Where in gr-qc/0603032 do the authors mention Heim or Droscher when forming their theoretical motivations?
Where in gr-qc/0603033 do they mention Heim or Droscher at all?
...
It is possible that Tajmar and de Matos' result was a product of poor experimental design. If that is the case, would that prove Droscher and Hauser don't know what they're talking about? Who else but Droscher and Hauser even claim to understand Heim to the point of making predictions?
<a href='http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7712&view=findpost&p=107033' target='_blank'>http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=107033
Except where in
- either of the articles you mention (hep-ph/0302189, hep-ex/0201014)
- any of the references for the articles you mention
- any of the papers which reference these articles
- any of the links on the web page
either
- mention Heim or
- mention a 8-dimensional (not 10, not 11 not 26, not 4) theory of space-time?
hdeasy
14th July 2006 - 07:19 AM
QUOTE (Maxwell's Demon+Jul 14 2006, 06:35 AM) 6 x 10e-5g eh? Can we even measure that degree of acceleration to within experimental error? Lord.
This is what we need to know: what are the explicit experimental conditions required to achieve acceleration in the positive-z direction of between .001 to .01g?
Because if we’re going to test this thing, let’s be darn tootin’ that we can get readings at least an order of magnitude or two above the threshold of disputability.
That’s sensible, right? Sure we can - the accelerometers in Tajmar's experiment measured a tangiential field of 1 x 10e-4g, i.e. just 10 times larger. Remember - g = 9.81 m/s/s ==> 6 x 10e-5g = 5.89 x 10e-4 m/s/s . This is positively enormous compared to the accelerations they are trying to measure from Gravitational waves predicted by General Relativity. Also, this is a very modest experimental setup - a proof of concept result that would show the viability of the Heim-Lorentz drive. Once it had been accepted that Heim Theory's minor adjustment to Tajmar's setup changes the direction of the artificial gravity field to vertical, it may be seen that one is heading in the right direction, drive-wise. Now the only thing I am unclear of myself is how to go to a full scale engine. As the paper points out, a magnetic field of much greater strength would destroy the superconductivity - another reason to keep the effect small in the experiment. Maybe they want to have multiple nano-disks rotating whose field sums to something large. Or, this trial with bosons iis indeed just a proof of concept: the real action would come with the Fermions, as in the oringial proposal of Droscher & Hauser. That again would need the Z-machine or similar. But with the bosonic success under their belts, the fermionic world would be their oyster! Take care, Hdeasy.
hdeasy
14th July 2006 - 09:35 AM
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 14 2006, 07:09 AM) hdeasy has attributed a lot of meaning to Droscher and Hauser's paper written after the Tajmar and de Matos preprint and press annoucement. As of yet, we have no experimental confirmation of Tajmar and de Matos, nor do I see the experiment published in the peer-reviewed literature. Nor did Droscher and Hauser, the pair who claim to produce new Heim results but have been unable to communicate what their understanding of Heim is to other scientists, predict the Tajmar and de Matos experiment, which was a follow up of a widely publicized Russian claim.
True, no other group has reproduced Tajmar & De Matos yet - but the prospects are exceedingly good that they will soon, for 2 reasons: (1) This was not just a single experiments but a series of hundreds, using diifferent combinations of materials. (2) these are very careful and respected experimenters who have been awarded for their ion thrusters on several missions. As they themselves could not believe the size of the effect when they first detected it, they tried to exclude possible sources of error. Thus although we definitely need other groups to confirm it, the signs are very healthy that this confirmation will be forthcoming. Hopefully within a few months. If Droscher & Hauser have a derivation that almost exactly predicts the effect, then it is reasonable of them to present their calculations now. It's particularly exciting as many were asking, after their winning AIAA paper and New Scientist cover story, if an experimental test were possible. Now they propose a new experiment with a much lower magnetic field than before. This should be within reach of many laboratories. If successful, the pay-off would be so enormous, that one may be forgiven now for anticipating ' victory' .
jreed
14th July 2006 - 01:01 PM
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 14 2006, 07:09 AM)
arian558 also thinks there's an exact parallel with Heim.
So I have a couple of simple questions.
There is no parallel to Heim in these papers. These papers deal with the extra dimensions (greater than 4) as compact spaces only. In other words, the extra dimensions are curled up like small orbits. In Heim theory, the extra dimensions are linear, or noncompact, so there is no comparison. I'm not aware of any higher dimensional theories that use noncompact spaces for the extra dimensions except for Heim's theory. jreed
UncleMatt
14th July 2006 - 03:00 PM
Another point that may need some further attention is that the paper, with regard to formation of copper pairs, claims "The coupling of electron pairs seems to be via phonons, generated by the electron movement throughout the lattice of the superconductor". (page 8, top right) However, see here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...s-rpm070306.phpThis study claims that phonons are not involved in the formation of cooper pairs. I find this even more interesting given the fact that magnetism and superconductivity are mutually exclusive to a good degree in many materials.
Maxwell's Demon
14th July 2006 - 03:44 PM
I guess I'm just a pragmatist. We can argue the merits and demerits of Heim theory, and speculate on its connection to the ESA results til the cows come home, but a simple experiment, similar to the one described, can settle everything.
Then we can either move forward with Heim theory, or on to greener pastures.
| QUOTE | Sure we can - the accelerometers in Tajmar's experiment measured a tangiential field of 1 x 10e-4g, i.e. just 10 times larger.
<br>True, but an order of magnitude made all the difference; their data points were only about three times stronger than the signal noise, iirc.
And if we're going to ask the physics community to believe in a gravity propulsion drive, we're going to want unambiguous results to back us up. That's all I'm saying.
How difficult would it be to pull a 10e-3 or 10e-2g effect from the theoretical model?
Time well spent, imo.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Sure we can - the accelerometers in Tajmar's experiment measured a tangiential field of 1 x 10e-4g, i.e. just 10 times larger.
<br>True, but an order of magnitude made all the difference; their data points were only about three times stronger than the signal noise, iirc.
And if we're going to ask the physics community to believe in a gravity propulsion drive, we're going to want unambiguous results to back us up. That's all I'm saying.
How difficult would it be to pull a 10e-3 or 10e-2g effect from the theoretical model?
Time well spent, imo.
Remember - g = 9.81 m/s/s ==> 6 x 10e-5g = 5.89 x 10e-4 m/s/s . This is positively enormous compared to the accelerations they are trying to measure from Gravitational waves predicted by General Relativity.
<br>Not really a fair analogy there Hdeasy--we don't want to have to build a network of mile-long laser interference detectors to take measurements here. Better to just scale up the experiment, I think.
| QUOTE | Also, this is a very modest experimental setup - a proof of concept result that would show the viability of the Heim-Lorentz drive. Once it had been accepted that Heim Theory's minor adjustment to Tajmar's setup changes the direction of the artificial gravity field to vertical, it may be seen that one is heading in the right direction, drive-wise.
<br>I don't think anyone's going to accept a 6 x 10-5g effect as a proof of concept, and I wouldn't blame them. Why skimp, when doubling the turns and scaling up the rotating ring would probably buy us an indisuptable effect, well outside the range of uncertainty?
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Also, this is a very modest experimental setup - a proof of concept result that would show the viability of the Heim-Lorentz drive. Once it had been accepted that Heim Theory's minor adjustment to Tajmar's setup changes the direction of the artificial gravity field to vertical, it may be seen that one is heading in the right direction, drive-wise.
<br>I don't think anyone's going to accept a 6 x 10-5g effect as a proof of concept, and I wouldn't blame them. Why skimp, when doubling the turns and scaling up the rotating ring would probably buy us an indisuptable effect, well outside the range of uncertainty?
Now the only thing I am unclear of myself is how to go to a full scale engine. As the paper points out, a magnetic field of much greater strength would destroy the superconductivity - another reason to keep the effect small in the experiment. Maybe they want to have multiple nano-disks rotating whose field sums to something large. Or, this trial with bosons iis indeed just a proof of concept: the real action would come with the Fermions, as in the oringial proposal of Droscher & Hauser. That again would need the Z-machine or similar. But with the bosonic success under their belts, the fermionic world would be their oyster!
<br>I like your enterprising spirit ;) I just think we should aim well above the noise level, so we can get this concept off the ground...
hdeasy
14th July 2006 - 05:35 PM
Hi Maxwell's Demon: Yes, you have a point about wanting a good signal to noise ratio. I suppose patience is simply required. In another few months we should see the first replication (or not) of Tajmar & De Matos's experiment. Around the same time we should be seeing the first mainstream journal articles on Heim-Droscher theory appearing. Then it will be another year or so before the proposed Heim-Lorentz force experiment is done. By the way - even if 10e-5g is a limit on the size of that experiment, it should be possible to measure with an even more sensitive accelerometer - or, since the field will be largely vertical, the effective weight of the disk will decrease marginally. I suspect that high precision balances are more accurate than accelerometers - a web search found some accurate to 0.01 mg ( e.g. http://www.scientech-inc.com/electronicweighing.phtml ). That's 10e-5 grams. Even if the disk only weighed a gram the Heim-Lorentz effect would be easily measurable. But of course it weighs quite a few grams, so this might be a way to go. Dunno - was never much of an experimentalist. Have a nice weekend! Hdeasy
Maxwell's Demon
14th July 2006 - 08:07 PM
Hi Hdeasy,
| QUOTE | Then it will be another year or so before the proposed Heim-Lorentz force experiment is done.
