Scientific Forums


Pages: (209) « First ... 180 181 [182] 183 184 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
bprager
Posted: Jun 1 2010, 01:57 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 5-July 07

Positive Feedback: 42.86%
Feedback Score: -1


European researchers observe for the first time a transformation in neutrinos, evidence that they have mass. I a statement from CERN: "something must be missing from the Standard Model."

Heim predicted in the 1980s that neutrinos would have nonzero mass.
Top
Plumb Bob
Posted: Jun 1 2010, 02:40 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 30-November 09

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 6


QUOTE (bprager @ Jun 1 2010, 01:57 PM)


Heim predicted in the 1980s that neutrinos would have nonzero mass.


So what. Majoriana predicted neutrino mass in 1937. Does that mean his theory is automatically correct also? Duh? rolleyes.gif

Plenty of theories predict neutrino mass.
PS. Neutrino (mass) oscillations is not new news. rolleyes.gif
Everyone has known for several years now the standard model must be modified to include massive neutrinos.
This in no wise makes Heim garbage any more correct than any other competing theories of neutrino mass.

Bob

This post has been edited by Plumb Bob on Jun 1 2010, 02:44 PM
Top
gocrew
Posted: Jun 1 2010, 03:09 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 29-December 09

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 3


QUOTE (Plumb Bob @ Jun 1 2010, 02:40 PM)

So what.  Majoriana predicted neutrino mass in 1937. Does that mean his theory is automatically correct also?  Duh? rolleyes.gif

Plenty of theories predict neutrino mass.
PS. Neutrino (mass) oscillations is not new news. rolleyes.gif
Everyone has known for several years now the standard model must be modified to include massive neutrinos.
This in no wise makes Heim garbage any more correct than any other competing theories of neutrino mass.

Bob

I don't know that bprager's intent was to claim that Heim's theory is automatically correct; I don't think anyone can claim right now that Heim Theory is a correct description of the universe.

But certainly it would have to do predictions of that sort to be taken seriously. Its prediction of massive neutrinos, while not sufficient for acceptance, is at least the kind of thing that is necessary.

For my part, I think we already know that Heim Theory, in its present form, is off. It's mass predictions, though better than anything else, are still not good enough to satisfy physicists. However, the fact that they come close might make them an interesting thing to study and take seriously. For instance, Galileo was off in his predictions, and because of this Brahe dismissed his heliocentric model and never did get the right answer. It was Kepler who did, changing Galileo's circles to ellipses. The point being that Kepler did not discard Galileo, he made a small adjustment to a theory which was close to the truth.

Heim Theory seems to be wrong. But it is possible that it is close to describing our universe, and pursuing it might lead us to the actual answer.
Top
Maxila
Posted: Jun 1 2010, 06:58 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 650
Joined: 22-February 10

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 11


QUOTE (gocrew @ Jun 1 2010, 10:09 AM)
It was Kepler who did, changing Galileo's circles to ellipses. The point being that Kepler did not discard Galileo, he made a small adjustment to a theory which was close to the truth.

Good point I wish more people shared, well said.
Top
bprager
Posted: Jun 2 2010, 11:51 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 5-July 07

Positive Feedback: 42.86%
Feedback Score: -1


QUOTE (Plumb Bob @ Jun 1 2010, 02:40 PM)

So what.  Majoriana predicted neutrino mass in 1937. Does that mean his theory is automatically correct also?  Duh? rolleyes.gif

Plenty of theories predict neutrino mass.
PS. Neutrino (mass) oscillations is not new news. rolleyes.gif
Everyone has known for several years now the standard model must be modified to include massive neutrinos.
This in no wise makes Heim garbage any more correct than any other competing theories of neutrino mass.

Why so gloomy Bob? I was celebrating little progress since CERN claimed it was the first experimental evidence of neutrino mass. That's all. And thanks for the Kepler statement gocrew. Galileo wasn't right, but it would be neither fair to call it "garbage".

This post has been edited by bprager on Jun 2 2010, 11:54 PM
Top
jreed
Posted: Jun 6 2010, 11:47 PM


Member
**

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

Positive Feedback: 87.5%
Feedback Score: 6


QUOTE (gocrew @ Jun 1 2010, 03:09 PM)


It's mass predictions, though better than anything else, are still not good enough to satisfy physicists. However, the fact that they come close might make them an interesting thing to study and take seriously.

I haven't posted to this forum for a couple of years, but have remained curious and skeptical about Heim theory during that time. Back when I was doing work with Heim theory I programmed the mass equations, the excitation spectrum equations and lifetime equations in Mathematica. The Heim Theory Group was kind enough to supply me with a newer program written in Fortran which is what I translated into Mathematica language. My programs can duplicate all the masses given in their examples, both of the ground states and excited states of the twenty or so particles there. The mass equation ground state values are astounding in their accuracy, almost too good to be true. There are a couple of things that bother me about all this however:

Missing particles - There are six Leptons, three neutrinos and the Electron, Muon and Tau particles. The mass predictions of the Electron and Muon are very accurate, but the Tau Lepton is missing. I was told by the Heim group that Tau is an excited state of one of the other particles, either a Meson or Baryon, I don't remember the details. But this can't be correct. The Leptons don't have excited states, and aren't excited states of anything else. Many of the Mesons and Baryons are also missing. These are more newly discovered particles. Also the Tau was the last Lepton to be discovered in 1975. It almost looks like Heim theory is a snapshot of the particles known when Heim constructed his theory. If this is a good theory, it should be able to come up with masses of these newly discovered particles. I recently tried to generate a value for the Tau mass. It turned out that this is not possible because the program in its present form does not have enough quantum numbers to distinguish Tau from the Electron and Muon.

