To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory

PhysForum Science Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories

Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

I finally got caught up with the pending updates to the Heim Translation web site. Hugh Deasy's comment on Pages 32-40 is now included...Jim

These sites maybe usefull for the translation work:

http://tis.consilium.eu.int/utfwebtis/frames/introfsEN.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/eurodicautom/Controller

I did find the word*eineindeutig* with the english translation *bi-unique*

http://tis.consilium.eu.int/utfwebtis/frames/introfsEN.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/eurodicautom/Controller

I did find the word

Hi,

here is another translation site:

http://www.leo.org

eineindeutig means bijective in the mathematical sense:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijektiv

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

here is another translation site:

http://www.leo.org

eineindeutig means bijective in the mathematical sense:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijektiv

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

Tajmar's potentially revolutionary artificial grav expt. a la ESA made the New Sci headline this week:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam.../mg19225771.800

No mention of Heim in there, but Hauser is in touch with Tajmar & co. and he and Droscher have not been idle, it seems. More from them soon, hopefully.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam.../mg19225771.800

No mention of Heim in there, but Hauser is in touch with Tajmar & co. and he and Droscher have not been idle, it seems. More from them soon, hopefully.

QUOTE (Count Able+Nov 13 2006, 04:47 PM)

I did find the word *eineindeutig* with the english translation *bi-unique*

Thanks for digging, Count Able and millka. Even the English words "bi-unique" and "bijective" need translation for me. Since this is meant to be an easily-understood introduction, I've chosen to use the word "permutations" instead, which gets the meaning across, and is more widely used.

I hope that I did not miss a subtle point that Heim was trying to make. I don't yet understand the main point that he was making in this paragraph...Jim

Thanks for digging, Count Able and millka. Even the English words "bi-unique" and "bijective" need translation for me. Since this is meant to be an easily-understood introduction, I've chosen to use the word "permutations" instead, which gets the meaning across, and is more widely used.

I hope that I did not miss a subtle point that Heim was trying to make. I don't yet understand the main point that he was making in this paragraph...Jim

QUOTE (Jim Graham+Nov 15 2006, 09:46 AM)

Thanks for digging, Count Able and millka. Even the English words "bi-unique" and "bijective" need translation for me. Since this is meant to be an easily-understood introduction, I've chosen to use the word "permutations" instead, which gets the meaning across, and is more widely used.

I hope that I did not miss a subtle point that Heim was trying to make. I don't yet understand the main point that he was making in this paragraph...Jim

"Bijective" means that there is a one-to-one mapping between two sets. In other words, with every element of the first set you can associate an element in the second set, such that each element in the first set has an unique "partner" in the second set, and vice versa.

I hope that I did not miss a subtle point that Heim was trying to make. I don't yet understand the main point that he was making in this paragraph...Jim

"Bijective" means that there is a one-to-one mapping between two sets. In other words, with every element of the first set you can associate an element in the second set, such that each element in the first set has an unique "partner" in the second set, and vice versa.

QUOTE (Guest+Nov 15 2006, 04:27 PM)

"Bijective" means that there is a one-to-one mapping between two sets. In other words, with every element of the first set you can associate an element in the second set, such that each element in the first set has an unique "partner" in the second set, and vice versa.

Yes, it has to be surjective and injective.

Yes, it has to be surjective and injective.

QUOTE (hdeasy+Nov 3 2006, 03:52 PM)

That's a nice concrete question(sigma being 17 for n, 0 for p) about one part of the calculation that I could pass on to one of the Heim theory group.

I've been working on Heim's formulas from versions 1982 and 1989. It helps to have them both programmed in Mathematica. I can now see where the mystery number 17 for the neutron comes from in the '82 code and can derive it. Also I have quantum numbers for the Delta++, Delat0 and Delta- particles that work in the '89 code so I can find their masses in the '89 program. I derived them with the '82 code. Here are the n, m, p and sigma values I found:

Delta++: n=2, m=1, p=3, sigma=12

Delta0: n=2, m=-2, p=-1, sigma=27

Delta-: n=2, m=-1, p=-2, sigma=3

The calculation blows up for Delta+.

I hope to eventually understand the connections between these two versions.

jreed

I've been working on Heim's formulas from versions 1982 and 1989. It helps to have them both programmed in Mathematica. I can now see where the mystery number 17 for the neutron comes from in the '82 code and can derive it. Also I have quantum numbers for the Delta++, Delat0 and Delta- particles that work in the '89 code so I can find their masses in the '89 program. I derived them with the '82 code. Here are the n, m, p and sigma values I found:

Delta++: n=2, m=1, p=3, sigma=12

Delta0: n=2, m=-2, p=-1, sigma=27

Delta-: n=2, m=-1, p=-2, sigma=3

The calculation blows up for Delta+.

I hope to eventually understand the connections between these two versions.

jreed

I defer to opinion of the experts - I used "bijective" for "eineindeutig"...Jim

QUOTE (Jim Graham+Nov 18 2006, 02:24 PM)

I defer to opinion of the experts

Here are a couple more words that I'm having trouble translating. Maybe the experts can offer an opinion of what these mean:

straton

prototrope

jreed

Here are a couple more words that I'm having trouble translating. Maybe the experts can offer an opinion of what these mean:

straton

prototrope

jreed

QUOTE (jreed+Nov 20 2006, 06:16 PM)

Here are a couple more words that I'm having trouble translating:

Burkhard Heim has introduced a lot of newly created words to prevent confusion that may rise when using already existing words for describing new phenomena.

According to Heim/Droescher "Einführung in Elementarstrukturen der Materie"

**straton**

*Das von der Kopplungsstruktur einer komplexen Hermetrie bestimmte, aber von --> Kondensationsstufen freie Strukturfeld des reellen physischen Raumes, welches als Nahwirkungsfeld näherungsweise exponentiell steil abklingt. (vol. 2, 188)*

A structure field which is determined by the coupling structure of a complex hermetry but free of condensation steps (levels). It is a near force field that has a steep exponentially fall. (vol. 2, 188)

**prototrope(s)**

*Urgestalten elementarer --> syntrometrischer Kondensationsstufen, die als -> Fluktonen oder -> Schirmfelder erscheinen und die -> Protosimplexe strukturieren.*

(vol. 2, 190)

Primary structures of elementary syntrometric condensation steps (levels), which appear in form of Fluktons or Shield fields. They structure Protosimplexes.

(vol. 2, 190)

Burkhard Heim has introduced a lot of newly created words to prevent confusion that may rise when using already existing words for describing new phenomena.

According to Heim/Droescher "Einführung in Elementarstrukturen der Materie"

A structure field which is determined by the coupling structure of a complex hermetry but free of condensation steps (levels). It is a near force field that has a steep exponentially fall. (vol. 2, 188)

(vol. 2, 190)

Primary structures of elementary syntrometric condensation steps (levels), which appear in form of Fluktons or Shield fields. They structure Protosimplexes.