<br>Not if I can help it ;)
I think the way to go is to design a dual-purpose testing apparatus, housed in a larger, custom-made Helium cryostat. First run a couple of hundred gravitomagnetic tests using a larger Niobium ring or coil, to see if Tajmar and de Matos’ findings can be both confirmed and scaled up. I don’t see any reason why a closed coil wouldn’t work as well as a solid ring, but if you have any thoughts on that I’d like to hear them. If that would work, the same Niobium coil could be used for Phase II, a test of EHT as proposed in the latest paper, but scaled up for two or three orders of magnitude greater effect.
I don’t see why all of that that couldn’t be done within 12-18 months.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Then it will be another year or so before the proposed Heim-Lorentz force experiment is done.
<br>Not if I can help it ;)
I think the way to go is to design a dual-purpose testing apparatus, housed in a larger, custom-made Helium cryostat. First run a couple of hundred gravitomagnetic tests using a larger Niobium ring or coil, to see if Tajmar and de Matos’ findings can be both confirmed and scaled up. I don’t see any reason why a closed coil wouldn’t work as well as a solid ring, but if you have any thoughts on that I’d like to hear them. If that would work, the same Niobium coil could be used for Phase II, a test of EHT as proposed in the latest paper, but scaled up for two or three orders of magnitude greater effect.
I don’t see why all of that that couldn’t be done within 12-18 months.
By the way - even if 10e-5g is a limit on the size of that experiment, it should be possible to measure with an even more sensitive accelerometer
<br>That may be a problem—I think Tajmar et al used the best accelerometers available for this purpose. I tried finding something better, but all I found were some experimental superfluid gyroscopes created at Berkeley which may or may not be A.) more sensitive, and/or B.) practical and/or C.) available.
| QUOTE | or, since the field will be largely vertical, the effective weight of the disk will decrease marginally. I suspect that high precision balances are more accurate than accelerometers - a web search found some accurate to 0.01 mg ( e.g. http://www.scientech-inc.com/electronicweighing.phtml ). That's 10e-5 grams. Even if the disk only weighed a gram the Heim-Lorentz effect would be easily measurable. But of course it weighs quite a few grams, so this might be a way to go. Dunno - was never much of an experimentalist.
<br>The biggest problem with weighing this thing is going to be vibration from the rotating ring--there’s no way to decouple the balance readings from the vibrating device. Tajmar and de Matos were able to decouple the accelerometers from the mechanical vibrations by reading the external force, which is why they could see the signal at all.
That’s the only way to go, imo--with the decoupled accelerometers (the key accelerometer would be placed on the z-axis, but I'm unclear regarding the position of maximum vertical force). With mechanical vibrations, and mechanical parts which may or may not interact with the strong magnetic fields of this thing, I don't think we can trust the results of a precision balance. Woodward thought he had experimental proof of a linear force using ‘transient mass fluctuations’ (a concept derived from a flawed Machian inertial mass model): http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/ …but a closer look found faults with both the theory and the experiment: http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/pres/111404.pdf
Vibrations and other physical interference effects are notorious for producing skewed data, and Woodward would’ve been spared a lot of lost time and disappointment if he could’ve decoupled his detection readings from his device, as Tajmar and de Matos were able to do because of the field nature of their reported effect.
So I think it’s imperative to learn from their example…unless of course we can design a device that can provide irrefutable results, such as floating off the bench.
Btw, I liked your spinning nano-discs idea—maybe there’s an even better method along Ning Li’s line of reasoning, where we could use rotating superfluid Helium vortices instead of a solid ring, for example. But first thing’s first—let’s get a confirmation of the laboratory gravitomagnetic effect, and a test of EHT, before we start designing Scotty’s ‘Warp Core.’ =)
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | or, since the field will be largely vertical, the effective weight of the disk will decrease marginally. I suspect that high precision balances are more accurate than accelerometers - a web search found some accurate to 0.01 mg ( e.g. http://www.scientech-inc.com/electronicweighing.phtml ). That's 10e-5 grams. Even if the disk only weighed a gram the Heim-Lorentz effect would be easily measurable. But of course it weighs quite a few grams, so this might be a way to go. Dunno - was never much of an experimentalist.
<br>The biggest problem with weighing this thing is going to be vibration from the rotating ring--there’s no way to decouple the balance readings from the vibrating device. Tajmar and de Matos were able to decouple the accelerometers from the mechanical vibrations by reading the external force, which is why they could see the signal at all.
That’s the only way to go, imo--with the decoupled accelerometers (the key accelerometer would be placed on the z-axis, but I'm unclear regarding the position of maximum vertical force). With mechanical vibrations, and mechanical parts which may or may not interact with the strong magnetic fields of this thing, I don't think we can trust the results of a precision balance. Woodward thought he had experimental proof of a linear force using ‘transient mass fluctuations’ (a concept derived from a flawed Machian inertial mass model): http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/ …but a closer look found faults with both the theory and the experiment: http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/pres/111404.pdf
Vibrations and other physical interference effects are notorious for producing skewed data, and Woodward would’ve been spared a lot of lost time and disappointment if he could’ve decoupled his detection readings from his device, as Tajmar and de Matos were able to do because of the field nature of their reported effect.
So I think it’s imperative to learn from their example…unless of course we can design a device that can provide irrefutable results, such as floating off the bench.
Btw, I liked your spinning nano-discs idea—maybe there’s an even better method along Ning Li’s line of reasoning, where we could use rotating superfluid Helium vortices instead of a solid ring, for example. But first thing’s first—let’s get a confirmation of the laboratory gravitomagnetic effect, and a test of EHT, before we start designing Scotty’s ‘Warp Core.’ =)
Have a nice weekend!
Hdeasy
<br>To you as well, good sir!
M’s D
Tim
14th July 2006 - 09:01 PM
| QUOTE | As the paper points out, a magnetic field of much greater strength would destroy the superconductivity - another reason to keep the effect small in the experiment.
<br>I agree strongly with Maxwell's Demon that any future experiments should try to attain a signal to noise ratio that can not be disputed. I came across a couple of articles today that may or may not be of any interest and/or relevance.
Article 1)
Magnetic Protection talks about applying a gold nanolayer to a beryllium superconductor in order to help retain its superconducting properties in the presence of magnetic fields. Could a technique like this be applied to the experimental setup proposed by Droscher & Hauser in order to help boost the signal to noise ratio by allowing the use of a more intense magnetic field?
Article 2)
This one isn't an article, but if anyone has the time or energy I'm sure they could track down where the information came from. "In 1997 researchers discovered that at a temperature very near absolute zero an alloy of gold and indium was both a superconductor and a natural magnet." Does it follow that this material or other ferromagnetic superconductors might be resistant to losing their superconductivity under intense magnetic fields since they are magnets themselves (or am I just being naive)?
Article 3) - off topic
A group in Italy has obtained results that are suggestive of the existence of axions. Optical rotation sheds light on vacuum at physicsweb.org states that "if the PVLAS results are indeed due to the existence of an axion-like particle, the experiment could place tighter restrictions on its mass and coupling strength." What does Heim Theory have to say about the potential existence and properties of axions?
Maxwell's Demon
16th July 2006 - 10:33 PM
Wow, good catch on the magnetic protection article Tim—being able to use a magnetic field an order of magnitude stronger seems like an ideal solution to a key limitation here. And that research is happening only an hour’s drive from here, hmm… I’m skeptical about the use of materials you mentioned with that second article though—so far, we’re only reasonably confident of Lead and Niobium for the enhanced gravitomagnetic effect. But I think that if we verify the effect in Niobium and Lead, we should try other materials, and look for ones that might offer even greater effects, and perhaps also be more resistant to magnetic fields before losing their superconductivity. I’ve got some questions, concerns, and criticisms regarding the latest Droscher-Hauser EHT paper. Perhaps the most fundamental concern pertains to the manner with which Dröscher and Hauser have proposed incorporating Tajmar and de Matos’ quantum matter gravitomagnetic effect, into the experimental proposal described in their 2004 paper:  Here’s what troubles me—why use a superconductive Niobium solenoid at the current loop position (in blue) described in the above diagram? This makes no sense to me. Because the diagram above illustrates how a magnetic field interacts with (ostensibly) the gravitomagnetic field of the rotating massive toroidal ring, to generate the gravitophoton field which induces lift. So, unless I’m missing something, replacing the current loop with a superconductive Niobium electromagnet isn’t going to help at all—a magnetic field is a magnetic field, right? Or are they saying that the magnetic field generated by the Cooper pairs of the Niobium solenoid is somehow –different- than an ordinary magnetic field? If that’s what they’re saying, I think that warrants some experimental confirmation of its own. If we assume that a magnetic field is a magnetic field, regardless of the forms of moving electrons that generate it, then we should make the rotating torus (in red) out of Niobium, so we can capitalize on the enhanced gravitomagnetic field of superconductive Niobium (or Lead) which the ESA reported. Of course, I could be way off base. The mathematics of this thing are way over my head. But it seems like a glaring conceptual disparity, to try to use a stationary Niobium coil to generate the magnetic field below, when the crucial factor is an enhanced gravitomagnetic field around the spinning toroid above, which is where the action is, according to that diagram. Can anyone explain why we shouldn’t rather just replicate Tajmar and de Matos’ experiment, but with a larger Niobium ring, and then if that works, simply place a strong electromagnet below that ring, and run the experiment again to test for the 'Heim-Lorentz force?'
hdeasy
17th July 2006 - 08:17 AM
HI M's D: I think they answer that point. The difference in the magnetic field from the superconductor is the involvement of bosons – this does effect the Heim-Lorentz force equations. So, unlike in their previous fermionic setup, the force components in the radial and vertical directions are given by: 
hdeasy
17th July 2006 - 10:50 AM
QUOTE (DEK46656+Jul 11 2006, 01:08 AM) Is this an observation that helps support HT?
