussion- to show that things can get off topic. Mea Culpa. But seriously Neil I would reconsider the name. Anything with "vulv" in it is too close for comfort.
Vive le France! is France with a masculine or femiinine article? how gauche it would be to get it wrong?
maybe this would be safer
viva la Italia
Good Luck zouzou
MichaelB
9th July 2006 - 03:09 PM
Hi to everybody,
I'd like to give my 2cent regarding this very interesting thread. :-)
I read the whole thread since yesterday just to get an overview how HT has developed in the meantime, especially how much the english speaking world knows about it. Looks like the NewScientist article gave really a push to the whole thing - I thought already this was just a quick push until finding this forum yesterday. :-)
So very nice to see some people thinking about it and talking about it and most interesting no just people rejecting the theory without trying to understand it or reading anything about it.
That's also the reason to give my 2cent. Just beforehand, I'm no physicist (unfortunately), just an civil engineer, but I'm currently trying to study physics by my own, but this is more of a very long term project - my motivation especially to get into Heims theory. :-)
Nevertheless I read almost all of the high level material (that what one would call popular scientific books) I could find about his works. But, and this is the point, almost all can't be really understood without really studying his theory and the right mathematical and physical background/knowledge. Because of that I very much appreciate or applaud to everyone taking the time and affort to study it more deeply.
But this also means that most of the books and articles (right now mostly in german, the stuff you can find on Olaf's protosimplex homepage or IGW pages ...) will only give a verbal overview of his theory, sometimes with a lot of formulas, but, as in von Ludwigers last book, which is basically the transcript of the audiobook, the formulas are given in the appendix or are meant for physicists to get the idea what it's about. If I remember correctly in every book or article is written, to understand it really, you have to work through the books. (please correct me if I'm wrong) But it might be the that english introduction and derivation of the mass formula on the Heim-Theory homepage is a first step (don't know whether it really replaces the books - I wouldn't think so).
Now unfortunately the books are only available in german and as somebody already pointed out, not even easy to read if you are german, even worse or impossible without the right background.
But and this is something which appeared quite a few times in the forum, the books and articles (and Heim talking himself) give no impression of making something up or only just trying some ideas. As much as is possible to understand from the outside, without really understanding the mathematics, Heim took very carefully a few principles and developed (or explored as it seams sometimes) where this leads to.. E.g. the extension of Einsteins theory by not neglecting the field energy which amounts to a certain mass which in turn generates a gravitations field and so on (please don't take this word by word, I just hope I expressed the idea right). So in his books (especially the 3 real volumes), there are reasoned steps from the beginning.
Another thing almost not mentioned here is, that Heims theory is not just about the mass formula or some closely realated particle physics. His own interests and his theory go much deeper. That's also the reason the audiobook (and according small book) a termed "A new picture of the world". One part is his work on the theory which got discussed here, the other is what von Ludwiger called multivalued logic, where almost no books/papers have been published. To me this is even more exciting. So thinking Heim might have faked the mass formula, completely misses that he has faked then even more, actually he would have faked work which he considered himself his real accomplishments. So purely from this point of view this is a baseless assumption from looking at only a few percent of his work.
Another thing I'd like to say something about is the perception of theories and what can all derived from Heims theory. For me all the current theories, be it String theory or Loop quantum theory or Heims, or whichever, are just theories, which try to descibe some phenomena by building a model which might work or not. Sometimes just in a certain area, sometimes it's supposed to explain everything. Heim and von Ludwiger (I hope to state this right) always say this is just a theory and in the audiobook Heim says himself, maybe there will be at some point a more complete one. But as long as we got just the current theories we can just try to disprove them. (but this can't happen by not understanding a certain part and because of that assuming it must be a lot of printf statements and following of that it's all rubbish)
For instance I don't see why there shouldn't be a Higgs particle also in Heims theory. If the standardmodel is gonna be sucessful also in the future and needs a Higgs particle to generate particle masses, why not. If there is one, it just means that the model so far is correct and then Heims theory has to be able at a certain point to either to have a mechanism to generate mass (which doesn't have to look similar to the standardmodel) (it has such a mechanism) or maybe has to show at a certain point that Higgs can be incorporated. (and as it seams it can)
Also sometimes I think people shouldn't forget that because Heim can explain a lot of phenomena in our world, not necessarily all have to be checked out. This doesn't mean the theory is wrong, it just means that somebody has to find out. (as a nice example could count what Hauser et. al did with the experiment at ESA)
So we just should try to figure out what the theory tells about our world, just as Heim did.