(vol. 2, 190)

I wish I was able to participate in these more technical discussions of Heim Theory, but alas...

Anyway, I had a thought awhile back and I just had it again and I thought I'd throw it out there for all of you people who can do math. There was a fair amount of talk earlier in the thread about Heim Theory's leaving open the possibility for the existence of a neutral electron. Could Heim's neutral electron be the cold dark matter that everyone is looking for? If the neutral electron exists, what would it's antiparticle be? If it doesn't have an antiparticle to annihilate, wouldn't there be a lot of them left over from the "beginning"? Perhaps enough of them left over to account for the 85-90% of the mass in the universe that does not interact with the electromagnetic force?

Just a random thought.

Anyway, I had a thought awhile back and I just had it again and I thought I'd throw it out there for all of you people who can do math. There was a fair amount of talk earlier in the thread about Heim Theory's leaving open the possibility for the existence of a neutral electron. Could Heim's neutral electron be the cold dark matter that everyone is looking for? If the neutral electron exists, what would it's antiparticle be? If it doesn't have an antiparticle to annihilate, wouldn't there be a lot of them left over from the "beginning"? Perhaps enough of them left over to account for the 85-90% of the mass in the universe that does not interact with the electromagnetic force?

Just a random thought.

QUOTE (Tim+Nov 21 2006, 05:30 PM)

I wish I was able to participate in these more technical discussions of Heim Theory, but alas...

Anyway, I had a thought awhile back and I just had it again and I thought I'd throw it out there for all of you people who can do math. There was a fair amount of talk earlier in the thread about Heim Theory's leaving open the possibility for the existence of a neutral electron. Could Heim's neutral electron be the cold dark matter that everyone is looking for? If the neutral electron exists, what would it's antiparticle be? If it doesn't have an antiparticle to annihilate, wouldn't there be a lot of them left over from the "beginning"? Perhaps enough of them left over to account for the 85-90% of the mass in the universe that does not interact with the electromagnetic force?

Just a random thought.

We really dont know if it does not interact with the electromagnetic force. There could be lots of planetoids and rocks that cause the flattened curve of velocities.

Anyway, I had a thought awhile back and I just had it again and I thought I'd throw it out there for all of you people who can do math. There was a fair amount of talk earlier in the thread about Heim Theory's leaving open the possibility for the existence of a neutral electron. Could Heim's neutral electron be the cold dark matter that everyone is looking for? If the neutral electron exists, what would it's antiparticle be? If it doesn't have an antiparticle to annihilate, wouldn't there be a lot of them left over from the "beginning"? Perhaps enough of them left over to account for the 85-90% of the mass in the universe that does not interact with the electromagnetic force?

Just a random thought.

We really dont know if it does not interact with the electromagnetic force. There could be lots of planetoids and rocks that cause the flattened curve of velocities.

QUOTE (Tim+Nov 21 2006, 05:30 PM)

If it doesn't have an antiparticle to annihilate, wouldn't there be a lot of them left over from the "beginning"? Perhaps enough of them left over to account for the 85-90% of the mass in the universe that does not interact with the electromagnetic force?

The neutral electron (if it exists) should have an antiparticle. Just because it's neutral doesn't mean there's no antiparticle. After all the neutron has an antiparticle, the antineutron, which has been observed.

If Heim's theory of gravity is correct, we may not need to find dark matter. His theory of gravity that involves the gravitation field due to the gravitation field may explain dark matter. Sounds like double talk doesn't it? I hope he was right about this because it will answer many questions in cosmology.

jreed

QUOTE (jreed+Nov 21 2006, 06:48 PM)

The neutral electron (if it exists) should have an antiparticle. Just because it's neutral doesn't mean there's no antiparticle. After all the neutron has an antiparticle, the antineutron, which has been observed.

I realize that lack of a net electrical charge does not necessarily mean that it doesn't have an antiparticle. I did look up the antineutron on wikipedia (truth by consensus, ya gotta love it) and according to the article, an antineutron is composed of antiquarks (anticondensation zones?). But there are no quarks in an electron and the antielectron job is already occupied by the positron, so, unless the neutral electron is not an electron (but rather a lepton of nearly identical mass) what is the nature of a theoretical antineutral electron? Could there actually 4 different types of electrons?

I realize that lack of a net electrical charge does not necessarily mean that it doesn't have an antiparticle. I did look up the antineutron on wikipedia (truth by consensus, ya gotta love it) and according to the article, an antineutron is composed of antiquarks (anticondensation zones?). But there are no quarks in an electron and the antielectron job is already occupied by the positron, so, unless the neutral electron is not an electron (but rather a lepton of nearly identical mass) what is the nature of a theoretical antineutral electron? Could there actually 4 different types of electrons?

QUOTE (Tim+Nov 21 2006, 07:48 PM)

what is the nature of a theoretical antineutral electron? Could there actually 4 different types of electrons?

According to Heim:

"The so-called “time-helicity“. Refering to the R4 epsilon = +1 or epsilon = -1 decides whether it concerns an R4 - structure or the mirror-symmetrical anti-structure (epsilon = -1)."

I suppose the same stable structure can be obtained rotating (oscillating) right or left (in time), similar to antiparticles in Feynman diagrams, advancing or moving back in time.

According to Heim:

"The so-called “time-helicity“. Refering to the R4 epsilon = +1 or epsilon = -1 decides whether it concerns an R4 - structure or the mirror-symmetrical anti-structure (epsilon = -1)."

I suppose the same stable structure can be obtained rotating (oscillating) right or left (in time), similar to antiparticles in Feynman diagrams, advancing or moving back in time.

QUOTE (Vilvi+Nov 22 2006, 07:51 AM)

According to Heim:

"The so-called “time-helicity“. Refering to the R4 epsilon = +1 or epsilon = -1 decides whether it concerns an R4 - structure or the mirror-symmetrical anti-structure (epsilon = -1)."

I suppose the same stable structure can be obtained rotating (oscillating) right or left (in time), similar to antiparticles in Feynman diagrams, advancing or moving back in time.

What you are talking about has not been observed. There is no support for Heim's theory. Sounds like there is a similarity to neutrino oscilations. That was discvovered relatively recently.

"The so-called “time-helicity“. Refering to the R4 epsilon = +1 or epsilon = -1 decides whether it concerns an R4 - structure or the mirror-symmetrical anti-structure (epsilon = -1)."

I suppose the same stable structure can be obtained rotating (oscillating) right or left (in time), similar to antiparticles in Feynman diagrams, advancing or moving back in time.

What you are talking about has not been observed. There is no support for Heim's theory. Sounds like there is a similarity to neutrino oscilations. That was discvovered relatively recently.

Not a pro-physicist but wanted to ask if Heim Theory could be confirmed through observation of magnetars which are Neutron stars with titanic magnetic fields, (10^11 teslas). Perhaps a discrepancy between the expected and actual gravitational effects of the mangetar on nearby celestial bodies could be observed?