In the recent Scientific American (July 2006 – pg 33: Particle Physics) there is a short article called “Mass Change”. In it they describe a comparison that was done of “wavelengths absorbed by hydrogen gas irradiated with extreme ultraviolet laser beams” compared to readings “from the glow of hydrogen clouds that had absorbed radiation from distant quasars, light that originated 12 billion years ago”. This type of comparison (positions of certain wavelengths) would infer the proton to electron mass ratio. The article concluded that the ratio has apparently decreased by one fifty-thousandth in the interval”…
Anyway, this seems to be a chance for a HT prediction to be tested. Admittedly the phrase “prediction” is a little strong, but the description of HT Cosmology states that the size of the metron has been shrinking slowly over time. That rate of change was “reversed” to determine the age of the universe and original size. I am not familiar with what that rate of change is, but I wonder if it could be used to infer the size of the metron 12 billion years ago? From that derived value, could the mass formulas be computed to see if there is a difference in the proton to electron mass ratio? I've asked one of the cognoscenti about this, and indeed the mass ratio should vary over long time periods. The calculations are rather difficult, however. One point that struck me was that if there was independent evidence of a variation in G, then this could be plugged into the mass equation to see how the ratio of electron to proton mass would vary. Actually that could be a neat excercise for the various implementations of the mass formula (JAVA, Mathematica, etc.) - simply estimate proton and electron masses for a range of G values around the current one. Then plot the mass ratio against G over this interval. For the older value of the observed ratio as found from the distant quasars one would then read off a value for G. Maybe in general G is decreasing, as cosmic acceleration appears to indicate it is becoming less effective in keeping the mass from flying apart. E.g. in http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?...stro-ph/9907222" We investigate to which extent a time variation of the gravitational constant or other fundamental constants affects the best fit of the Hubble diagram of type Ia supernovae. In particular, we show that a slow increase of G in the past, below experimental constraints, can reconcile the SNe Ia observations with an open zero-? universe. " So - how about it, you mass formula programmers? Take care, Hdeasy
DEK46656
18th July 2006 - 03:48 AM
Hi hdeasy Thanks for the follow up to my previous question. I was starting to feel a little left out, that was my 2nd or 3rd question and no one offered any response  . I had never considered the idea of G changing over time when I posted the question. My original thinking was that the difference would have been due to the minute change in size of the metron. I don’t know if anyone has the “rate of change” anywhere so it could be tested with a static G (actually, static constants). This does bring up an interesting line of investigation. I would assume that the test quoted in the article is the only one’s so far, so the results are subject to change, but if the change in metron dimension doesn’t account for all of the change, then changing values for G (Gg, Gq, & Ggp) then comes to the forefront. If metron size changed over time, and G changed over the same time, are the two directly related? I would be curious to see if constants have a direct relationship to the size of the metron as well. If so, then there is another even more “primary” theory that would address their values as well. That seems to me to be the path to follow for laying out a “theory of everything” (or am I just getting way ahead of myself here and overlooking some basic ideas from EHT  ). What were the constants required for HT; speed of light, Gravitational Constant, and Planck’s length? If G (Gg) changes over time, and is related to metron area, it would imply that Gq and Gph are also affected. So the next question would be, what about C? It would be real intriguing to discover that all the constants are related to the size of the metron.
Maxwell's Demon
18th July 2006 - 06:56 AM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Jul 17 2006, 08:17 AM) HI M's D: I think they answer that point. The difference in the magnetic field from the superconductor is the involvement of bosons – this does effect the Heim-Lorentz force equations. So, unlike in their previous fermionic setup, the force components in the radial and vertical directions are given by: Okay, Hdeasy, I'll try to figure out how we got from equation 46 in the 2004 paper ( http://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/doc...004-3700-a4.pdf) to equation 15 in the new paper. But that might require a brain transplant, lol. How about this--it looks to me like we could pull another order of magnitude from the Heim-Lorentz force in the z-direction, by simply increasing the velocity of the rotating torus from 10m/s to 100m/s, right? That seems mechanically plausible. And if Tim's magnetic shielding suggestion could work out, then we could increase the magentic field intensity of the Niobium solenoid ten-fold as well. Between the two, we should be getting closer to the more compelling prediction of around 6mm/s^2, I think. I'd like to see a table similar to Table 1 in the 2004 paper, so we could optimize this new experimental proposal along such lines. I noticed that we've got a 'Short Version' of the paper now--do you think we can hope for additional experimental details in the Long Version, like they offered last time? I'd love to be able to play with terms I can get my noggin' around, like coil winding number and diameter, and the size, mass and speed of the toroidal insulator, to see how high we can push the force prediction. Imo, the higher we can get that prediction, the sooner we'll have our experimental trial.
hdeasy
18th July 2006 - 09:21 AM
Hi DEK46656, Maxwell's Demon:
To DEK46656:
Yes, that struck me also. I think it's much more difficult to calculate the effect of the changing metron size on the basic constants and on the masses, as they are interrelated and it's not clear to what extent G, h, c are independent. Maybe the change in G is not sufficient on its own to cause the observed change in mass ratio,
And must be combined with change in the metron size and hence in the other 2 constants. Still - the G test is easy to do and worth doing: if no-one else does it soon, I will, using the old Fortran code.
To Maxwell's Demon:
Yes, I know that it is not obvious how one gets from equs. 46 or 47 of the 2004 paper to equs. 14 & 15 of the recent paper. I had wondered myself. Hauser said in a recent e-mail circular that there is indeed a longer version of the paper that he distributed by hand at the Sacramento conference and this may be made available soon. Note that in the 2004 paper they make it clear that they are considering the effect from protons or electrons, i.e. fermions. I'm pretty sure that by carefully re-reading both papers one may see where the boson correction comes in - I believe the trick is mainly eq. 3 of the 2006 paper, i.e. the London Moment. This replaces some other equation. I am rather busy now. When I have a quiet moment I hope to sort through the logic to see where the substitution occurs.
hdeasy
19th July 2006 - 08:26 AM
I just heard that the extended version of the paper will be out in about a week, and that it will have a number of corrections in it. For example, Tajmar himself has pointed out that the rate of change of w, the angular rotational velocity, and not w itself, must be considered as the disk is accelerating during the experiment. It seems that even with the corrections in there is good agreement. So, let's wait for the update, shall we?
hdeasy
19th July 2006 - 09:38 AM
QUOTE (DEK46656+Jul 18 2006, 03:48 AM) Hi hdeasy Thanks for the follow up to my previous question. I was starting to feel a little left out, that was my 2nd or 3rd question and no one offered any response . I had never considered the idea of G changing over time when I posted the question. My original thinking was that the difference would have been due to the minute change in size of the metron. I don’t know if anyone has the “rate of change” anywhere so it could be tested with a static G (actually, static constants). This does bring up an interesting line of investigation. I would assume that the test quoted in the article is the only one’s so far, so the results are subject to change, but if the change in metron dimension doesn’t account for all of the change, then changing values for G (Gg, Gq, & Ggp) then comes to the forefront. If metron size changed over time, and G changed over the same time, are the two directly related? I would be curious to see if constants have a direct relationship to the size of the metron as well. If so, then there is another even more “primary” theory that would address their values as well. That seems to me to be the path to follow for laying out a “theory of everything” (or am I just getting way ahead of myself here and overlooking some basic ideas from EHT ). What were the constants required for HT; speed of light, Gravitational Constant, and Planck’s length? If G (Gg) changes over time, and is related to metron area, it would imply that Gq and Gph are also affected. So the next question would be, what about C? It would be real intriguing to discover that all the constants are related to the size of the metron. Actually, I used the Java applet from Spony and showed that if G increases by 0.0000004 (or 4e-7), then the mass ratio proton/electron, p/e, decreases by 0.000019, or about 1/50000. This could be the amazing breakthrough we've been looking for: since as discussed above, the cosmological acceleration implies that G has been decreasing slightly. 6.6741996 -> p = 938.267871 e = 0.512758 p/e = 1829.845407 6.6742000 -> p = 938.267862 e = 0.512758 p/e = 1829.845389 6.6742004 -> p = 938.267852 e = 0.512758 p/e = 1829.845370
hdeasy
19th July 2006 - 11:44 AM
A rider on above : There seems to be fairly good limit from white dwarves on the rate of change of G. In http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/eas/pd...01/eas02010.pdf they give a limit of (dG/dt) / G < 1e-13 yrs e-1 But the calcualtion above implies a limit closer to 1e-18 yrs e-1 . This is still within the limit. But if further observations put a lower bound on (dG/dt)/G that is greater than 1e-18 , we have to conclude that either Heim theory is too conservative, or as mentioned by DEK46656 above, the change in metron size might have other effects, e.g. on light speed. These might all contribute to the total effect. By the way - could those of you with other implementations of the mass formula (Mathematica, C++, etc.) please check that your results agree with these above from Spony's applet?
jreed
19th July 2006 - 06:24 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Jul 19 2006, 11:44 AM)
By the way - could those of you with other implementations of the mass formula (Mathematica, C++, etc.) please check that your results agree with these above from Spony's applet?
