Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory

Knock yourself out, Astepintime. I found a pretty good fit with 143 data points. Probably should’ve doubled-checked these. It looks like they tossed out a point between running and resting intervals, so I’ve clustered them accordingly below:

1.) -0.7
2.) -0.5
3.) -0.38
4.) 0.122
5.) 0.505
6.) 0.2
7.) -0.02
8.) 0.515
9.) 0.97
10.) 0.285
11.) -0.208
12.) 0.103
13.) -0.26
14.) -0.2
15.) 0.7
16.) 0.664
17.) 1.105
18.) 0.67
19.) -0.05
20.) -0.26
21.) -0.28
22.) -0.086
23.) -0.09
24.) -0.49
25.) -0.387
26.) 0.188
27.) 0.447
28.) 0.767
29.) 1.268
30.) 0.828
31.) -0.35

32.) -0.78

33.) -0.575
34.) -0.11
35.) 0.018
36.) -0.06
37.) 0.002
38.) 0.025
39.) -0.1
40.) 0.222
41.) -0.218
42.) -0.856
43.) -0.4
44.) 0.0
45.) -0.316
46.) 0.075
47.) 0.46
48.) 0.36
49.) 0.001
50.) 0.025
51.) -0.05
52.) 0.187
53.) 0.118
54.) 0.1
55.) 0.425
56.) 0.16
57.) 0.146
58.) 0.989

59.) 1.29

60.) 1.089
61.) 0.587
62.) 0.468
63.) 0.54
64.) 0.394
65.) -0.132
66.) -0.232
67.) 0.627
68.) 1.089
69.) 0.189
70.) -0.667
71.) -0.626
72.) -0.352
73.) -0.491
74.) -0.59
75.) -0.05
76.) 0.367
77.) 0.246
78.) 0.461
79.) 0.391
80.) -0.62

81.) -0.63

82.) 0.308
83.) 0.271
84.) -0.62
85.) -0.362
86.) 0.497
87.) 0.186
88.) -0.91
89.) -0.95
90.) -0.556
91.) -0.818
92.) -1.324
93.) -1.169
94.) -0.998
95.) -0.593
96.) -0.457
97.) -0.508
98.) -0.327
99.) -0.032
100.) -0.139
101.) -0.364
102.) -0.342
103.) -0.296
104.) -0.263
105.) -1.00
106.) -1.04
107.) 0.122
108.) 1.18

109.) 0.347

110.) -0.563
111.) -0.062
112.) 0.798
113.) 0.803
114.) -0.316
115.) -1.174
116.) -0.95
117.) 0.187
118.) 0.833
119.) 0.392
120.) -0.288
121.) -0.10
122.) 0.247
123.) 0.151
124.) 0.108
125.) 0.267
126.) 0.358
127.) 0.634
128.) 0.719
129.) 0.162
130.) 0.318
131.) 0.842
132.) 0.669
133.) 0.228
134.) 0.495
135.) 0.962
136.) 1.191
137.) 0.751
138.) 0.039
139.) 0.038
140.) -0.188
141.) 0.185
142.) 1.301
143.) -0.65

See, it’s talk like that makes me all tingly inside. I’ll be waiting anxiously to hear the results of your analysis, good sir.

Thanks Max. I was hoping that someone had code to easily extract the data.

Ok, since no errors are given for the data points in the figure I will assume that the errors are normally distributed and looking at the different periods (rest, rotation) I can estimate the sigma of the distribution. The first 31 data points are well distributed as a Gaussian with a sigma of ~ .54. The entire data set gives a sigma of .57.

Assuming the errors to be .57 the chi-square = ~82 with degrees of freedom (df) = 143
Which is very reasonable!! Yielding a Q=(1-p) of > ~10-4
Definitely consistent with a flat distribution!

I think we would agree any larger error bars and the data is totally meaningless.

Heck, even if we pick a small error of .33 (which is clearly to small) the chi-squared = ~141 Almost perfect for a flat distribution!

NOW I would bet that the data is ALSO consistent with the Tajmar's results! But you see that is the POINT. The data does not support the Tajmar's results because you cannot rule out a flat distribution.

Hi John,

Yes, I have got a fair way to converting the Fortran to F95 - it was in F77 or similar: problem is that F95 is code sensitive etc. So I have to correct some of the code to get it to run. Nearly there - got through initital setup: just a problem in the main loop. I agree that as yet I see no sign of A being used and it looks encouraging.

Hugh

.33 Error?
WOW! Isn't .33 inferring "1/3" or 33% error?

Surely there's a Typo!?