QUOTE (Justin+Nov 23 2006, 04:00 AM)

Not a pro-physicist but wanted to ask if Heim Theory could be confirmed through observation of magnetars which are Neutron stars with titanic magnetic fields, (10^11 teslas). Perhaps a discrepancy between the expected and actual gravitational effects of the mangetar on nearby celestial bodies could be observed?

sounds like an excellent idea

sounds like an excellent idea

QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Nov 22 2006, 02:43 PM)

What you are talking about has not been observed. There is no support for Heim's theory.

Yes I know, but is the Heim's theory. We don't have any experimental confirmation of string theory, but is string theory.

Yes I know, but is the Heim's theory. We don't have any experimental confirmation of string theory, but is string theory.

does heim theory support tetraneutron?

sorry if this is already discussed

good work btw

sorry if this is already discussed

good work btw

QUOTE (Guest_Jack+Nov 27 2006, 11:18 PM)

does heim theory support tetraneutron?

sorry if this is already discussed

good work btw

Particle interactions have not yet been worked out in detail in Heim Theory - it still needs a bit of work before the knowledge of particle properties and force coupling constants is supplemented with a dynamic picture of the interactions. Still, maybe one of the Heim theorists could have a go at estimating the stability of a 4 x neutron cluster.

sorry if this is already discussed

good work btw

Particle interactions have not yet been worked out in detail in Heim Theory - it still needs a bit of work before the knowledge of particle properties and force coupling constants is supplemented with a dynamic picture of the interactions. Still, maybe one of the Heim theorists could have a go at estimating the stability of a 4 x neutron cluster.

First neutrinos have mass.... and now, the neutral electron appears:

Using a visual target/detector (emulsion), Piyare Jain has revealed the path of the axion, a tiny particle with no charge, a very low mass and a lifetime much shorter than a nanosecond.

www.physorg.com/news84633896.html

*The theory also allows for particle states that don't exist in the Standard Model, including a neutral electron and two extra light neutrinos, and many other extra states.*

(from Wikipedia's Heim_theory Page)

Using a visual target/detector (emulsion), Piyare Jain has revealed the path of the axion, a tiny particle with no charge, a very low mass and a lifetime much shorter than a nanosecond.

www.physorg.com/news84633896.html

(from Wikipedia's Heim_theory Page)

Hi all,

Justin,

Are you sure it is in the "electron" group? I had read that it was in the "Higgs" family. Maybe that is just some "pumping" up the media for support of continued accererator experiments, searching for the higgs boson.

Of course, if Heim called it something different, or if there were translation problems, it doesn't matter too much. I would think that a "neutral electron" would be stable?

T.Roc

Justin,

Are you sure it is in the "electron" group? I had read that it was in the "Higgs" family. Maybe that is just some "pumping" up the media for support of continued accererator experiments, searching for the higgs boson.

Of course, if Heim called it something different, or if there were translation problems, it doesn't matter too much. I would think that a "neutral electron" would be stable?

T.Roc

QUOTE (Justin+Dec 8 2006, 03:59 AM)

...first neutrinos have mass.... and now, the neutral electron appears...

You shouldn't consider each newly discovered neutral particle as the sterile electron. Till now we know a lotta particle without charge, so why are you supposing, that last one is just the electron, predicted by Heim's theory?

You shouldn't consider each newly discovered neutral particle as the sterile electron. Till now we know a lotta particle without charge, so why are you supposing, that last one is just the electron, predicted by Heim's theory?

QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 8 2006, 06:23 PM)

.. (neutral) electron, predicted by Heim's theory ..

HT**does not** predict that a neutral electron exists.

According to the mass formula of HT, a small part of the electrons mass comes from its negative charge. If it were possible to somehow take away that charge from the electron, the remaining "neutral electron" component would have a mass slightly below the real electrons mass. HT neither demands nor predicts that this "neutral electron" component actually exists as a stable particle.

For more details and sources, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heim_the...eutral_electron

HT

According to the mass formula of HT, a small part of the electrons mass comes from its negative charge. If it were possible to somehow take away that charge from the electron, the remaining "neutral electron" component would have a mass slightly below the real electrons mass. HT neither demands nor predicts that this "neutral electron" component actually exists as a stable particle.

For more details and sources, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heim_the...eutral_electron

QUOTE (millka+Dec 9 2006, 02:51 AM)

HT does not predict that a neutral electron exists...

OK, the better for Heim's theory. I'll consider this for future.

OK, the better for Heim's theory. I'll consider this for future.

I've just read a reply from Anton Meuller to Borje Mansson's analysis of Heim Gravity, confirming that Heim's analysis of gravity was wrong. It is posted as the last entry on this page: Heim Translation

I thought that I had read somewhere that the gravitational field inside a spherical shell was zero. This also seems correct intuitively - there is as much mass outside in any direction as there is outside in the opposite direction. Doesn't that make Heim's analysis correct?...Jim

QUOTE (Jim Graham+Dec 12 2006, 11:49 AM)

I thought that I had read somewhere that the gravitational field inside a spherical shell was zero. This also seems correct intuitively - there is as much mass outside in any direction as there is outside in the opposite direction. Doesn't that make Heim's analysis correct?...Jim

That's correct. However, the contribution of all the shells inside contribute to gravity. If you dig a hole down to the center of the earth, gravity would gradually decrease as you go deeper and finally reach zero at the center.

Heim is attempting to calculate the gravitational potential caused by the field of gravity itself, not the mass. I don't know how the field of the field can be separated from the field itself. How can this be observed in an experiment? Does the gravitational field have a mass? In Einstein's theory gravity is just the curvature of spacetime. Does curvature have a mass? I don't know.

jreed

That's correct. However, the contribution of all the shells inside contribute to gravity. If you dig a hole down to the center of the earth, gravity would gradually decrease as you go deeper and finally reach zero at the center.

Heim is attempting to calculate the gravitational potential caused by the field of gravity itself, not the mass. I don't know how the field of the field can be separated from the field itself. How can this be observed in an experiment? Does the gravitational field have a mass? In Einstein's theory gravity is just the curvature of spacetime. Does curvature have a mass? I don't know.

jreed

Wasn't Heims argument simply that energy equals mass and a field is energy and thus also curves spacetime (even if just a little bit) ? I mean according to this logic why shouldn't a gravitational field have no mass ?

Michael

Michael

After reading the posts on this thread. I would like to note that the mass ratios given in the paper "The Origin of the Klein-Gordon-Dirac Equation" on the site

http://www.arxdtf.org/

are 10 times more accurate for the basic particle mass ratios, and a lot less complicated. DTF

http://www.arxdtf.org/

are 10 times more accurate for the basic particle mass ratios, and a lot less complicated. DTF

All this recent chatter about Particles, Gravity and one post even declared an area with out charge..