I took the three values (6.6741996, 6.6742, 6.6742004) X10^-11 and computed the masses of the proton and electron for these gravitational constants with Mathematica. Here is what I got: proton={938.25160969507, 938.251600323152, 938.25159095122} electron={.510988304944, .5109882998399, .5109882947358} If you divide proton mass/electron mass you'll find there is no change in the quotient with a change in the gravitational constant. jreed
jreed
19th July 2006 - 11:16 PM
QUOTE (jreed+Jul 19 2006, 06:24 PM) I
If you divide proton mass/electron mass you'll find there is no change in the quotient with a change in the gravitational constant.
As a follow up to my previous posting on this topic, if you go to the equations and take a look at where the gravitational constant (gamma) is used, it only appears in the mass element (mu). Mu directly multiplies each mass calculation. When we change gamma, mu changes in some way, the same way for each particle. In the division to get proton mass/electron mass, these changes cancel exactly. There should be no change in the ratio in Heim's theory. jreed
rpenner
20th July 2006 - 12:02 AM
Speaking of mu, what are the dimensions of mu? mu = pi^(1/4) * (3*pi*Gamma*hBar)^(1/3) * sqrt(c*hBar/(3*Gamma)) / c according to the maxima formulas, but this is inconsistant with http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/E_Hei...ormula_1982.pdf which has an extra factor of s_0 ^ (-2/3) . Gamma has units of kg^-1 m^3 s^-2 hBar has units of kg^1 m^2 s^-1 c has units of m^1 s^-1 (Gamma * hbar)^(1/3) has units of m^(5/3) s^-2 (c*hBar/Gamma)^(1/2) has units of kg c^-1 has units of m^-1 s^1 so mu has units of kg^1 m^(2/3) s^-1 times the s_0 factor raised to the negative 2/3 power. If the s_0 factor is exactly 1 meter, like (1982) says, then what is the physical significant of s_0 ? Does it make sense for mu to have units of kg/s ? It seems odd that 1 meter would show up in mu and mu is an overall multiplicative factor for the mass formulas. (That's why Gamma changing has no effect on the mass ratio between electron an proton.) If we were working in CGS, we would have to put in 100 cm for s_0 to have the formula come out the same. This seems peculiar.
DEK46656
20th July 2006 - 03:13 AM
Hi everyone... QUOTE (hdeasy+Jul 19 2006, 09:38 AM) This could be the amazing breakthrough we've been looking for: since as discussed above, the cosmological acceleration implies that G has been decreasing slightly.
I believe we are blurring some lines here and need to be cautious. Could the cosmological acceleration be accounted for not by a changing G, but in fact the impact of Gq at a different distance measured then and now? It may not be Gq I’m looking for here, it was referenced as the “corrected gravitational law” that is written (by BH) at the protosimplex web site. Anyway, at a distance of many million light years (I forget and can’t quickly find the value), there is a repulsive gravitational effect. Its “strength” curves slightly negative (more repulsive) and eventually comes back to 0. Could the perceived change in cosmological acceleration that you are referencing actually be this effect, comparing the universes size then to now? I would still be curious as to the “rate of change” that the area of the metron has experienced. I would think that it has some potential bearing on the proton/electron mass ratio change described in the article. For that matter, it could be an interesting exercise to see at what point (using different metron dimensions) the largest area possible is for matter to exist. BH indicated that the metron had to “shrink” to a certain size before anything could occur, but I don’t believe anything has been written (in English) describing what that size was. For that matter, it would be an interesting test (using the mass calculators) to see if some forms of matter occurred before others? I would guess that all the required components occurred at once, but that is only a guess, I don’t know if it has ever been addressed.
hdeasy
20th July 2006 - 09:03 AM
QUOTE (jreed+Jul 19 2006, 11:16 PM) As a follow up to my previous posting on this topic, if you go to the equations and take a look at where the gravitational constant (gamma) is used, it only appears in the mass element (mu). Mu directly multiplies each mass calculation. When we change gamma, mu changes in some way, the same way for each particle. In the division to get proton mass/electron mass, these changes cancel exactly. There should be no change in the ratio in Heim's theory.
jreed Hi Jreed, Thanks for trying the other implementation. It could be that Spony had an error in his electron calculation - that seems to be insensitive to G changes in his case, which is why his applet gives a change in the ratios. Note that although you differ in absolute proton mass, you both get relative changes of about 0.00001 in proton mass for increments of 4e-7. Looking at the Fortran code I can confirm that G only seems to be used in Mu, which comes into the final sums in a linear fashion. So the masses should indeed all be linear in G. Thus any change in ratio must come from other terms. So we are back to the effect of metron size changes on the other fundamental constants. Thus the problem is indeed more complex: hopefully Von Ludwiger will have some time soon to look into it properly. Ciao, Hdeasy
hdeasy
20th July 2006 - 11:19 AM
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 20 2006, 12:02 AM)
so mu has units of kg^1 m^(2/3) s^-1 times the s_0 factor raised to the negative 2/3 power.
If the s_0 factor is exactly 1 meter, like (1982) says, then what is the physical significant of s_0 ? Does it make sense for mu to have units of kg/s ? It seems odd that 1 meter would show up in mu and mu is an overall multiplicative factor for the mass formulas. (That's why Gamma changing has no effect on the mass ratio between electron an proton.) If we were working in CGS, we would have to put in 100 cm for s_0 to have the formula come out the same. This seems peculiar. We had a bit of a debate on this in the Wikipedia talk page on Heim. The problem is, it's a unit area, and will always be 1 no matter what units you use. By simply putting in 100 when going from cm to m one neglects a factor elsewhere that balances - similar discussion on 'E' - which is like the s_0 in the code: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burkhard...ive1#On_.22E.22
hdeasy
25th July 2006 - 09:10 AM
I just heard from Haiko Lietz that Droescher willl bring out 2 papers on the theory in early 2007. The corrections to the Sacramento paper and/or the long version will soon be on http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/ . Hdeasy
will314159
25th July 2006 - 12:04 PM
Uh-oh, I was kind of groggy this morning, i think i made a repprt instead of a post. Oh well.
I have never understood what the guys at WP mean by "peer reviewed" papers. Will these new papers be such or "mere" conference proceedings? Or self published?
Back in the old days, you had to send in papers to print magazines. Now, with the web, you can bypass all that and publlish your own stuff instantly.
Best Wishes."
Contrarian
25th July 2006 - 01:09 PM
| QUOTE | I have never understood what the guys at WP mean by "peer reviewed" papers. Will these new papers be such or "mere" conference proceedings? Or self published?
<br>Peer Review is scrutiny by "respectable" practitioners in the relevant field.
For instance if you prove the Riemann Hypothesis, no money for you until you have been peer review published.
Anyhow, WE are reviewing it, are we not?
will314159
25th July 2006 - 02:15 PM
But are we "peers of the realm?" Edit. the "peers" acted as gate-keepers that controlled what got published. The logic being if something got past the gatekeepers, then it was worthy. I think that theory got debunked by several notorious hoaxes. I forget them right now, but i have run across them. Best Wishes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affairhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
hasan
25th July 2006 - 07:28 PM
Zarabtul
25th July 2006 - 07:36 PM
So the designs were not for naught....
Seems the research is vested in our future that too many hold so dear.
The radiation levels must be ridiculous though interesting article for sure.
Now to get them to make it perfectly circular and to have a way to generate a pure eltromagnetic field around the entire device with full movement abilty on all axis.
hdeasy
26th July 2006 - 08:05 AM
Hi Hasan, Zarabtul:
This patent sounds to bear some resemblance to the Heim-Lorentz drive in that it seeks to generate a gravitomagnetic-field. Well, let the best man or woman win! The race is on to build the first prototype of this engine or the Heim one. A new space-race might be just what we need.
Hi Will31415926;
It like ' a jury of his peers'. But as I once said, as Heim was essentially peerless it might be hard to find a sutiable referee. Hopefully Droscher has formulated the physics in a conventional mode that will be comprehensible to a referee like Lee Smolin or Carlo Rovelli. If anyone can, then he, as he worked so closely with Heim on his second volume, but also with Hauser and other conventional physicists. The papers may need to be of a substantial thickness though - the review paper referred to by Hauser, maybe.
Take care,
Hdeasy
Zarabtul
26th July 2006 - 08:17 AM
It's actually rather simple being no diferent than the plates on a broadcast transmitter for radio, television. Nuclear waste disposal. Sort of design. I'm assuming that's why we sent the nuclear waste disposal to China so that they could make it smaller and much more explosive for it's buck. I am a little worried about what would happen if you fired that thing in our system as well. There would be some form of gravity interference we wouldn't like I'm sure.
hasan
26th July 2006 - 10:19 AM
images from design machine ani-graviti for see this images you need instal software quicktime and browser opera and also this software http://www.internetiff.com/ link images : http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=069609...View+first+page
TRoc
26th July 2006 - 04:41 PM
will-pi, hdeasy, & knowledgeable Heim theorists
I noticed that phi was included in the "geometric constants" list in the Excel program that was linked earlier. What exact role does it play in the inner workings of the protosimplex, or the theory in general?
T.Roc
will314159
27th July 2006 - 03:12 PM
the patent office doesn't actually verify that any design works. It doesn't even require proof that something does what it purports to do. I'm not even sure what the patent office is really designed to do.
A friend of mine obtained a U.S. ormamental patent for a circular airplane. A.K.A. U.F.O. He must have spent $8,000 with some fool attorney getting it. I had another friend showing me this antigravity perpetual motion machine. i trired to explain to him about "no free ride." It did no good. I haven't heard much from him about that lately.
