Scientific Forums


Pages: (209) « First ... 111 112 [113] 114 115 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add replyStart new topicStart new poll


> Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
Maxwell's Demon
Posted: Aug 31 2007, 02:55 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 4-March 06

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 1


QUOTE
If someone can extract the data from the figure it is quite easy to then calculate the confidence level that their data is consistent with a flat distribution. Until I see those numbers I remain unconvinced.


Knock yourself out, Astepintime. I found a pretty good fit with 143 data points. Probably shouldíve doubled-checked these. It looks like they tossed out a point between running and resting intervals, so Iíve 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

QUOTE
The Heim Group has given me the Fortran code for the newer Heim version.  I'm coding it up in Mathematica so I can get a better understanding of what it involves.  So far, it looks like the A matrix is not used in finding the masses.  The new version is able to find the quantum numbers n, m, p and sigma with an algorithm.  It all looks very promising. 

John Reed


See, itís talk like that makes me all tingly inside. Iíll be waiting anxiously to hear the results of your analysis, good sir.

Top
Astepintime
Posted: Aug 31 2007, 08:51 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Power Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 11-December 06

Positive Feedback: 75%
Feedback Score: 3


QUOTE (Maxwell's Demon @ Aug 31 2007, 02:55 PM)

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


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.
Top
hdeasy
Posted: Aug 31 2007, 09:01 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 326
Joined: 16-January 06

Positive Feedback: 85.71%
Feedback Score: 6


QUOTE (jreed @ Aug 31 2007, 01:42 PM)
The Heim Group has given me the Fortran code for the newer Heim version. I'm coding it up in Mathematica so I can get a better understanding of what it involves. So far, it looks like the A matrix is not used in finding the masses. The new version is able to find the quantum numbers n, m, p and sigma with an algorithm. It all looks very promising.

John Reed

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
Top
Laidback
Posted: Aug 31 2007, 10:57 PM


Friendly Layperson
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: 5-May 05

Positive Feedback: 44.29%
Feedback Score: -105


QUOTE (Astepintime @ Sep 1 2007, 06:51 AM)
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!
.33 Error? ohmy.gif
WOW! Isn't .33 inferring "1/3" or 33% error?

Surely there's a Typo!? huh.gif

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..





--------------------
"Gravity" and or a "Magnets" Perceived Pull or Attraction is
not some Magical force that beckons other mass.. What motion we observe and or experience is in fact the result from Repulsive force, put simply attractive force simply is impossible..

When dealing with Mass or energy via the maths we must remember when a dimension equates to zero or less one is in error..

One more Note:- "Space" is a NEAR-Vacuum, therefore a density or mass..
Send PMSend emailWebsite
Top
DEK46656
Posted: Aug 31 2007, 10:59 PM


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 97
Joined: 6-May 06

Positive Feedback: 66.67%
Feedback Score: 1


QUOTE (jreed @ Aug 31 2007, 09:42 AM)
The Heim Group has given me the Fortran code for the newer Heim version.  I'm coding it up in Mathematica so I can get a better understanding of what it involves.  So far, it looks like the A matrix is not used in finding the masses.  The new version is able to find the quantum numbers n, m, p and sigma with an algorithm.  It all looks very promising. 

John Reed

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?
Top
jreed
Posted: Aug 31 2007, 11:24 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 9-February 06

Positive Feedback: 87.5%
Feedback Score: 6


QUOTE (DEK46656 @ Aug 31 2007, 10:59 PM)
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
Top
darzhliebek
Posted: Sep 1 2007, 01:14 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 1-September 07

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (Astepintime @ Aug 31 2007, 08:51 PM)
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.

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 smile.gif

@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 smile.gif
Top
hdeasy
Posted: Sep 1 2007, 04:39 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 326
Joined: 16-January 06

Positive Feedback: 85.71%
Feedback Score: 6


Hi Max's demon..

QUOTE
I wish we had some confirmation that others were conducting experiments to test for the effect, all Iíve got is hearsay. Does anyone know, for a fact, that such attempts are underway?


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.


QUOTE
One, thereís no indication that they even have a lab, let alone Ďa unique experimental setup.

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.

QUOTE
All Iím saying is that the Heim group would better serve their interests if they followed his example, rather than conceal vital experimental information.