Excited state predictions - Heim theory comes up with many predictions for the excited states, too many in fact. The Heim Theory Group went through these dense sets of values and picked out ones that match the experimental excited states. When I brought this up, they suggested that a "selection rule" is missing that would identify the correct picks. However, this won't work because there are experimental values that don't match any of the Heim values. This part of Heim theory needs to be completely redone.

I am a physicist and have a Ph.D in that discipline.

jreed

Top
bprager
Posted: Jun 7 2010, 02:01 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 5-July 07

Positive Feedback: 42.86%
Feedback Score: -1


QUOTE (jreed @ Jun 6 2010, 11:47 PM)
I haven't posted to this forum for a couple of years, but have remained curious and skeptical about Heim theory during that time. 

jreed,

Especially because of your skepticism I see you as one of the most distinct and respected experts of the Heim theory and e.g. your proof that the "A Matrix" was not used to manipulate the results of mass calculation still remains as one of the major breakthroughs in understanding this theory for me. (Not that I understand it fully yet.)

I am just not a physicist just an engineer and I don't even have a Ph.D. ;-)
Top
gdaigle
Posted: Jun 8 2010, 02:18 PM


Member
**

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

Positive Feedback: 83.33%
Feedback Score: 6


QUOTE
I recently tried to generate a value for the Tau mass. It turned out that this is not possible ...


It is curious. Hauser and Dröscher's 2010 AIP article on EHT clearly predicts all six charged leptons (as well as a class of stable neutral leptons) as separate particles. They only say that the mass of the neutral counterparts "have not been calculated". No mention of calculations for the charged leptons.

Dr. Reed, you have worked with the Heim Theory Group, correct? That those (presumably) closest to the theory could not provide you with means for generating a mass value for a predicted particle is confounding. Considering that your calculations for the 17 test particles in 2007 broke through a major obstacle (A matrix) I would think that those invested in Heim would do everything to facliltate your efforts to resolve the Tau mass.

The most recent paper in the Heim Theory Group's (English version) list of references is 2003. For my edification, some clarity would be valuable. Would it be accurate to say that HTG and Dröscher/Hauser have two distinct views of Heim Theory? That they represent two separate "camps"? What do D/H say about predictions of the mass of tau or any of the other charged leptons?
Top
jreed
Posted: Jun 8 2010, 06:05 PM


Member
**

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

Positive Feedback: 87.5%
Feedback Score: 6


QUOTE (gdaigle @ Jun 8 2010, 02:18 PM)

It is curious.  Hauser and Dröscher's 2010 AIP article on EHT clearly predicts all six charged leptons (as well as a class of stable neutral leptons) as separate particles.  They only say that the mass of the neutral counterparts "have not been calculated".  No mention of calculations for the charged leptons.

Dr. Reed, you have worked with the Heim Theory Group, correct?  That those (presumably) closest to the theory could not provide you with means for generating a mass value for a predicted particle is confounding. Considering that your calculations for the 17 test particles in 2007 broke through a major obstacle (A matrix) I would think that those invested in Heim would do everything to facliltate your efforts to resolve the Tau mass.

The most recent paper in the Heim Theory Group's (English version) list of references is 2003.  For my edification, some clarity would be valuable.  Would it be accurate to say that HTG and Dröscher/Hauser have two distinct views of Heim Theory?  That they represent two separate "camps"?  What do D/H say about predictions of the mass of tau or any of the other charged leptons?

The D/H group isn't interested in particle masses, as far as I know. They are more into the areas of space travel and anti-gravity. I haven't followed their work closely. The Heim Theory Group is interested in the particle masses, as I am. This is Heim's original 6 dimensional theory. There doesn't seem to be much overlap in the interests of the two groups.

Based on what I've seen in Heim's 6 dimensional theory, there doesn't seem to be any "fudging" of the equations to come up with those incredibly accurate ground state mass values. I keep thinking that the missing mass values are hiding in there somewhere, but it may be very difficult to find them. It will require reworking of Heim's particle theory from the beginning. He may have targeted just those particles he was aware of when the theory was being developed. The Heim Theory Group has sent me copies of some of Heim's original manuscripts, but they don't reveal much more than what is in the PDF files that can be found on the internet. To really dig into it, I would need to read Heim's two books, which I have copies of. The task is made more difficult because the books are all in German, which I can read, but with less confidence and accuracy.

jreed
Top
nicholasjh1
Posted: Jun 11 2010, 05:06 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Power Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 6-February 09

Positive Feedback: 80%
Feedback Score: 3


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2062...e-universe.html

Is Heim theory based on a quintessance field?
Top
gdaigle
Posted: Jun 14 2010, 02:24 PM


Member
**

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

Positive Feedback: 83.33%
Feedback Score: 6


nicholasjh1,

I'm not certain about Heim Theory. However, EHT posits a neutral gravitophoton field which decays into a graviton (ordinary matter) and a quintessence particle (Gq - non ordinary matter). The Gq particle has been associated with dark energy and is assumed to be responsible for the interaction between the spacetime field (vacuum field) and ordinary matter.