My three legged black lab retriever takes a lot of naps. Maybe he dreams of gravimagnetic machines or maybe he figures they're just ordinary electric motors with exotic names. I'd give him a dog biscuit for his dog dreams. Probably just chasing kitty kats and sea gulls in black and white silver screen.
Best Wishes!
Neil Farbstein
27th July 2006 - 07:15 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Jul 27 2006, 03:12 PM) the patent office doesn't actually verify that any design works. It doesn't even require proof that something does what it purports to do. I'm not even sure what the patent office is really designed to do.
A friend of mine obtained a U.S. ormamental patent for a circular airplane. A.K.A. U.F.O. He must have spent $8,000 with some fool attorney getting it. I had another friend showing me this antigravity perpetual motion machine. i trired to explain to him about "no free ride." It did no good. I haven't heard much from him about that lately.
My three legged black lab retriever takes a lot of naps. Maybe he dreams of gravimagnetic machines or maybe he figures they're just ordinary electric motors with exotic names. I'd give him a dog biscuit for his dog dreams. Probably just chasing kitty kats and sea gulls in black and white silver screen.
Best Wishes! You mean chasing pussy cats. Why does he have three legs?
hdeasy
28th July 2006 - 08:13 AM
QUOTE (TRoc+Jul 26 2006, 04:41 PM) will-pi, hdeasy, & knowledgeable Heim theorists
I noticed that phi was included in the "geometric constants" list in the Excel program that was linked earlier. What exact role does it play in the inner workings of the protosimplex, or the theory in general?
T.Roc Hi Troc, Was that the 1982 version dowloaded from http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/new.htm ? I loked at the constants page of that just now and the only ones were Chosen: Rg Value of vacuum wave resistance Rg (table 5) 3 3.76730313461000E+02 CODATA 1998 c Value of speed of light c (table 4) 2 2.99792458000000E+08 Schulz 1982 gamma Value of gravitational constant gamma (table 3) 10 6.67279915000000E-11 Leovinus 2006 Optimized for calculation of electron. eq Elementary electric charge e+- 1.60216459374958E-19 [As] amu µ Mass element (VI) 2.25901395882436E-31 [kg] Ciao, Hdeasy
TRoc
28th July 2006 - 02:15 PM
hdeasy,
I checked into the author of the file, it is from Olaf.
" Geometrische Konstanten
xi geometrische Konstante (VI) 1.61803399E+00 "
From the Excel file " Heim Massenformel 0.52b ", under the Konstante tab. (2006)
[in case you're out there Olaf, I noticed that you (or Heim?) has c as 299,792,462]
ciao!
T.Roc
will314159
29th July 2006 - 12:54 AM
Max got shot by his drunken first owner. my sister in law rescued him. the owner said "lady you can't take my dawg, i"ll call the sheriff. she said mister, go right ahead, that's exactly what you need to do. I think Max must have been barking too much. The vets at N.C. State University operated on him and saved his life. He rotates his tail setting up a gravitophotonic field to keep his balance while running. He's O.K. except around the fourth of July. He looks for a hole to hide in when the firecrackers go off. Metronic PTSD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maxbeachcrop.jpgMax reclusing among Sea Oats meditiating about dog protosimplexes and higgsless kitty kats.
hdeasy
31st July 2006 - 07:49 AM
QUOTE (TRoc+Jul 28 2006, 02:15 PM) hdeasy,
I checked into the author of the file, it is from Olaf.
" Geometrische Konstanten
xi geometrische Konstante (VI) 1.61803399E+00 "
From the Excel file " Heim Massenformel 0.52b ", under the Konstante tab. (2006)
[in case you're out there Olaf, I noticed that you (or Heim?) has c as 299,792,462]
ciao!
T.Roc Hi Troc, I should have recalled - it looked familiar - it's just the golden ratio: (sqrt(5) + 1 ) / 2 = 1.618033989 Regards, Hdeasy
Olaf
31st July 2006 - 08:44 AM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Jul 31 2006, 07:49 AM) I should have recalled - it looked familiar - it's just the golden ratio:
(sqrt(5) + 1 ) / 2 = 1.618033989
Thank you for this surprising discovery, Hugh! Now I understand why Heim theory always looked so aesthetic to me! @ troc: At least you need to read the introduction to the mass formula by the Heim theory group. Xi is the limes of the "Creation selector". It results from the difference calculus that is needed for a metronization of the equations. By the way -- Heim added it to give the theory an aesthetic look. 
will314159
31st July 2006 - 11:55 AM
golden ratio means Fibonacci numbers lurking around
Best Wishes
TRoc
31st July 2006 - 04:31 PM
hdeasy, will31415, olaf, These last 3 posts are a good reason for Historians to profile how "Fibonacci" got his nickname. I asked about Phi, and got answers referring to "the golden ratio"; both names I believe, originate from ancient Greece. The way I learned was Phi = 1.61803.. and phi = .61803.. Leonardo de Pisa (I think that's the name) came along and put the recursive sums of the recursive products together, and found that it mimics nature (as well as breeding rabbits). If he was in Spain, we would know him as "Phibonita" instead! So, that said, can anyone give a more specific answer as to what role Phi plays in metronization? How is this ratio used, and with what other value(s) it is used with? Also, has anyone heard that Phi is the only "entry point" in a helical spiral that allows for a resonant mix? I have just one source, and it's not well noted. This is an "offshoot" of spherical harmonics. Regards, T.Roc
Count Able
31st July 2006 - 08:46 PM
Hello everyone,
I'm following this discussion and the theory of Burkhard Heim for a few months now and I'm really exited about it. Probably because somehow it doesn't violate my common sense.
Some years ago I saw a documentary about the Fibonacci numbers. What I remember of that is that all living creatures have the same kind of form (fractal) and the origin of this lies in the way cells do multiply. The link I see here with Heim theory is that the basic building blocks of our universe, according to this theory, are also a sort of cells, the metron.
Interesting question is, how the golden ratio turns up in the mass formula.
will314159
1st August 2006 - 03:05 AM
good discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_numbersi first ran into the formula into a wierd place. an electrical engineering course in digital signal processing. i've also seen it in biology in the growth of spiral patterns. Best wishes.
hasan
1st August 2006 - 06:24 AM
hdeasy
1st August 2006 - 07:19 AM
In the 1982 mass formula, for example, Xi is introduced as follows:
geometrical constant: x = 1,61803399
[Limes of the “creation-selector“] lim(n-> infinity) an : an-1 = x by the series an = an-1 + an-2 .
(till the 8th decimal place, represented by x = (1 + sqrt(5))/2).
I.e. it is, or closely approximates, the llimiting ratio of a geometrical sequence an, generated by
the 'creation selector' - an analagous situation to the creation of higher states in standard quantum theory from the
quantum ground state by a creation operator obtained from the definition of the spectrum of eigen-values. I don't know enough detail to say how the golden ratio gets into the spectrum in this case, though.
Hdeasy
P.S. Terrible about Max and his former brutal owner Will . Good that he now receives the care needed after such a trauma.
will314159
2nd August 2006 - 12:00 PM
"If he was in Spain, we would know him as "Phibonita" instead! "
very interesting Leonard of Pisa also knowx as Filius Bonaccio, Son of the Fortunate One. His Dad was Bonaccio, an Italian merchant in the custom house of the Algerian port of Bougie in the 13th Century. Of more significance than the Fibonacci series is that Leo is the insrumentality and popularizer of the Arabic Numerals to Western Europe. The Arabs, in turn called them Indian numerals.
In his book LIBER ABACI, he showed merchants how to use the system to compute, profits, interest, and do fantastic computations. He also did some rigorous proofs a la Euclid.
It is hard to see the development of Western Science without Arabic decimal Numerals, i.e. Roman Numeral computation! The importance of the "Sifr."
Best Wishes
Guest
2nd August 2006 - 03:50 PM
Interesting research please see this interview and this website : http://www.gctspace.com/interview.html
Neil Farbstein
2nd August 2006 - 04:26 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Aug 1 2006, 07:19 AM) In the 1982 mass formula, for example, Xi is introduced as follows:
geometrical constant: x = 1,61803399
[Limes of the “creation-selector“] lim(n-> infinity) an : an-1 = x by the series an = an-1 + an-2 .
(till the 8th decimal place, represented by x = (1 + sqrt(5))/2).
I.e. it is, or closely approximates, the llimiting ratio of a geometrical sequence an, generated by
the 'creation selector' - an analagous situation to the creation of higher states in standard quantum theory from the
quantum ground state by a creation operator obtained from the definition of the spectrum of eigen-values. I don't know enough detail to say how the golden ratio gets into the spectrum in this case, though.