First let me introduce a model that I refer to..

Where an area of our Universe is simply treated as consisting of velocities with a given direction..

These velocities are responsible for each and every Atom and their given charges for their Protons, Electrons and Neutrons and nothing else, it should be noted crackpots refer to a standard model that introduces confusing and conflicting data that still conforms with this model used by many industries, the standard Models difficulty is more than likely where it steers away from this Model.. It also should be noted the areas referred to in this Model, is not simply with a velocity from point A to point B, but rather it is treated in many other ways..

Basically a quantisized area can be dealt with a simple equation via E=MC^2

From this equation we can work with the areas via compression waves or via Charge pertaining to electron flow and or electromagnetic waves depending on the relative environment and or medium our area consists of, as in- Solid, Liquid, Gas and or near vacuum where a single proton could be occupying an area with a magnitude of "C^2" or in a solid an area could consist of many protons..

If an area should hold a "RELATIVE" charge it can be Negative or Positive to our detectors.. This suggests an area is either being compressed {Hence - inward velocities} or if not being compressed an area that is releasing its compression {Hence - outward Velocities} If there is no THEORETICAL momentum, it is considered an area that is not propagating any THEORETICAL Electrons and or Electromagnetic waves or if we are referring to Newtonian forces a compression wave, it should be noted, if an area is propagating an electromagnetic wave and the energy or charge is at all times RELATIVE to our detectors we will have no means to detect it..

If an area is with zero charge it can also be treated as a RELATIVE Neutron..

Whats with all this "RELATIVITY"?

Lecturers and advanced students that are well rehearsed in Electronics and Nuclear Physics and or RELATIVITY may answer it for you, that's if they have a free day or two..

Gravity also will be mentioned by them, and if one grasps the constructs of relativity correctly it will become obvious Gravity is NOT attractive!

The attraction is definitely perceived!

So where does this leave us with our perception of magnets attracting each other? and that also is going to need a couple of days of in-depth research..

But to put it as simple as possible its all to do with the above areas, areas that are with different velocities to another area that convinces us of the magical attraction, when the facts are they are FORCED together via other RELATIVE velocities that our detectors simply can not detect.

Some one mentioned a hole being dug, and the deeper one digs, the less gravity will be experienced, well that's wrong! Because gravity is basically just a sum of combined given velocities towards a given direction, and this is what dictates where the digger is**pushed** the most the deeper the digging but before one can fully understand this, one needs to have worked with relativity a little more..

And NOW, What about the Electrons attraction? that also is going to need a couple of days for some..

Putting it as simple as possible the electron is not really a particle! Theoretically yes! But not practically, although to some it is!

In reality the electron area is the result of velocities in a given area that is inward from two or more protons outwardly velocities.. To understand this we could refer to our ocean depths where a single hydrogen Atom is being pushed inward from every direction by its neighboring Atoms, and it should be noted this Gravitational force exists throughout our universe..

If we refer to E=MC^2 A given area at maximum oceanic depths actually contains a lot more atoms than an area at sea level, we should also note because each area is compressed a lot more the deeper we go, it has a lot more stored energy or potential to it.. This suggests Gravity is the relative result of the combined outward exertions of many atoms from an area with a given medium to another area with a given medium of the same, but separated by another medium as in solid planets and near vacuum mass..

First let me introduce a model that I refer to..

Where an area of our Universe is simply treated as consisting of velocities with a given direction..

These velocities are responsible for each and every Atom and their given charges for their Protons, Electrons and Neutrons and nothing else, it should be noted crackpots refer to a standard model that introduces confusing and conflicting data that still conforms with this model used by many industries, the standard Models difficulty is more than likely where it steers away from this Model.. It also should be noted the areas referred to in this Model, is not simply with a velocity from point A to point B, but rather it is treated in many other ways..

Basically a quantisized area can be dealt with a simple equation via E=MC^2

From this equation we can work with the areas via compression waves or via Charge pertaining to electron flow and or electromagnetic waves depending on the relative environment and or medium our area consists of, as in- Solid, Liquid, Gas and or near vacuum where a single proton could be occupying an area with a magnitude of "C^2" or in a solid an area could consist of many protons..

If an area should hold a "RELATIVE" charge it can be Negative or Positive to our detectors.. This suggests an area is either being compressed {Hence - inward velocities} or if not being compressed an area that is releasing its compression {Hence - outward Velocities} If there is no THEORETICAL momentum, it is considered an area that is not propagating any THEORETICAL Electrons and or Electromagnetic waves or if we are referring to Newtonian forces a compression wave, it should be noted, if an area is propagating an electromagnetic wave and the energy or charge is at all times RELATIVE to our detectors we will have no means to detect it..

If an area is with zero charge it can also be treated as a RELATIVE Neutron..

Whats with all this "RELATIVITY"?

Lecturers and advanced students that are well rehearsed in Electronics and Nuclear Physics and or RELATIVITY may answer it for you, that's if they have a free day or two..

Gravity also will be mentioned by them, and if one grasps the constructs of relativity correctly it will become obvious Gravity is NOT attractive!

The attraction is definitely perceived!

So where does this leave us with our perception of magnets attracting each other? and that also is going to need a couple of days of in-depth research..

But to put it as simple as possible its all to do with the above areas, areas that are with different velocities to another area that convinces us of the magical attraction, when the facts are they are FORCED together via other RELATIVE velocities that our detectors simply can not detect.

Some one mentioned a hole being dug, and the deeper one digs, the less gravity will be experienced, well that's wrong! Because gravity is basically just a sum of combined given velocities towards a given direction, and this is what dictates where the digger is

And NOW, What about the Electrons attraction? that also is going to need a couple of days for some..

Putting it as simple as possible the electron is not really a particle! Theoretically yes! But not practically, although to some it is!

In reality the electron area is the result of velocities in a given area that is inward from two or more protons outwardly velocities.. To understand this we could refer to our ocean depths where a single hydrogen Atom is being pushed inward from every direction by its neighboring Atoms, and it should be noted this Gravitational force exists throughout our universe..

If we refer to E=MC^2 A given area at maximum oceanic depths actually contains a lot more atoms than an area at sea level, we should also note because each area is compressed a lot more the deeper we go, it has a lot more stored energy or potential to it.. This suggests Gravity is the relative result of the combined outward exertions of many atoms from an area with a given medium to another area with a given medium of the same, but separated by another medium as in solid planets and near vacuum mass..

QUOTE (jreed+Dec 12 2006, 02:53 PM)

Does the gravitational field have a mass? In Einstein's theory gravity is just the curvature of spacetime. Does curvature have a mass?

I thought about this, and convinced myself that curvature does have mass. Consider a black hole. It has mass, and it's all curvature of spacetime. I'm still trying to understand Heim's calculations of gravity.

