Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory

Hi jreed-

I'm so glad that we have a professional physicist in the group (which I am not).

Regarding the cellular automata idea, I have sometimes wondered if some sort of iterative process might be involved in particle lifetimes, as are involved in the generation of fractals like the Mandelbrot set.

As you know, the Mandelbrot set, for example, consists of areas of stability, in which the iterated equation that generates it iterates in a stable cyclic "attractor". Points on the fringe of the Mandelbrot set go unstable, after a certain number of iterations of the generating equation. Points far outside the set go unstable almost immediately.

Particles, too, have various average lifetimes, then go unstable. Some, like the proton, like points far inside the Mandelbrot set, seem to be stable indefinitely. Others, like points on the border of the Mandelbrot set, are stable for a certain number of iterations, then go unstable.

LQG sometimes compares the stepwise changes in spin networks to clock cycles of digital computers.

I know that there are some mathematical models that use iterated difference equations rather than differential equations to model things. I wonder if a quantized space-time, in which changes occur in discrete steps, could better be modeled using cellular automata or iterated difference equations instead of continuous math.

If an iterative process determines particle lifetimes, maybe that explains why more conventional math and physics have not been able to determine particle lifetimes.

You guys might really be onto something with the cellular automata idea, I think.

To progress from the BB to the current universe an iterative process does seem to be the likely choice.

How do we know that the current atomic model is not subject to a process similar to evolution?

When you consider that 95% of the universe is undetectable and that the age of the universe has been determined to be around 13 billion years old...

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/age.html

...then it is possible that what we are seeing is a 'subset' of particles that are at a particular stage in an iterative process.

It also opens the possibility that life developed within a different stage of this iterative process and thus self-assembly, or the creation of new life, may be impossible.

Do the building blocks of life, elements and their atomic structures, change with time?

Thanks to all for the interest in Cellular Automata. I have created the new Topic "HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata" as promised. Please see the initial topic post for more information.

I followed Leovinus's link to the paper by Breakstone on Empirical Relationships among Lepton and Quark masses. I found Breakstone's 2 Pi relationship between generations of particles quite suggestive of a simple geometrical progression between the generations of particles. This 2 Pi relationship may help in the search for a particle's Cellular Automata. That is, the first particle has the foundational Cellular Automata and the second particle in the generation is a simple 2 Pi scaling of the first with the third particle in the generation a 2 Pi scaling of the second. The Cellular Automata we are looking for would be required to have this scaling law which would greatly reduce the search space of possible Cellular Automata.

Paul

there's a whole theory of gravitation called PROCESS gravitation. in that theory there's a whole different view ot time. The focus is on itereation and process not on linear time. By the way, in the wikipedia article on quantum gravitation, i added a link to Heim Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_physics

sounds a lot like metron oscillations

OK, but why is it in pseudoscience category?

Neutrinos in Heim mass formula

This night I realized, that the term fik in the 1982 DESY code might have been thought to calculate neutrinos. (In the original source code term is calculated but not further used.)

So I looked at the 1989 paper.
I guess there are as many errors in this paper as in the previous 1982 paper (sorry). I state that all intermediate results and structures described in the 1982 formula must have counterparts in the 1989 equations!
So I assume the mass formula B3 should be:
M = my * (alfp(G + S + F + Fi) + 4q*alfm) (wrong brackets in the 1989 paper)

This corresponds to (1982):
M = my * alfp(G + K + H + Fi)
with
G = G
S = K
F = H + fi(N=0) (self coupling term added 1989)

The term
4q*alfm
already is contained in 1982 Fi as the very last term.

Therefore we get a cleared Fi by subtracting
fi = Fi - 4q*alfm/alfp
This is exactly the equation for fik in the 1982 source code.
Fi then is the pure field mass of a particle with protosimplex structures that are empty or compensated by ni = -Qi. In this case K+G+H becomes zero. That is only Fi left over giving a field mass.

I have tested this in Excel where I get the same masses for the e-, muon and pion neutrinos as published by Burkhard Heim 1984. (It seems that in table II at the heim-theory paper the masses are mixed up.)
I am not sure about the other neutrinos. In addition I do not know whether the self coupling term fi(1989) already is contained in 1982 Fi or if this is a new term. This is an important question to evaluate.

Zephir West Wind

As to why Process Gravity is labeled PseudoScience
Wikipedia is political. look at the discussion pages sometimes. there are always people trying to delete articles, change them. articles are arrived at by consensus.

Heim theory is a case in point. Now it is labeled "ProtoScience." At one time is was labeled Pseduoscience, Fringescience. I was for labeling it "NonMainstream."

I would label Aether Wave Theory "Zephir's Baby."

Take Care!