Hdeasy
P.S. Terrible about Max and his former brutal owner Will . Good that he now receives the care needed after such a trauma. Are you talking about the owner of the three legged dog?
hdeasy
3rd August 2006 - 09:01 AM
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Aug 2 2006, 04:26 PM) Are you talking about the owner of the three legged dog? Yes, Will-Pi whose dog has about Pi legs, due to that brutal owner. On Fibonacci, Olaf & I were discussing it off-line - here an excerpt: Olaf: In the German or English wikipedia article about Fibonacci numbers I read some remarks about trinacci, tetranacci, pentanacci, hexanacci numbers. When those numbers represent how effects may spread in a grid of, say, metrons this xy-nacci numbers may be identical with the other numbers that are generated by Heims eta-function? So those numbers simply denote a spread of stepwise metronic effects in 1, 2, 3, or more dimensions? Hugh: Reading on page 126 of Heim vol. 1, it seems to have to do with the fact that the a(n) - a(n-1) = a(n-2). So the increment is given by looking one backwards. In Metron calculus this has a meaning in terms of metron differentials. I can see that in a rough sort of way. Also, I was interested in the Fi- Tri- bnacci sequences listed in Wikipedia : 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 24, 44, 81, 149, 274, 504, 927 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 29, 56, 108, 208, 401, 773 On a slightly different tack, the dimension relation (n-1)2 1 = p (p-1) (p-2) Well, of course the p(p-1)(p-2) term is the product of 3 successive terms of the Fibonacci sequence. Still I would like to glean a further insight into how the golden ratio then gets into the mass formula...
will314159
3rd August 2006 - 12:39 PM
very good hdeasy regarding Filius Maximus Canis Tripodium, A.K.A. Max-pi
he has been sorely harrased this week by his sister, the well known terrorist cocker spanial puppy Maggae Mae Bush bin Laden, who is on all fours but can fly and leap like a squirrel.
Best Wishes
hdeasy
3rd August 2006 - 12:49 PM
Well I hope the flying terrorist terrier doesn't annoy poor old Max-Pi too much. Sounds like the Life of Pi... more than a dog's life anyway!
In the meantime, I. Von Ludwiger has thought about the golden ratio in the mass formula and here's my translation of his explanation (Olaf may correct the translation if he finds it wanting):
The Fibonacci number comes into Heim's mass formula, because Heim had to correct the first indicated formula for the mass (approximate) of the electron m (A). (The very extensive calculations are to be found on pages 247 to 251 of volume II). K is a correction factor: K = [m (A) - m (e)]: m (A) > 0
If K is of variable size, then there is a metron function F (n), which defines a metaphorical "surface" of the charge field by a R3-cell division between the Metron numbers n=z and n=z-1, so that the charge field attaches to the outside R3 and change this within the range F by potential W (j) in the sense of K (j = 1 to 3, according to the 3 subjunctives, i.e. the 3 possible linkages of the appropriate Protosimplexes in the D-Hermetrie).
The metronic change (in the order of magnitude of cubes of Tau) would then be, related to the varied size: dK/K = dF/F + sum from j=1 to 3 of (dW (j) /W (j) ) if by 'd' the metronic derivative is meant here. Since F shows the rise of the Metron numbers within the range of a metaphorical "surface" of a d-term, F lies likewise in the range of the experimentally fading away charge field. It is therefore F (n), proportional to exp (ar (n)).
From other considerations it follows that W (1) =W (2) =W and with W (3) =U, so that the following applies: dK/K - dF/F = 2 dW/W + dU/U
For metronic integration it is to be considered that in F the variation takes place from n=z-1 to n=z and that from K between a fixed value A=const and K'.
The integration of W takes place between V (ee) and V (RR), that for U between V (ee) and V (De).
From this we get the following expressions -
V (XY) =e (x) e (y) (- 1/4 pi epsilon-o r) ^-1;
e ( R ) = e (+) (epsilon) ^1/2: reduced charge field;
e (+): theoretical charge value;
e (D) = e (+) - e ( R ) = e (+) [1 - (eta) ^1/2];
e (w) = (1/2) e (+) (1 + (eta^1/2)] ;
2V (ee) = V (RR) +V (ww);
eta pi = (4 + pi^4) ^1/4
Thus we get:
ln (K/A) - ln [F (z) /F (z-1)] = 2ln [V (RR) /V (ee)] + ln [V (De) /V (ee)] and
K = [F (z) /F (z-1)]A (eta) ² [1 (eta) ^1/2)]
A is the arithmetic means from the coupling constants of A (j), which refer to the partial structures in the electron.
A comes out as A = (2/3) [1 + alpha/8 pi e)]
The Fibonacci number Chi comes now with the solution of F (z) in the mass formula for the electron. From the metronic solution follows for Chi:
Chi = lim [F ( r ): F (r-dr)] as n goes to infinity, = 1 + lim [F (r-2dr): F (r-dr)] = 1 + {lim F (r-dr): (F (r-2dr)}^-1 = 1 + 1/Chi or
Chi ² - Chi = 1 with the positive solution Chi = 1/2 [1 + (5) ^1/2]
Chi is in K and K is in the correction: m (e) = m (A) (1 - K)
That is naturally justified by Heim in much greater detail.
With this brevity I can provide only a superficial suggestion of it here.
Best regards,
I.v.Ludwiger
Olaf
3rd August 2006 - 02:45 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Aug 3 2006, 09:01 AM) On Fibonacci, Olaf & I were discussing it off-line - here an excerpt: Sorry to the community. I've totally messed up xi and eta. Shame on me! So my question was totally senseless. I shouldn't write letters about more than 3 dimensions late in the evening!
hdeasy
4th August 2006 - 07:56 AM
I was also talking rubbish when I said that p(p-1)(p-2) was the product of Fibonacci terms - I was also suffering the late night effect! IvL's mail is more to the point...
hdeasy
7th August 2006 - 09:16 AM
I've just seen Droscher and Hauser's updated, longer version of the paper there they derive Tajmar's result. Tajmar himself had corrected an error in their calculation where they had neglected acceleration of the rotation. The result is now even better, though! They now get 0.98 compared to Tajmar et al's 1.0 E-4 g. Anohter paer will compare niobium and lead... This longer paper will soon be on the http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/ site.
TRoc
12th August 2006 - 07:51 PM
hdeasy,
Do you know the Title of the paper? It's hard to tell from the index on the site that you linked when each paper was produced. (maybe it's not there yet?)
ciao!
T.Roc
Neil Farbstein
14th August 2006 - 04:07 PM
QUOTE (TRoc+Aug 12 2006, 07:51 PM) hdeasy,
Do you know the Title of the paper? It's hard to tell from the index on the site that you linked when each paper was produced. (maybe it's not there yet?)
ciao!
T.Roc What's up TROC, HDEASY?
will314159
14th August 2006 - 07:25 PM
the paper ain't come out yet folks- at least the last time i checked- but i have bee busy keep up with bush bin laden.
millka
14th August 2006 - 10:07 PM
will314159
14th August 2006 - 11:12 PM
very good Milka, thanks. Very oood revised and extended paper. It gives new meaning to the phrase, "I'd like to extend and revise my remarks."
Best Wishes.
Tim
17th August 2006 - 02:10 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Aug 7 2006, 09:16 AM) I've just seen Droscher and Hauser's updated, longer version of the paper there they derive Tajmar's result. Tajmar himself had corrected an error in their calculation where they had neglected acceleration of the rotation. Something has been bothering me for a little while now. Why on earth would Tajmar even attempt his experiment? His results were far above what GR predicted, but they were still at the very limit of his ability to detect them. Admittedly, I have not read his findings and it is likely that his justification for conducting the experiment is spelled out explicitly in his published works, but it seems to me that he must have had some idea that his results were going to be close to what they were or he wouldn't have bothered. Was Tajmar in contact with the Heim group prior to his experiment? If not, what was his justification for conducting the experiment?Everyone on this forum, myself included, would like to believe that Tajmar's results lend credence to Heim Theory and all that that implies, however I can't help but question not only why Tajmar did his experiment, but also the timing with which he revealed his results. Is it merely coincidence that he published mere months after the Newscientist article had stirred us all up with dreams of interstellar travel?
unitx
17th August 2006 - 06:59 PM
If you look at his biography you will see that he has held an interest in gravitomagnetism. He further states that he is interested in making interstellar travel possible. Don't forget that he had been doing the superconductor experiment for 8 months before releasing his results. It is possible he might have done this in light of the recent publicity that Heim theory has recieved. http://ilfb.tuwien.ac.at/~tajmar/
Tim
17th August 2006 - 08:07 PM
Unitx, Thanks for the link. I've been to that page before, but I guess I've never actually read it. I'll grant you that Tajmar was interested in gravitomagnetism prior to conducting the experiment, most (if not all) of which was conducted long before the Newscientist article, though well after Heim first published... I guess what I'm really asking is if he was just shooting in the dark or if he was expecting to get the results that he got? Are there any theories of gravitomagnetism, Heim or otherwise, that are solid enough to predict the observed effects? What theoretical model served as the basis for the experiment?
Unitx
17th August 2006 - 08:21 PM
QUOTE (Tim+Aug 17 2006, 08:07 PM) I guess what I'm really asking is if he was just shooting in the dark or if he was expecting to get the results that he got? Are there any theories of gravitomagnetism, Heim or otherwise, that are solid enough to predict the observed effects? What theoretical model served as the basis for the experiment? I agree, it seems as though he was shooting in the dark, but he might have known about this theory for awhile. Even though many physicists have not heard of Heim theory, I am sure that someone in his field would have some knowledge due to the recognition it has gained from the AIAA in recent years. Tajmar himself seems enthuisiastic about reaching other solar systems in his bio so maybe he knew this experiment would ultimately build on Heim's theory for interstellar travel.