Paraphrasing from the AIP article, the momentum of the quintessence particle is not felt by matter, but by the surrounding spacetime and leads to its expansion. This effect is most likely too small to be observed, but should contribute to the expansion of the Universe.

No mention of inflation in the early universe as your article makes reference.
Top
kurt9
Posted: Jun 16 2010, 04:24 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Power Member
Posts: 41
Joined: 6-October 08

Positive Feedback: 40%
Feedback Score: -1


Five versions of the Higgs may have been found:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/evidence-...higgs.html#more

What is the implication of this for either Heim Theory or Extended Heim Theory? The Wiki suggests that Heim Theory is incompatible with the existence of the Higgs particle.
Top
makuabob
Posted: Jun 18 2010, 10:12 AM


Member
**

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

Positive Feedback: 33.33%
Feedback Score: -1


Wow!

The Hot Big Bang Theory may have just gone "Poof!" Check out the article at Astronomy Now Online about how messed up WMAP really was.


QUOTE
The heart of the problem is found with the WMAP spacecraft itself, which officially has a ‘beam width’ of 12 arcminutes, but Sawangwit and Shanks have found that in fact it smears its observations by several degrees, which has the effect of making the ripples look bigger than they really are.



No "dark matter?" Hmmm... I don't recall that Heim Theory ever said there had to be any. The physics of our childhood is going down fast. You might want to wave bye-bye.

wink.gif
Top
Ganondorf
Posted: Jun 18 2010, 10:31 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 27-May 09

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (kurt9 @ Jun 16 2010, 04:24 PM)
Five versions of the Higgs may have been found:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/evidence-...higgs.html#more

What is the implication of this for either Heim Theory or Extended Heim Theory? The Wiki suggests that Heim Theory is incompatible with the existence of the Higgs particle.

Wiki is wrong, EHT is not a Higgs-less theory. Look for Hermetry form 16 in the papers, that's the Higg's boson. The hermetry forms are 8 + 8 and not 8 + 7 like in some papers. We even have a prediction on its mass, you can find that and references in this same thread.

Based on Dr. Reed's reports, it is disturbing that the 2 branches of Heim theory are that much separated. But i remember even EHT papers calculating particle masses, it is not their main focus but they do not simply ignore the matter.

Now IIRC EHT is not compatible with the big bang, it explains the origin of the universe in a different manner. A single metron representing the whole universe at the beginning, which reminded me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

Then of course the metron size shrinks but the original big metron is the measure of available space, so we get more metrons (or an illusion of metrons to follow Parmenide's phylosophy) and this the universe, which is finite and limited in space.

I am also looking forward to some more definite answer if there might be some truth to this theory. That would bring it to mainstream science attention and then maybe we can get a decently reviewed and mathematically sound version of it. It would be nice to calculate the costs, with recent progress in material science, for the proposed experiments. They don't see too costly to me and H&D should consider providing some if not all funding for them, or looking for sponsors.


This post has been edited by Ganondorf on Jun 18 2010, 10:33 PM
Top
gdaigle
Posted: Jun 19 2010, 01:03 PM


Member
**

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

Positive Feedback: 83.33%
Feedback Score: 6


From Hauser's AIP article on Extended Heim Theory (EHT):
[my clarifications in brackets]:

QUOTE
... the O(2, q) ⊕ O(2, q) [representing the subspaces S and I] stands for the 6 Higgs and 6 anti-Higgs bosons, responsible for all types of charges that fundamental particles can possess. It is believed that all particles of OM or NOM, see Tables 1 and 2, interact with its respective Higgs particle and gain charge (e.g mass or electric charge etc.), but their inertia (energy) should come from [Heim] group O(1, q) , which denotes a special Hermetry form, H16 from subspace T1 , related to energy (mass) via ∆E∆t = h...
...six Higgs fields for ordinary matter and six anti-Higgs fields for non-ordinary matter (see Tables 1 and 2) should exist...


This aligns more closely with this week's report from Fermi Lab that evidence points to their being 5 types of Higgs Boson (i.e. two Higgs doublets of 4 particles each, but 3 of which are seen as Z and W bosons), rather than the Standard model that "sees" one Higgs particle.

So this would seem to be another difference between "classic" Higgs-less Heim Theory and the 6 Higgs EHT. Might be time to break the two theories apart in Wikipedia.
Top

Topic Options Pages: (209) « First ... 180 181 [182] 183 184 ... Last »

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use