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.


QUOTE
Ever since the mass formula ran into a brick wall, the credibility of their theory has been languishing in a ditch.

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 smile.gif .

QUOTE
If (Dr?) Reed blesses the new formulae, Iíll be delighted to start waving the Heim banner again. But if the particle mass issue Ėdoesnít- get resolved, then I only see these scant slivers of hopeful vindication:

- the neutrino mass prediction will someday be confirmed or refuted
- the superconducting gravitiphoton lift experiment may someday be explicitly stated, and then tested
- the original gravitophoton experimental prediction may someday be tested

Thatís it, isnít it? Because unless Iím missing something, we donít yet have any Ďevidenceí to support Heim theory. Perhaps Iím uninformed. Would you be so kind as to make a list of the facts which constitute Ďevidence in support of Heim theory?í I'd like to know, exactly, what keeps the fires of hope for Heim theory burning in your heart.


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
Top
Jossarian
Posted: Sep 1 2007, 08:56 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 125
Joined: 18-September 06

Positive Feedback: 75%
Feedback Score: 5


@hdeasy:
QUOTE
the 'q-gravion' or quintessence force of Heim may explain Dark Energy

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

QUOTE (Jossarian @ Aug 24 2007, 10:03 AM)
There is interesting article on SPACE.COM regarding gargantuan hole.

See that snippet:
QUOTE
The CMB is an imprint of radiation left from the Big Bang, the theoretical beginning of the universe.

"Although our surprising results need independent confirmation, the slightly colder temperature of the CMB in this region appears to be caused by a huge hole devoid of nearly all matter roughly 6 to 10 billion light-years from Earth," Rudnick said.

Photons of the CMB gain a small amount of energy when they pass through normal regions of space with matter, the researchers explained. But when the CMB passes through a void, the photons lose energy, making the CMB from that part of the sky appear cooler.

Isn't that a confirmation of Heim's corrected gravitional law?
Just see that part:
QUOTE
Any mass which is situated in the range between the upper border distance R0 and ρ must overcome a very weak repulsion force, if it wants to approach the source of field. Since this effect occurs only for very large distances, it is practically not observable.

And this one:
QUOTE
Finally Heim found that cosmic red shift too is a result of the corrected gravitation law. Therefore each particle of this world must approach primarily against the repulsive gravitation component of almost the whole remaining world. (This corresponds to the field curve between ρ and R0.) This is using energy whereby each photon becomes longer in it's wavelength during this journey.

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

Top
jreed
Posted: Sep 4 2007, 06:29 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 9-February 06

Positive Feedback: 87.5%
Feedback Score: 6


QUOTE (hdeasy @ Sep 1 2007, 04:39 PM)
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


.

@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)
Top
Tim
Posted: Sep 4 2007, 06:53 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Power Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 6-June 06

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (jreed @ Sep 4 2007, 06:29 PM)
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.

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.
Top
gdaigle
Posted: Sep 4 2007, 08:25 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 117
Joined: 3-May 07

Positive Feedback: 83.33%
Feedback Score: 6


Hugh and John,

Congratulations on these early results. This is very exciting news.
Top
TRoc
Posted: Sep 5 2007, 12:07 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 913
Joined: 5-October 04

Positive Feedback: 80.77%
Feedback Score: 26


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



--------------------

I know Nothing. I looked all over to find it, but found it Nowhere. The funny thing is, it was right between 2 things, that I knew Everything about. It felt like forever, but really, it was no Time at all.

Top
Astepintime
Posted: Sep 5 2007, 01:06 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Power Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 11-December 06

Positive Feedback: 75%
Feedback Score: 3


QUOTE (darzhliebek @ Sep 1 2007, 01:14 AM)
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.


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, letís 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 Ďsystematicí 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 Ďsimpleí 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 Ďfullyí contradict it either).
Top
makuabob
Posted: Sep 5 2007, 01:31 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 28-December 06

Positive Feedback: 33.33%
Feedback Score: -1


QUOTE
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.


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! rolleyes.gif
Send PMSend emailWebsite
Top

Topic Options Pages: (209) « First ... 111 112 [113] 114 115 ... Last »

Add reply Start new topicStart new poll


 

Terms of use