Zeinin
19th August 2006 - 12:06 AM
Hey, I have gotten really interested in this therory since I happend upon it on the Wiki. I quickly read all I could about it and was lead to the graviomagnetic drive concept, which for obvious reasons caputured my imagination. I have a few questions about the system and a potential avenue of observation. First of all, What does the device look like? Is it a spinning superconducting ring with a high current running through it, or is it just a spinning massive ring with a magnetic field intesecting it? What force vector does it produce, and how is it related to the configuration of the device (IE, does it get pulled along the spin axis of the torus at right angles to the magnetic field?) how do all the vectors relate, and what are some general equations that define the final output force? IE how does mass of rotor Vs total current in torus Vs strength of magnetic field add up to net force along some vector? Now, as for potential paths of research, a lightbulb went off in my head as soon as I read about the engine.. massive body spinning rapidly subject to enourmous magnetic fields.... reminded me of Magnetars, the lesser-known cousins pulsars. I figured that these tremendous collapsed stars would be in essence, stellar-scale Heim drives. So I started looking up information on them, and lo and behold, most of the magnetars are found well offset from the supernova remanant that used to be thier home. In fact, one of them is estimated to be moving at 10 million miles per hour http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/release...1/09_magne.htmlHere is a quote from this site on magnetars: http://solomon.as.utexas.edu/~duncan/magnetar.html"There was one more tantalizing clue... The position of burster, as precisely determined using data from 7 different spacecraft, did not lie at the center of the spherical SNR, but significantly displaced toward the edge. (See the figure above.) This displacement was verified in 1991 when a faint, steady "point source" of X-rays was found at the position of the burster, allowing its position to be accurately measured. (These X-rays are evidently emitted by the burster. Astronomers call it a "point source" because its size and shape are not measured: it is so small that it is indistinguishable from a point with present X-ray telescopes.) " So we know that Magnetars are massive spinning bodys posessing immense magnetic fields. We also know that many of them are well away from whatever event that spawned them. We also know that some might still be moving at an incredible clip. So, What needs to be done is apply the Heim drive concept to the known properties of these stars to determine if any effect of that nature is in play here. So far, there have been a few ideas descibing why the Magnetars are moving so fast, mostly based on neutrino rocket events. The first and most simple comparison is determining if the spin axis of the magnetars aligns with thier velocity vector ( I am assuming that the Heim drive produces force along the spin axis). I am not familiar with the physics of the sytem to go beyond that, but if there is a system in nature that could prove or disprove the concept, it would be magnetars
will314159
20th August 2006 - 12:43 PM
Max brought this to my attention, he came furiously running on his three legs with his tail rotating for graviphotonic-magentic balance. "Scientists flock to test 'free energy' discovery" http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1854305,00.htmlBest Wishes
Neil Farbstein
20th August 2006 - 12:52 PM
QUOTE (will314159+Aug 20 2006, 12:43 PM) Max brought this to my attention, he came furiously running on his three legs with his tail rotating for graviphotonic-magentic balance. "Scientists flock to test 'free energy' discovery" http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1854305,00.htmlBest Wishes That's incredible. They really ought to test that thing. Where does the energy come from? What;s their theory?
Zephir
20th August 2006 - 01:06 PM
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Aug 20 2006, 03:52 PM) That's incredible. They really ought to test that thing. Where does the energy come from? What;s their theory? The gauntlet provided by Steorn Co. CEO Sean McCarthy appears a quite large.. It looks like serious thing.... well, again.  If you want to see more about some patent check here. It's an interesting arrangement of magnets and a magnetic shield on a linear slide, seems like the principle is to do with low energy switching of the magnetic fields. But by Steorn this patent " refered to the low energy magnetic actuator is not a patent on the core steorn technology . The other patents are currently pre-PCT and will move to the PCT phase (and hence be available to the public) in the near future."
UncleMatt
20th August 2006 - 01:50 PM
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 20 2006, 07:06 AM) The gauntlet provided by Steorn Co. CEO Sean McCarthy appears a quite large.. It looks like serious thing.... well, again. If you want to see more about some patent check here. It's an interesting arrangement of magnets and a magnetic shield on a linear slide, seems like the principle is to do with low energy switching of the magnetic fields. But by Steorn this patent " refered to the low energy magnetic actuator is not a patent on the core steorn technology . The other patents are currently pre-PCT and will move to the PCT phase (and hence be available to the public) in the near future." There is another thread on physorg.com for this topic. Please don't hijack.
Zephir
20th August 2006 - 02:20 PM
QUOTE (UncleMatt+Aug 20 2006, 04:50 PM) There is another thread on physorg.com for this topic. Please don't hijack. I didn't know about it at the moment of answering of the Neil Farbstein's question. After all, it can be an important application of Heim's gravitonphoton theory. Please, don't include the images into reply, it makes the forum not providing an easy survey.
Nick
20th August 2006 - 06:26 PM
Zeph does Heim have a quantum gravity theory?
He uses gravitons right?
Zephir
20th August 2006 - 06:48 PM
QUOTE (Nick+Aug 20 2006, 09:26 PM) Zeph does Heim have a quantum gravity theory? He uses gravitons right? I suppose, the Heim's theory is sort of quantum gravity theory, where the metrons are playing a role of gravitons in (mem)brane structure, proposed ad hoc. But this is just my private insight based on Heim's illustrations and conceptual approach, as I don't understand his math at all (like most of people here) and I'm missing the list of introducing postulates in Heim's theory. Without solid list of postulates and assumptions, each the theory can claim virtually everything, after all. Concerning the existing results of Heim's mass formula, the Heim's approach looks impressive. The Heim's theory is monumental piece of individual creativity, which can serve as the intellectual source of formal approach for generations. But I hope, the underlying physic is much more simple, then math formalism developed by Heim. We have a powerful computers by now, so I would prefer the more simpler and general approach based on the underlying wave mechanic understanding rather than abstract theory. Here's the risk, such dedicated formalism cannot be extended easily to suit our particular needs...
Neil Farbstein
21st August 2006 - 03:48 AM
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 20 2006, 01:06 PM) The gauntlet provided by Steorn Co. CEO Sean McCarthy appears a quite large.. It looks like serious thing.... well, again. If you want to see more about some patent check here. It's an interesting arrangement of magnets and a magnetic shield on a linear slide, seems like the principle is to do with low energy switching of the magnetic fields. But by Steorn this patent " refered to the low energy magnetic actuator is not a patent on the core steorn technology . The other patents are currently pre-PCT and will move to the PCT phase (and hence be available to the public) in the near future." I'l like to see some videos of it working nonstop. I bet no videos are available. It's unbelievable. Put a 24 hour webcam on them and wait for the batteries to run down.
Zephir
21st August 2006 - 03:56 AM
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Aug 21 2006, 06:48 AM) Put a 24 hour webcam on them and wait for the batteries to run down. No chance, You forgot the thin cable in the floor...
Count Able
22nd August 2006 - 07:01 AM
Nasa finds direct proof for dark matter. What does Heim theory tells us about dark matter? Can Nasa's findings be explained with the theory of Heim?
Aljaz
22nd August 2006 - 09:14 AM
Speaking of dark matter and gravity...
Can someone please provide a definition for a function F( r ) whose value corresponds to the gravitational force between two point masses (m1, m2) separated by r according to Hem's corrected gravitational law?
Thanks!
UncleMatt
22nd August 2006 - 12:38 PM
QUOTE (Count Able+Aug 22 2006, 01:01 AM) Nasa finds direct proof for dark matter. What does Heim theory tells us about dark matter? Can Nasa's findings be explained with the theory of Heim? What, Zephir, you're not going to lecture him about including photos in replies?
hdeasy
22nd August 2006 - 03:27 PM
I'm on holiday and so haven't been following the thread for a while. First on Heim theory being quantum gravitation - yes, it's a form of that. It has certain similarities to Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG). All forces are explained as combinations of metrics in the 'polymetric' - each such combination being termed a hermetry. Gravitons pop out tentatively as associated with the partial metric on Heim's 2-dim sub-space S2 - see e.g. http://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/doc...hortVersion.pdf. Next I was surprised to see Steorn mentioned - as I am in Ireland and only saw it so far mentioned in the Irish Times the day it put that add in the media. I must trawl the web to see what sort of credence may be lent this - does it outshine Blacklight, Cold Fusion etc. as the great hope of the alternative enrergy scence? As an Irishman I'd be delighted... Oh and on how far Tajmar's experiment was above noise - Hauser's account of Tajmar's Berkeley (I think) talk said he mentioned as yet unpublished results that were now up to 15 sigma above the noise level - i.e. beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt. Ciao, Hdeasy
Zephir
22nd August 2006 - 03:47 PM
QUOTE (UncleMatt+Aug 22 2006, 03:38 PM) ..you're not going to lecture him about including photos in replies? Why? Do you see some photos in his replies?