I have copies of Heim's volumes I and II now. They haven't made things any clearer at this point.

jreed

I thought about this, and convinced myself that curvature does have mass. Consider a black hole. It has mass, and it's all curvature of spacetime. I'm still trying to understand Heim's calculations of gravity.

I have copies of Heim's volumes I and II now. They haven't made things any clearer at this point.

jreed

>I have copies of Heim's volumes I and II now. They haven't made things any >clearer at this point.

How do you cope with the german ? I was hoping that the books would help you, as you seam to be one of the persons taking it quite seriously and thus might have a more valuable opinion for all those (like me), who are lacking the necessary background to compare it with the other physical standard theories.

I right now just try to get the rough picture and whether it makes some sense according to what I know - that's why I didn't question the thing that the fields energy should also have some impact (even if very little) and the whole thing being recursive in nature. Actually I was always wondering how to calculate it exactly as usually one stops just at a certain point and drops higher-order terms. But then usually people seam to have thought that the fields energy (mass) is simply to little to consider it. (even though this is surely not the only thing Heim added/considered/changed)

Michael

How do you cope with the german ? I was hoping that the books would help you, as you seam to be one of the persons taking it quite seriously and thus might have a more valuable opinion for all those (like me), who are lacking the necessary background to compare it with the other physical standard theories.

I right now just try to get the rough picture and whether it makes some sense according to what I know - that's why I didn't question the thing that the fields energy should also have some impact (even if very little) and the whole thing being recursive in nature. Actually I was always wondering how to calculate it exactly as usually one stops just at a certain point and drops higher-order terms. But then usually people seam to have thought that the fields energy (mass) is simply to little to consider it. (even though this is surely not the only thing Heim added/considered/changed)

Michael

QUOTE (MichaelB+Dec 13 2006, 12:24 PM)

>I have copies of Heim's volumes I and II now. They haven't made things any >clearer at this point.

How do you cope with the german ? I was hoping that the books would help you, as you seam to be one of the persons taking it quite seriously and thus might have a more valuable opinion for all those (like me), who are lacking the necessary background to compare it with the other physical standard theories.

I just keep working with the German. I passed a test in reading German for my Ph.D many years ago and remember some of it. The rest just takes time but is getting easier. Heim theory is different from any other physics I know. To understand it will take many years. There are many unanswered questions.

jreed

How do you cope with the german ? I was hoping that the books would help you, as you seam to be one of the persons taking it quite seriously and thus might have a more valuable opinion for all those (like me), who are lacking the necessary background to compare it with the other physical standard theories.

I just keep working with the German. I passed a test in reading German for my Ph.D many years ago and remember some of it. The rest just takes time but is getting easier. Heim theory is different from any other physics I know. To understand it will take many years. There are many unanswered questions.

jreed

QUOTE (jreed+Dec 13 2006, 06:21 PM)

I just keep working with the German. I passed a test in reading German for my Ph.D many years ago and remember some of it. The rest just takes time but is getting easier. Heim theory is different from any other physics I know. To understand it will take many years. There are many unanswered questions.

jreed

Yes I agree - because although I can read German with no difficulty, Heim-german is something else! It's the mix of conceptual difficulty and German that makes it all so hard.

On another tack, reading ‘the Trouble with Physics’ by Lee Smolin (much more readable than Heim's books :-) ), in one of the early chapters he was discussing why Kaluza Klein theories failed. He pointed out that the restriction of the size of the curled up extra dimensions led to all sorts of problems and instabilities. Pity he didn’t mention Heim, as he had corresponded with the Heim theory group and should have seen that Heim’s extra dimensions were different in that they were not curled up but extended. The other ingenious feature of Heim’s extra dimensions was that they are imaginary, like time, i.e. have metric signature sqrt(-1) and so are not spatial. This explains why they are not noticed by pure movement. The idea that like time they have a subtler aspect led to the idea that they were associated with order and meaning. That may well be the case. In any event, Heim’s dimensions don’t suffer from those instabilities of the curled up ones of why Kaluza Klein theories.

jreed

Yes I agree - because although I can read German with no difficulty, Heim-german is something else! It's the mix of conceptual difficulty and German that makes it all so hard.

On another tack, reading ‘the Trouble with Physics’ by Lee Smolin (much more readable than Heim's books :-) ), in one of the early chapters he was discussing why Kaluza Klein theories failed. He pointed out that the restriction of the size of the curled up extra dimensions led to all sorts of problems and instabilities. Pity he didn’t mention Heim, as he had corresponded with the Heim theory group and should have seen that Heim’s extra dimensions were different in that they were not curled up but extended. The other ingenious feature of Heim’s extra dimensions was that they are imaginary, like time, i.e. have metric signature sqrt(-1) and so are not spatial. This explains why they are not noticed by pure movement. The idea that like time they have a subtler aspect led to the idea that they were associated with order and meaning. That may well be the case. In any event, Heim’s dimensions don’t suffer from those instabilities of the curled up ones of why Kaluza Klein theories.

In the popular German magazine PM there is now an article on Droscher and Hauser's Heim-drive space proulsion ideia:

http://www.pm-magazin.de/de/wissensnews/wn_id1459.htm

http://www.pm-magazin.de/de/wissensnews/wn_id1459.htm

Pretty surprising how readable the english google translation is !

Hey! I found some more articles discussing Heim's theory in New Scientist - had anyone else noticed these?

http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...eed-pulsar.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...ht-of-heim.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...is-no-hype.html

We had this one before, though:

http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...s-theories.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...eed-pulsar.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...ht-of-heim.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...is-no-hype.html

We had this one before, though:

http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...s-theories.html

Hi all,

hdeasy,

Thanks for the links, the more the better.

A quote from one: http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...s-theories.html

Anybody have a way to get this list of papers, and reports?

To "reconstruct or replicate Heim's work from fundamental principles" would be great.

From the other link: http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...ht-of-heim.html

Anybody have a way to get this list of papers, and reports?

To "reconstruct or replicate Heim's work from fundamental principles" would be great.

From the other link: http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...ht-of-heim.html

By playing around with fractions, exponents and logarithms for half an hour, I came up with a formula that agrees with Heim's value for the mass of a proton to 10 significant figures.

So, do I have my own secret theory of quantum gravity? Of course not. The point is that numerical agreements that come out of very complicated calculations are meaningless.

What he is saying is true, however, for each additional particle so derived, the "odds" get higher and higher that the "pattern" is indeed, fundamental.

I definitely concur with this statement. Is there, perhaps, a "hidden pattern" that lies inside of Heim's work, that could explain the very good results, with LESS complexity?

regards,

T.Roc

The 36 values in this 6 X 6 matrix run from 254.8 to .0002. They are selected in the equations by binomial coefficients that act as switches. Each particle has its own set of A coefficients that are selected in the 1982 mass formula.

As one will see the different particles are composed of different types of spins (metron density fluctuations). For instance some spins produce the effect of electric charges, others not.