Hi,

I have corrected the C code with the above, and some of the masses got much closer to the experimental results.

will314159... and all
You got to stop that kind of explanations.... your driving me out of a job
simple jal

I have corrected the C code with the above, and some of the masses got much closer to the experimental results.

Output .......

Note Leovinus used http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/mcdata/mass_width_2004.csv for his experimental masses. The experimental masses vary a bit from those you used.

It would seem all use the same experimental masses, and the document above has some very recent values. It contains mass widths and basic particle masses with error bounds.

'leovinus' also adjusted G to give a very small error for e- in his translation of Olaf's Pascal version: 6.67331980000000e-11. That gave an me- still a bit outside the experimental mass error bounds. I posted a sorted list of those masses here recently. As long as G is close to the best measured values that should be legitimate. In fact, a simple Newton's convergence to adjust G to the value that makes the error in e- essentially zero would be reasonable. Though, the value of G used might might also head the list with an indication it was set to minimize me-. And, how well G falls within current error limits.

Further, it's not the relative errors that count, rather it is how well they fall within the experimental error bounds. me- is know the most closely, 0.04 ppm. Again, this makes it the value to minimise. p and n error limits are only 80 ppm. The delta's are known to only 2%.

I see me- is 1.43e-7 high in Leovinus' table. Compared to the 0.4e-7 error limit in the PDG list.

I'm waiting to see how the neutrinos and other particles come out.

Excellent Olaf!

Maybe it's time to look at the particle lifetimes. Some were very close, other(s) were off some.

A Flow Diagram of the mass calculations, something that would describe the process in a simple way, would be useful. Ultimately, that might be just part of a larger diagram showing the underpinnings of Heim's theory, and also the more speculative area of gravito-photons and the 'Space Drive'.

I assume these matters will eventually get back to Dr's. Hauser and Droescher.

Hello, RAF.

I had this document for a while, just had no time to adjust the masses in the program. Now it is done. :-)

The value of G (and rest of the constants) was taken from wikipedia, is there any alternative source with better estimation?

Regarding the best fitting G... There is a slight problem with it (at least in C case), it can at best be temporary until all the errors are found. Its value is:

where m_theoretical and m_experimental stand for theoretical and expeimental masses of electron. The m_theoretical is the problematic one, it depends upon the quadruples n, m, p and sigma. And the quadruples yielded by C implementation do not match all of the selected results' values for now. This is the main reason I didnt try to add neutrinos so far.

Did anyone manage to get perfect match with any of the other implementations?

Hi!
It's available at: HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata
JAL’S INTERPRETATION AND PROCEDURES
(Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure to be used for HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata ).
jal

I had this document for a while, just had no time to adjust the masses in the program. Now it is done. :-)

The value of G (and rest of the constants) was taken from wikipedia, is there any alternative source with better estimation?

Regarding the best fitting G... There is a slight problem with it (at least in C case), it can at best be temporary until all the errors are found. Its value is:

RAF:Close to the value Leovinas uses: 6.67331980000000e-11
Hmm, actually, it appears to be from "theory W.Droescher(2002)"
I'm not sure how many std erros that is from one of the 'best values': 6.6742 ?
............................

Did anyone manage to get perfect match with any of the other implementations?

I copied and pasted the G in Leovinas' source code into my quote above.

I had manually changed G in Spony's on-line java applet. Got the error in e- down to 0e00 once, but later it wouldn't drop that low. There appeared to be some hysteresis in the calculations. More recent codings in Pascal and C probably have more accurate math. Further, I noted that the assembly source file generated appeared to save FP variables from the NPX's stack as TBYTES (or QWORDS), which preserves the 80-bit precision and exponent range of the NPX itself. I think that runs about 18 digital digits. I'm not that familiar with the extended precision FP types used in both the Pascal and C source, but 'double precision' or float8 should be good enough to handle most of the calculations. One calculation involves 1.000 - beta^2, but that still leaves 10 or more digits of significance with float8 or float8+.
Note 1 - beta^2 = 2bd + bd^2, where bd = 1.0 - beta. So at least a little precision could be gained with the binomial expansion.

While speed isn't important for just calculating these masses, it may be nice to add a graphical output where calculations are made which move the values around on a 3D projection. More efficient calculations might be desirable in such a case. Watching the trajectories of poor fits could be instructive. Regardless, colorful pictures are good for advertising results.

Note I still think setting many of the constants in Planck Units (1.0, or with a 2Pi factor) would be very useful. That includes the Planck Mass. I think the uncertainty in G would also be eliminated. Note these are given at Wikipedia.

The 'so' length of 1 m would also be replaced with the Planck unit. The calculated masses might come out as multiples of the Planck Mass. Or, could be manipulated to that.

To convert to the current masses in MeV, the empirical constants G, c, etc. would come in.

RAF