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..

When you first discovered the "source" of the A Matrix, was it also present in the documentation about the formulas and such, or was it something buried in the code (a bug) that was intended to be fixed and just wasn't.

I guess I'm concerned that if someone wrote the code to produce the formulas presented in the literature, then it should be possible to do the same without any input from the Heim Theory Group.

Consider it a form of "peer review", but for the software. Do you feel this is possible, or is there something that needs to be changed in the documentation to resolve the A Matrix issue?

When I first looked into the 1982 version, the A matrix was present in the equations and a suggestion given for its values. Only in reading Heim's books did I learn the source of the values. Heim said that he had to fix the values to obtain correct ground state masses. I assumed that in the following work this hadn't changed. Apparently that assumption is incorrect. It looks like Heim made further progress and found a way to derive masses without the A matrix, so the A matrix should no longer be part of the discussion.

It should be possible to derive these formulas, but trying to understand Heim theory is not an easy task. I don't think anyone has succeded in doing that. All we have are Heim's final equations and his initial assumptions, but making the connection between his starting point and final equations is most difficult.

John Reed

Hello everyone, I've been reading this discussion for a while now. Nice to see really exciting work going on at the moment and some good scientific discussion on a subject with tremendous implications.

Finally I feel I may have something to contribute

@Astepintime...
I dont really agree with your analysis of the data. If you look back at the plot posted by HDeasy (pg111) you'll see that the blocks of data posted by Maxwell's Demon correspond to...
1. no rotation
2 +ve rotation
3. no rotation
4. -ve rotation
5. no rotation

So if we do a simple equal variance T-test between the unrotated and +ve rotation data we can see that the Sagnac Frequency Deviation during rotation is statistically different to that at stationary at the 85% confidence level (P=0.152) - This isn't entirely convincing, however...

Repeating this for the -ve rotation data shows that the SFD during -ve rotation is statistically different to the SFD at zero rotation at the 99.999% confidence level (P=6.4e-6)

I believe that this is a more correct analysis.

Now, I completely agree that there is a severe lack of data so the results aren't very robust, but it is a bit heavy-handed to write them off entirely.

Looking forward to results on the mass derivations - and also updates on Gravity B

Hi Max's demon..

Many months ago Tajmar indicated in an interview that several groups were attempting to reproduce his effect. I think it was someone else who mentioned Berkeley. No-one then said anything about Canterbury, so that was a bonus. As would be Gravity B. Let's just be patient - in a few weeks the next group will certainly make themselves known. We already see that an important group in NZ has made the effort. THis shows the physics community was indeed impressed that a first rate experimenter like Tajmar had been successful.

Hauser has a lab but not equipped for this sort of test. D & H are theorists in this area - so of course they are looking for experimenters to confirm their predictions.

The Heim group has no funding for experiments until now and have thus concentrated on theory. Again - if anyone reading this would care to fund an exciting experiment... Also, it's not a question of hiding results: the theoretical derivations of Heim's results are difficult. The Heim-theory group had a sketched derivation on their web-site up to a year ago but removed it to re-work it. As they have no funding it's taking time to re-do that. Droscher is the best theorist still on Heim theory: he and Hauser have just come from the US after talking with the editor of the review journal they will publish with next year. That will be at least peer reviewed. Don't blame them: as I say they aren't funded and Heim had this eccentric wish to avoid publication via normal channels.

You can see from John's latest post that the 1989 code does indeed seem to avoid he A matrix he had feared was still present. Okay - communication between him and the HT group was a bit slow, but we're getting there. So the mass predicion is recovering and the D & H prediction for the anti-grav improvement to Tajmar's setup is still outstanding. So a realist would be more optimistic now .

Well, the formula may be back on track (see above). The list you give up there is mighty imppressive compared to String Theory;
grounds enough to retain hope, I should think. Also there is

- the 'q-gravion' or quintessence force of Heim may explain Dark Energy.

If all these predictions come true than there will be cause for celebration.

This post has been edited by hdeasy on Sep 1 2007, 04:46 PM

@hdeasy:

I've posted earlier about so called gargantuan hole and that apparently photons passing thru it lose energy exactly as EHT already predicted it.

Isn't that a confirmation of Heim's corrected gravitional law?
Just see that part:

And this one:

What do you think about this? Is there any other explanation for this phenomena?
One more thing. Mumbling about mysterious Dark Mater or Dark Energy isn't an answer.