As far as I do understand the mass formula these different kinds of spins are summed up in the end and multiplied by a factor giving the value in [MeV]. All of these spins tend to orient in space orthogonally to the direction of expansion of space. This results in**inertia** and thus in the effect of mass!

But spins in different groups of coordinates and with different numbers of sub-constituents of course will produce*different* portions of mass. In former document D a total of 1960 possible flux aggregates is mentioned but not all of them are stable in time. In charged particles we have 72 different kinds of condensors.

So a kind of weighting factor has to be introduced marking the geometrically different types of spins that you will find in particles with different quantum numbers. These quantum numbers simply are another expression of these differences in spin constituents. Thus they must lead to some kind of weighting factors.

hdeasy,

Thanks for the links, the more the better.

A quote from one: http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...s-theories.html

QUOTE

By an apparent coincidence, the US air force immediately acquired an intense appetite for general relativity and quantum dynamics research.

..

The ARL programme generated more than 70 papers that were published in peer-reviewed journals, and compiled 18 technical reports. None cited Heim's work, but it is possible that the undocumented purpose for creating Goldberg's programme may have been to reconstruct or replicate Heim's work from fundamental principles.

..

The ARL programme generated more than 70 papers that were published in peer-reviewed journals, and compiled 18 technical reports. None cited Heim's work, but it is possible that the undocumented purpose for creating Goldberg's programme may have been to reconstruct or replicate Heim's work from fundamental principles.

Anybody have a way to get this list of papers, and reports?

To "reconstruct or replicate Heim's work from fundamental principles" would be great.

From the other link: http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...ht-of-heim.html

QUOTE (->

QUOTE |

By an apparent coincidence, the US air force immediately acquired an intense appetite for general relativity and quantum dynamics research. .. The ARL programme generated more than 70 papers that were published in peer-reviewed journals, and compiled 18 technical reports. None cited Heim's work, but it is possible that the undocumented purpose for creating Goldberg's programme may have been to reconstruct or replicate Heim's work from fundamental principles. |

Anybody have a way to get this list of papers, and reports?

To "reconstruct or replicate Heim's work from fundamental principles" would be great.

From the other link: http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...ht-of-heim.html

By playing around with fractions, exponents and logarithms for half an hour, I came up with a formula that agrees with Heim's value for the mass of a proton to 10 significant figures.

So, do I have my own secret theory of quantum gravity? Of course not. The point is that numerical agreements that come out of very complicated calculations are meaningless.

What he is saying is true, however, for each additional particle so derived, the "odds" get higher and higher that the "pattern" is indeed, fundamental.

QUOTE

To be meaningful, a numerical agreement has to come from a theory which makes sense and which bases its calculations on a simple, natural, fundamental principle.

I definitely concur with this statement. Is there, perhaps, a "hidden pattern" that lies inside of Heim's work, that could explain the very good results, with LESS complexity?

regards,

T.Roc

QUOTE (TRoc+Dec 19 2006, 08:30 PM)

I definitely concur with this statement. Is there, perhaps, a "hidden pattern" that lies inside of Heim's work, that could explain the very good results, with LESS complexity?

I wouldn't say that there has to be some "hidden pattern" in Heims work. Actually I think it's pretty nice, at least as nice as as other popular explanations for String-Theory and the like. Especially if one takes the other parts of his theory (or Heims and Dröschers), added to what is being discussed here. That's for me one of the reasons to take it seriously. As I wrote already somewhere else, if we take just the mass-formula as his whole work, it would probably be like Heim fooled himself for some decades by doing stuff build on his earlier work.

Unfortunately there is, I guess, no point to discuss the even "stranger" things he worked on (given to the current pure materialistic world-view), if people don't understand these things first.

And just because the math is hard, shouldn't mean it makes no sense. I don't understand much of quantumtheory-math (at least yet), but can understand what it's about, same for GR. So in my opinion it's not a necessity to easily calculate something in the theory in order to make sense. (of course this doesn't proof it, but neither the other way around)

Michael

I wouldn't say that there has to be some "hidden pattern" in Heims work. Actually I think it's pretty nice, at least as nice as as other popular explanations for String-Theory and the like. Especially if one takes the other parts of his theory (or Heims and Dröschers), added to what is being discussed here. That's for me one of the reasons to take it seriously. As I wrote already somewhere else, if we take just the mass-formula as his whole work, it would probably be like Heim fooled himself for some decades by doing stuff build on his earlier work.

Unfortunately there is, I guess, no point to discuss the even "stranger" things he worked on (given to the current pure materialistic world-view), if people don't understand these things first.

And just because the math is hard, shouldn't mean it makes no sense. I don't understand much of quantumtheory-math (at least yet), but can understand what it's about, same for GR. So in my opinion it's not a necessity to easily calculate something in the theory in order to make sense. (of course this doesn't proof it, but neither the other way around)

Michael

This reminds me of Smolin's answer to the Heim Theory group, which is something he repeated again and again in his 'Trouble with Physics' - i.e. it's no good having a complex theory like String Theory without knowing that some new principle is involved comparable to Einstein's bold insights for Special Relativity (all uniformly moving frames of reference are equivalent for describing the laws of nature, including light speed) and later for General Relativity ( extension to accelerating frames - and the equivalence principle).

Heim theory can be said to involve another basic insight: the particles are twists in space consistent with quantum mechanics and relativity. Or the theory unifies space and matter, as well as quantum mechanics and relativity. This is in a way a more fundamental unification than in String Theory, as the latter still treats matter as independent of space, moving against space as a background.

What's more, Smolin implies that for a true revolution in physics, the new principle has to have all sorts of predictions capable of being verified, as well as surprising philosophical implications. Heim's theory does both wonderfully. The mass formula and the gravito-magnetic effects are very concrete predictions. I'm sure that if more work was done on the gravity model it might predict some of the recently discovered deviations from classical gravity. As for philosophy, Heim's extension of the theory into one of complexity, emergence and the interpretation of the dimensions as involving order, complexity and meaning are food enough for thought - comparable to the philosophical implicaitons of relativity and quantum mechanics.

Heim theory can be said to involve another basic insight: the particles are twists in space consistent with quantum mechanics and relativity. Or the theory unifies space and matter, as well as quantum mechanics and relativity. This is in a way a more fundamental unification than in String Theory, as the latter still treats matter as independent of space, moving against space as a background.

What's more, Smolin implies that for a true revolution in physics, the new principle has to have all sorts of predictions capable of being verified, as well as surprising philosophical implications. Heim's theory does both wonderfully. The mass formula and the gravito-magnetic effects are very concrete predictions. I'm sure that if more work was done on the gravity model it might predict some of the recently discovered deviations from classical gravity. As for philosophy, Heim's extension of the theory into one of complexity, emergence and the interpretation of the dimensions as involving order, complexity and meaning are food enough for thought - comparable to the philosophical implicaitons of relativity and quantum mechanics.