Count Able
22nd August 2006 - 10:04 PM
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 22 2006, 03:47 PM) Why? Do you see some photos in his replies? Certainly not! But on the dark matter matter. All I could foind in the wikipedia article is this: The extended Heim-Dröscher theory also claims to account for the "dark matter" problem of astrophysics I hope there are some people here who can tell me more about this. Thanks.
phlack
23rd August 2006 - 02:11 PM
this is junk. it's an investment scam. check out my posts and research thusfar: please read my critique on these "companies". there is much more to this than meets the eye, it seems that there is a network of these guys that give ea. other rave reviews that really don't say anything, i.e. we've confirmed there results in our own labs. that could mean anything. there are individuals which are affiliated with this fraud that are fairly well known for scamming investors. Here's what i've dug up: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry117881not only that i sincerely believe this guy is using staged posters. Formulaic responses and very slick talkin kinda give it away. Just look into this a lil, i.e. beyond the first 12 pages of results you get when you search for info on google. Cons are slick, cover up their past, and rarely will directly answer to questions or scrutiny. Instead turning the tables on skeptics by asking the skeptic for the burden of proof. which is bass ackwards. they steorn, magnetic power inc., and alot of these "alternative energy" companies will not give you proof and will always be 6 months from releasing their product. I'll send them buckets of money if they'll just prove it to me. And I mean prove in a public forum. Not just discredit your critics by provoking them to anger so that they say something you can use against them. These are some manipulative conspiratorial fools. However they've got big big blue bowling balls to try to pull a stunt this big.
phlack
23rd August 2006 - 02:30 PM
Dr. hem? oh great another obscure non euclidian space aether theory. did he base this idea on perelman's "proofs" (perelman didn't give proofs only path to proofs, a conjecture about a conjecture more or less)? Does he actually believe that people are disappearing into these "holes" in space or is this just some spin off idea that some quack came up with using his theories? I think these holes have been discovered already too. only thing is there in the interatomic spaces and very very very small and short lived. they're called worm holes. non euclidian space is no breakthrough, and altered theories of gravity are kinda on the outs considering the recent discovery of direct evidence of dark matter. So since i really couldn't find very much information on dr. hem. why don't you fill us in on his ideas.
TRoc
23rd August 2006 - 02:43 PM
phlack,
Read the thread you are posting in, if you want to be "filled in". There are 60 plus pages to choose from; take the novel approach, and start from 1.
If you want to search the net, sharpen your crack research skills, and start by spelling his name right. You will have much better luck then.
Overall, without wasting too much more time, the conversation here is not what you are talking about, so how about keeping your crusade for justice in your own thread?
Regards,
T.Roc
Icarus_II
23rd August 2006 - 08:40 PM
To all, Phlack is obviously a troll, that is someone who likes to spread discord and waste the resources of those who actually contribute relevant material to the forum. Please ignore him and continue developing this very interesting and informative thread.
DEK46656
24th August 2006 - 03:36 AM
Good evening everyone…
Regarding the “dark matter” sub-thread, I have always thought that “dark matter” and "dark energy" were the worse addendum's to be added to the prevalent cosmology (the expansionist big bang) to date. If memory serves, they were added to account for the difference between the amount of matter that could be detected, and the amount of matter that the math suggested should exist in the universe. I believe it is also meant to address (via dark energy) an accelerating expansion of the universe.
Mind you, I’m not “knocking” the scientist that developed this theory, or worked out the details. Quite the contrary, they are “orders of magnitude” more intelligent and qualified than I am. It is just that at some point a theory should be tossed out, or completely re-defined, due to so many “patches”.
That is one of the reasons why I am so excited (and accepting) of Heim theory; it doesn’t attempt to patch existing theories so much as create a completely new theory that fits “all” of the existing experimental data that has been collected (insert disclaimer here).
Now I’m sure that there are some that might point out the addendum's added to Heim theory; initially the adjustment from 6 to 8 dimensions in defining matter and forces, and most recently the data from Tajmar's experiment. From what I can tell, both of these are not so much addendum's as mathematical corrections. Both HT and EHT indicated a total of 12 initial dimensions. EHT was correcting a mathematical “error” in that the 2 additional dimensions (from 6 to 8) were needed to address/correct the mass formulas and forces of nature. If I interpreted the latest AIAA paper that was published, it was also a mathematical re-analysis that took place to answer the experimental results from Tajmar's experiment.
Anyway, coming back to the dark matter reference, I do not believe (E)HT needs dark matter due to its unique cosmology. That cosmology was tied into the underlying theory explaining matter as it exists presently; specifically the metron, its required size for matter to exist, and its current size. In fact, this was a topic I started a few weeks back from the SciAm article; the inferred delta in the Proton - Electron mass ratio changing over time.
As to dark energy, the accelerating expansion of the universe is addressed by one of the "new" forces (Gq) predicted in (E)HT.
So my question is, does (E)HT really have to say that dark matter/energy exist? I would think all it would need to do is explain the observed events in its own theory, preferably by providing a solid mathematical solution.
Well, that’s my opinion anyway. I’m open to any observations for or against this perspective.
will314159
25th August 2006 - 01:09 AM
i was spoofing. obviously there is no free lunch. the whole thing is a crock. The give away is the "hi tech" firm that developed this stuff is a software company. Clearly they are looking for publicity. That's Max's opinion and he says he's sticking to it.
Best Wishes
MMC
25th August 2006 - 01:22 AM
| QUOTE |
That is one of the reasons why I am so excited (and accepting) of Heim theory; it doesn’t attempt to patch existing theories so much as create a completely new theory that fits “all” of the existing experimental data that has been collected (insert disclaimer here).
<br>The disclaimer:
Heim theory is not a theory similar to the likes of GUT, QM or Relativity. It presents a framework from which to infer certain facts in regards to the universe and its structure. In it present form, it predicts the values of neutrino masses and neutrinos that have not yet been detected. The success or failure to match the predicted values to reality, is irrelevent. Such data is used solely to refine the framework, which allows for further reverse engineering of reality.
If Heim theory could be related to IT principles, it would be a disassembler currently in development.
hdeasy
25th August 2006 - 01:55 PM
QUOTE (Unitx+Aug 17 2006, 08:21 PM) I agree, it seems as though he was shooting in the dark, but he might have known about this theory for awhile. Even though many physicists have not heard of Heim theory, I am sure that someone in his field would have some knowledge due to the recognition it has gained from the AIAA in recent years. Tajmar himself seems enthuisiastic about reaching other solar systems in his bio so maybe he knew this experiment would ultimately build on Heim's theory for interstellar travel. Tajmar stated somewhere, either in one of the papers or on an on-line interview, that the reason they were doing the experiments was that they had been seeking an explanation for the observed discrepancy between the theoretical weight of Cooper Pair electrons and those measured in low temperature superconductors. THis effect, already an anomaly in physics, made them suspect they might measure something anomalous with the accelerometers. They were not disappointed!. Oh and to Will31415926 - in my case it was my wife that brought the Steorn thing to my attention - I was in Ireland and it was in the paper. And they are NOT just a software firm - they were working on improving security for ATMs with min-cameras and wanted to improve the efficiency or independence of the power supply when they say they stumbled on this. I'll have a look at the thread now and may [ost that Guardian article on it that not's on-line anymore...
Tim
25th August 2006 - 04:41 PM
hdeasy,
Thank you. I was very curious as to the reasoning behind Tajmar and de Matos's work and you put me on the right track. The following is the abstract from their paper entitled Gravitomegnetic Fields in Rotating Superconductors to Solve Tate's Cooper Pair Mass Anomaly
Abstract. Superconductors have often been used to claim gravitational anomalies in the context of breakthrough propulsion. The experiments could not be reproduced by others up to now, and the theories were either shown to be wrong or are often based on difficult to prove assumptions. We will show that superconductors indeed could be used to produce non-classical gravitational fields, based on the established disagreement between theoretical prediction and measured Cooper-pair mass in Niobium. Tate et al failed to measure the Cooper-pair mass in Niobium as predicted by quantum theory. This has been discussed in the literature without any apparent solution. Based on the work from DeWitt to include gravitomagnetism in the canonical momentum of Cooper-pairs, the authors published a number of papers discussing a possibly involved gravitomagnetic field in rotating superconductors to solve Tate’s measured anomaly. Although one possibility to match Tate’s measurement, a number of reasons were developed by the authors over the last years to show that the gravitomagnetic field in a rotating quantum material must be different from its classical value and that Tate’s result is actually the first experimental sign for it. This paper reviews the latest theoretical approaches to solve the Tate Cooper-pair anomaly based on gravitomagnetic fields in rotating superconductors.
Tim
25th August 2006 - 04:56 PM
As an addendum to my last post, here is the abstract for Tate's 1990 paper entitled Determination of the Cooper-pair mass in Niobium
Abstract. We have measured the ratio of Planck's constant h to the observable mass m' of a Cooper pair in a superconductor, using a rotating superconducting ring. The flux through such a ring of area S is zero for a set of rotation frequencies evenly spaced by Δν and h/2πm'=2SΔν. Our measurements of S and Δν enable us to quote a value of m'/2me for niobium of 1.000084 (21). This result disagrees with predictions from currently available theories.
Except for Heim Theory...
Jennifer Williams
26th August 2006 - 03:10 AM
[FONT=Impact] [SIZE=7] Here is a challenge problem that i bet no one can solve!!
The CHALLENGE Problem is : Using four 4's and operations on these 4's, create an approximation for the golden ratio, theta= 1.61803.... (Hint: nested roots are useful)...
This is such a brain-teaser .. Is there any genius that can solve this crazy problem>
Zephir
26th August 2006 - 10:32 AM
QUOTE (Jennifer Williams+Aug 26 2006, 06:10 AM) four 4's and operations on these 4's, create an approximation for the golden ratio, theta= 1.61803.... (Hint: nested roots are useful)... Hint of hint: The golden ratio was disputed here by three or so pages before in connection with Heim's theory...
Guest_Jennifer
26th August 2006 - 03:28 PM
Zephir,
I looked at that page already or something similar to the Heim Theory, and i still did not get the calculation correct... Do you think that you, yourself know the solution>? I would be ever so greatful!!
Zephir
26th August 2006 - 04:40 PM
QUOTE (Guest_Jennifer+Aug 26 2006, 06:28 PM) Do you think that you, yourself know the solution? I don't think so - should I? I've my own theory.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