/Joss

@Hugh,

I've completed my programming of Heim's unpublished 1989 equations to derive the extra quantum numbers (n, m, p, sigma) that I thought were coming from the A matrix. I can now say for certain that the A matrix is not involved with this new version. In addition, I can derive particle masses with only the quantum numbers k, Q, P, kappa and charge without the A matrix. This is what I had hoped to be able to do. These results agree with Anton Mueller's results.

I'm able to get accurate masses for the 17 test particles I have tried this program on. The worst mass comparisons with experimental data are the neutron, 939.11 vs 939.56 experimental and the eta, 548.64 vs 547.3 experimental. All the others are closer, sometimes agreeing to 6 digits.

I thought I might be able to put in any set of quantum numbers for an untested particle and get a mass. This didn't work. I tried the rho+ meson, quantum numbers k=1, P=2, Q=2, kappa=1 or 2 and charge +1. This gave masses of -2000 and + 8. This meson has an experimental mass of 768. However on reading further, the rho is an excited state of the pion, so I used the old 1982 program that calculates excited states, and the first excited state of the pion has mass 775.

All this is very interesting. I think Heim theory might be correct. Much more work needs to be done on calculating interactions, excited states and decay products, but I think all this will turn out to be important, perhaps leading to a new area of physics.

John Reed, Ph.D (physics)

Now this is exciting! I'd stopped mentioning the mass calculations when telling people about EHT because of jreed's previous work with the 1982 formula. Now I guess I can start mentioning them again. Awesome!

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to jreed, hdeasy, and all the other's who've taken the time to do actual work (from translating to physics to programing) relating to Heim Theory.

Hugh and John,

Congratulations on these early results. This is very exciting news.

Hi all,


Thanks for the even harder task of going through that again, with serious doubt in your mind, Dr. Reed. I am very glad to hear that there was no "foul play" involved, and that HT looks promising.


Can you repeat which constants/input are used for those mass derivations?



Thanks,


T.Roc

Hi darzhliebek,

I agree with you that the T-test is more appropriate to use here; the conventional statistic for measuring the significance of a difference of means. However, let’s look at this statistic when you estimate the measure for ALL the pairs of data sets.

Data set 1 [1,30] = no rotation
Data set 2 [33,58] = +ve rotation
Data set 3 [60,80] = no rotation
Data set 4 [82, 108] = -ve rotation
Data set 5 [110,143] = no rotation

Data set 1-2 Ttest = 1.28 df= 55 Prob = .206
1-3 Ttest = 0.31 df= 50 Prob = .76 No rotation comparison
1-4 Ttest = 3.94 df= 56 Prob = .0002
1-5 Ttest = -0.52 df= 63 Prob = .60 No rotation comparison
2-3 Ttest = -0.79 df= 45 Prob = .43
2-4 Ttest = 3.15 df= 51 Prob = .0027
2-5 Ttest = -1.75 df= 58 Prob = .085
3-4 Ttest = 3.16 df= 46 Prob = .0028
3-5 Ttest = -0.76 df= 53 Prob = .45 No rotation comparison
4-5 Ttest = -4.30 df= 59 Prob = .0001

The first thing you see is differences between the probabilities with the No-rotation samples used. Heck, between themselves the no rotation samples have probs of 76%, 60% and 40%. The comparison of the 4-5 and 3-4 data blocks show a T-test difference almost factor of ~30 apart! These two facts worry me, each suggesting possible ‘systematic’ errors that remain unaccounted for.

Normally one considers the difference between means to be very significant when the prob is < ~ 0.001. However, the standard is raised when considering physics break-through experiments. For the student T-test in this experiment I would think it should be no greater than .0001 for all comparisons made over many days (or months) of running.

Another ‘simple’ way of looking at the problem, as I first mentioned, is to just ask the question is the distribution of the data consistent with a flat distribution. The chi-squared estimates suggests that a flat distribution cannot be ruled out. The Canterbury people themselves estimated the slope to be 2.3 +/- 1.4 microcycles per radian which is within 2 sigma of no slope at all (flat) !

We both agree that the results are not robust and I am not really being so heavy-handed to write the data off completely but I believe the burden of proof is so much higher in cases of this type. So being conservative I would still say that IMHO the data does not support the Tajmars results (but does not ‘fully’ contradict it either).

Yes, very encouraging, especially to those of us who barely have our heads far enough out of the muck to see what's realy going on!

I don't know if it will bear fruit, but I've e-mailed my sister-in-law's child (I don't want to put any pressure on him/her in his/her area) at UC Berkeley to ask if any local 'word' is passing around about the Tajmar experiments.

Now,... should I get out my Captain Kirk or Engineer Scotty uniform?... Decisions, decisions!