QUOTE (Olaf+Nov 8 2006, 05:43 PM)

Yes, I confirm to John. There must be a very strong correlation between the 1982 formula and the 1989 version.

As far as I know one of the reasons for putting out a 1989 version are those funny coefficients Aik that are used as geometrical weighting factors in the 1982 formula. In "elementary structures" this coefficients are not derived explicitly. So it gives a weak touch to the whole thing.

Olaf mentioned this a while ago, and I've been looking at this A(i,j) matrix. It looks like the quantum numbers n, m, p, sigma used in the 1989 program are derived with the 1982 equations. That means that these matrix values are buried in the 1989 program also.

This matrix appears in the 1982 Heim Theory pdf document "Introduction to Heim's Mass Formula", pages 7 and 8.

This matrix troubles me for the following reasons. There is no place where it is discussed and we don't have any idea of where the values come from. The 36 values in this 6 X 6 matrix run from 254.8 to .0002. They are selected in the equations by binomial coefficients that act as switches. Each particle has its own set of A coefficients that are selected in the 1982 mass formula. Here are a few:

proton, electron - no A is used

neutron - A(2,1)

muon - A(1,6)

eta - A(1,1)

lambda - A(2,1), A(22)

piZero - A(1,1), A(1,2), A(1,4)

pi+ - A(1,1), A(1,2), A(1,4), A(1,5)

...

I have matrix elements for the rest of the particles also. I bring this up because it will surely give ammunition to those who want to say the Heim equations are value call up programs. More clarification of these matrix values must be given. They are not discussed in Heim's volumes 1 and 2. Were they developed at DESY when the equations were programmed in Fortran?

jreed

As far as I know one of the reasons for putting out a 1989 version are those funny coefficients Aik that are used as geometrical weighting factors in the 1982 formula. In "elementary structures" this coefficients are not derived explicitly. So it gives a weak touch to the whole thing.

Olaf mentioned this a while ago, and I've been looking at this A(i,j) matrix. It looks like the quantum numbers n, m, p, sigma used in the 1989 program are derived with the 1982 equations. That means that these matrix values are buried in the 1989 program also.

This matrix appears in the 1982 Heim Theory pdf document "Introduction to Heim's Mass Formula", pages 7 and 8.

This matrix troubles me for the following reasons. There is no place where it is discussed and we don't have any idea of where the values come from. The 36 values in this 6 X 6 matrix run from 254.8 to .0002. They are selected in the equations by binomial coefficients that act as switches. Each particle has its own set of A coefficients that are selected in the 1982 mass formula. Here are a few:

proton, electron - no A is used

neutron - A(2,1)

muon - A(1,6)

eta - A(1,1)

lambda - A(2,1), A(22)

piZero - A(1,1), A(1,2), A(1,4)

pi+ - A(1,1), A(1,2), A(1,4), A(1,5)

...

I have matrix elements for the rest of the particles also. I bring this up because it will surely give ammunition to those who want to say the Heim equations are value call up programs. More clarification of these matrix values must be given. They are not discussed in Heim's volumes 1 and 2. Were they developed at DESY when the equations were programmed in Fortran?

jreed

QUOTE (jreed+Dec 21 2006, 01:02 AM)

I have matrix elements for the rest of the particles also. I bring this up because it will surely give ammunition to those who want to say the Heim equations are value call up programs. More clarification of these matrix values must be given. They are not discussed in Heim's volumes 1 and 2. Were they developed at DESY when the equations were programmed in Fortran?

jreed

Yes, it seems they are “ad hoc” values, but on the other hand, the tau particle was discover in 1975 and a good estimation for the tau mass was made in 1978 by W. Bacino et al. This value was 1782 MeV, near the best present estimation, 1776,99 MeV, so why he (or they) did not include this particle in the 1982 table with a new ad hoc value?. I don’t know. So as you say, the origin of A(i,k) must be pursued, are they ad hoc values or are they derived from an equation?.

jreed

Yes, it seems they are “ad hoc” values, but on the other hand, the tau particle was discover in 1975 and a good estimation for the tau mass was made in 1978 by W. Bacino et al. This value was 1782 MeV, near the best present estimation, 1776,99 MeV, so why he (or they) did not include this particle in the 1982 table with a new ad hoc value?. I don’t know. So as you say, the origin of A(i,k) must be pursued, are they ad hoc values or are they derived from an equation?.

QUOTE (jreed+Dec 21 2006, 01:02 AM)

The 36 values in this 6 X 6 matrix run from 254.8 to .0002. They are selected in the equations by binomial coefficients that act as switches. Each particle has its own set of A coefficients that are selected in the 1982 mass formula.

As one will see the different particles are composed of different types of spins (metron density fluctuations). For instance some spins produce the effect of electric charges, others not.

As far as I do understand the mass formula these different kinds of spins are summed up in the end and multiplied by a factor giving the value in [MeV]. All of these spins tend to orient in space orthogonally to the direction of expansion of space. This results in

But spins in different groups of coordinates and with different numbers of sub-constituents of course will produce

So a kind of weighting factor has to be introduced marking the geometrically different types of spins that you will find in particles with different quantum numbers. These quantum numbers simply are another expression of these differences in spin constituents. Thus they must lead to some kind of weighting factors.

QUOTE (jreed+Dec 21 2006, 01:02 AM)

This matrix troubles me for the following reasons. There is no place where it is discussed and we don't have any idea of where the values come from. (...)

They are not discussed in Heim's volumes 1 and 2.

These factors are mentioned but not derived in Volume 2, page 335 ff.

These factors are mentioned but not derived in Volume 2, page 335 ff.

Yes, I found that part of Heim's book, and translated it for myself. Heim does explain where the A matrix came from, and what a surprise! Heim says "One investigates each matrix value using the interpretation (101b), the EMPERICAL DATA OF GROUND STATES" (masses). "Then one can heuristically reduce the A(i,m) and A(6,6) to limiting values of pi, e and xi". In other words, the ground state masses were put into the A matrix. No wonder we have such wonderful agreement with the observed data. The masses were already put into the equations, and then we turn around and recompute them. If I hadn't worked so long on this it would be worth a good laugh. When I worked through how the A matrix was being used to compute masses, I thought it was more than chance that 12 of the A matrices are being used to compute 12 ground state masses.

Heim was after the excited states, and for this he needed good estimates of the ground states. He used experimental mass values for this. Since the excited state masses computed with the theory are worthless, I'm afraid that Heim theory has reached the end of the line for me.

jreed

They are not discussed in Heim's volumes 1 and 2.

These factors are mentioned but not derived in Volume 2, page 335 ff.

QUOTE (jreed+Dec 21 2006, 01:02 AM)

Were they developed at DESY when the equations were programmed in Fortran?

No, the Fortran program as well as the Pascal source code written by Burkhard Heim use exactly the same weighting coefficients, expressed completely by geometrical factors.