One thing for instance it what Heim on the audio book told about working hard for hours/days in full concentration and at some point he felt like being directed and more like a visitor than the one doing the calculations. And this is the point where usually quite a lot of people get turned of, because how can he say or do such esoteric *#* ? So he must be a man faking everything (sorry missing the right vocabulary).
But one thing I guess has to get into ones mind, if accepting the possibility that his theory is correct (to a certain point or completely). His additional dimensions are not just mathematical tricks to get a theory to work, but are being interpreted as real parts of the world. (even just x5, x6 - the next upper 2 dimensions) And accepting them for real also implies that there might be some interactions possible quite off from our common experience. And as these dimensions are again just a theory and a mere mortal tried to give them a sensible (reasoned!!!) meaning, it might of course turn out that the meaning is different in other theories or in real different all together. (just reminds me of the nice books of Michio Kaku and physicists trying to visualize complex theoretical physics)
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that one shouldn't reject (again) HT for finding out some things not fitting in one's own picture of the world, as also this picture might be arbitrarily limited. If doing this, HT offers an even much more interesting view into a (possible) description of the world.
I think I stop here, the post should be long enough. I just read about HT for about 1 1/2 years now and I know that I know nothing about it. But at least it's up to me to change this. :-)
I hope everybody (or at least somebody) got the point I tried to make. :-)
regards
Michael
hdeasy
10th July 2006 - 01:53 PM
Hi MichaelB,
Nice long post: welcome to the forum. Just one point I'd like to come back on right now: While it's true that for a thorough understanding of Heim Theory you ideally have to have a good understanding of General Relativity and Quantum Theory and to then devote a year almost full time to reading through his books, this may soon change to a degree. This is because one or more review articles have been promised this year that should serve as a good introduction to the theory for a physicist or other scientist with the neccessary background. An good engineer should not have too much difficulty getting to grips with General Relativity and Quantum Theory. Then this intro woud make sense. Let's hope it materialises soon.
On La France: sad about Zouzou losing his cool like that. The Italians were not to be denied after that. Molto bene - then let's switch from Vive la France to Forca Italia!
Ciao bello,
Hdeasy
MichaelB
10th July 2006 - 02:29 PM
Hello HDeasy,
I hope that it's going to be easier to get into the theory and I guess for people with the right background I hope this will be enough. I just yesterday read this preliminary paper from Hauser and Dröscher, which had been posted somewhere here (about ExtendHeimTheory) and I actually got a little bit better understanding for the differences between the "old" theory and the extensions Dröscher made. At least for me this wasn't that easy to distinguishing - seams Dröscher was even more important (and nowadays Hauser as well) than I thought so far.
My only concern regarding some of the papers was, that IMO it's hard to get enough out of such a paper to really understand the interconnections and workings of such a theory. (but I might be wrong) I usually see these papers more as teasers for people working on the area, so that they get a glimpse of a theory and then are interested enough to study it for real. The other papers of Hauser and Dröscher made always the impression that they span such a large range of topics (quick intro to HEIMs theory, then something more special about gravitophotons and the like .....) that it must be hard even for theoretical people to get enough information to not just believe, but also understand (the former seams hard to do for these people - that's of course understandable).
But I very much hope that the Heim-Theory people (or you for that matter) can get it started with the new English papers and other theoretical physicists can't simply ignore it anymore. (all given that the theory works and is true, which I can BELIEVE but not PROVE right now) :-).
By the way, how would you suggest to start approaching the topic ? I usually have the feeling that in order to start reading the books from the beginning, I have first to study GR and at least the Tensor calculus (already just to be able to appreciate it's use and later how to get into the direction Heim adjusted it to be able to describe quantized structures) and all the other mathematical stuff (group theory ... and what all appears in the books, papers etc..)
???
regards
Michael
rshoemake
10th July 2006 - 03:09 PM
According to a previous post, "I am God Almighty". Therefore, I declare HT is bogus, and therefore this whole discussion is moot. What? You mean I'm not God? Oh my God.....wait...is that me? I'm confused.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