No, the Fortran program as well as the Pascal source code written by Burkhard Heim use exactly the same weighting coefficients, expressed completely by geometrical factors.

QUOTE (Olaf+Dec 21 2006, 07:29 PM)

These factors are mentioned but not derived in Volume 2, page 335 ff.

Yes, I found that part of Heim's book, and translated it for myself. Heim does explain where the A matrix came from, and what a surprise! Heim says "One investigates each matrix value using the interpretation (101b), the EMPERICAL DATA OF GROUND STATES" (masses). "Then one can heuristically reduce the A(i,m) and A(6,6) to limiting values of pi, e and xi". In other words, the ground state masses were put into the A matrix. No wonder we have such wonderful agreement with the observed data. The masses were already put into the equations, and then we turn around and recompute them. If I hadn't worked so long on this it would be worth a good laugh. When I worked through how the A matrix was being used to compute masses, I thought it was more than chance that 12 of the A matrices are being used to compute 12 ground state masses.

Heim was after the excited states, and for this he needed good estimates of the ground states. He used experimental mass values for this. Since the excited state masses computed with the theory are worthless, I'm afraid that Heim theory has reached the end of the line for me.

jreed

QUOTE (jreed+Dec 22 2006, 12:35 AM)

Yes, I found that part of Heim's book, and translated it for myself. Heim does explain where the A matrix came from, and what a surprise! Heim says "One investigates each matrix value using the interpretation (101b), the EMPERICAL DATA OF GROUND STATES" (masses). "Then one can heuristically reduce the A(i,m) and A(6,6) to limiting values of pi, e and xi". In other words, the ground state masses were put into the A matrix. No wonder we have such wonderful agreement with the observed data. The masses were already put into the equations, and then we turn around and recompute them. If I hadn't worked so long on this it would be worth a good laugh. When I worked through how the A matrix was being used to compute masses, I thought it was more than chance that 12 of the A matrices are being used to compute 12 ground state masses.

Heim was after the excited states, and for this he needed good estimates of the ground states. He used experimental mass values for this. Since the excited state masses computed with the theory are worthless, I'm afraid that Heim theory has reached the end of the line for me.

jreed

Hi John,

I passed on your point to I.V. Ludwiger and his answer is:

Lieber Herr Deasy,

was der Autor über die Parameter, die in die Massenformel eingehen, schreibt, ist Unsinn! Natürlich werden in die Massenformel keine Massenwerte eingeführt. Heim schreibt ja nur, dass er die Anregerfunktionen noch nicht ermittelt hat und sich bei diesen auf Hinweise aus der Empirie beziehen muss. Nur bestimmte Strukturen der Anregerfunktion Aik (!) lieferten empirische Massenwerte. Irgendwelche Mssenwerte selbst hat Heim aber nicht eingebaut und das auch nicht behauptet. Mit den so erhaltenen Funktionen konnte Heim Prognosen der noch nicht empirisch entdeckten Resonanzen verwenden. Wir haben diese "vorläufige Massenformel" auch nur darum ins Internet gestellt, weil der Weg zu ihrer Herleitung in den Büchern von Heim nachvollzogen werden kann. In der "endgültigen Massenformel" tauchen diese Parameter auch nicht mehr auf. Dr. Müller forderte immer, dass wir nur diese ins Internet stellen sollten, damit die betreffenden Missverständnisse nicht auftreten. Diese Formel hat Heim 1989 an die Firma MBB geschickt gemeinsam mit Formeln zur Bestimmung der magnetischen Momente einiger Elementarteilchen. In diese Formel gehen keine unbestimmten Parameter mehr ein, sondern nur G, h, c und e, Pi und zeta. Die Herleitung dieser Massenformel ist aber auf Disketten enthalten, zu denen wir alle bisher keinen Zugang hatten. Da diese Formel nun auch die Lebensdauern der Elementarteilchen und die Massen der Neutrinos enthält, sollte nur diese diskutiert werden. Heim hat es nicht mehr geschafft, auch eine Auswahlregel für die Resonanzen zu bestimmen.

Leider wird die Gravitationstheorie von Heim, die fehlerhaft ist, jetzt von einigen Autoren behandelt. Herr Posdzech hat längst überholte Gleichungen ins Internet gestellt. Dr. Müller hat nochmals seine 20 Jahre alten Überlegungen zur Diskussion gestellt. Das verwirrt nur interessierte Physiker. Dr. Grüner und ich wollten in einer "Klarstellung" auch zu dieser fehlerhaften Darstellung von Heim Stellung nehmen. Leider hat sich Herr Müller nicht mit uns abgesprochen und dieses Detail als seine Klarstellung verbrietet. Das ist nicht sehr konstruktiv. Denn wir wollen einen Überblick darüber geben, dass die Ansätze im wesentlichen richtig sind und wollten erst danach auf die einzelnen Unklarheiten eingehen. Jetzt denken die Physiker, die sich mit Heim beschäftigen, dass an der ganzen Theorie nichts dran sein kann, weil sie marginale Fehler entdeckt haben. Das ist betrüblich. Denn trotz einiger Fehler und Unklarheiten liefert Heims Theorie bisher physikalisch nachprüfbare Aussagen für die Elementarteilchenphysik. Wenn die DESY-Physiker der Ansicht gewesen wären, dass Heim Massenwerte in seine Formel gesteckt hätte, so hätte man ihn sofort raus geworfen!

Vielleicht wird der geplante 80 Seiten lange Fachartikel, den Häuser und Dröscher jetzt für eine amerikanische Zeitschrift schreiben werden, die Akzeptanz der Heim-Dröscherschen Theorie ermöglichen.

Ich wünsche Ihnen Frohe Festtage und ein gutes Neues Jahr

Illobrand von Ludwiger

Heim was after the excited states, and for this he needed good estimates of the ground states. He used experimental mass values for this. Since the excited state masses computed with the theory are worthless, I'm afraid that Heim theory has reached the end of the line for me.

jreed

Hi John,

I passed on your point to I.V. Ludwiger and his answer is:

Lieber Herr Deasy,

was der Autor über die Parameter, die in die Massenformel eingehen, schreibt, ist Unsinn! Natürlich werden in die Massenformel keine Massenwerte eingeführt. Heim schreibt ja nur, dass er die Anregerfunktionen noch nicht ermittelt hat und sich bei diesen auf Hinweise aus der Empirie beziehen muss. Nur bestimmte Strukturen der Anregerfunktion Aik (!) lieferten empirische Massenwerte. Irgendwelche Mssenwerte selbst hat Heim aber nicht eingebaut und das auch nicht behauptet. Mit den so erhaltenen Funktionen konnte Heim Prognosen der noch nicht empirisch entdeckten Resonanzen verwenden. Wir haben diese "vorläufige Massenformel" auch nur darum ins Internet gestellt, weil der Weg zu ihrer Herleitung in den Büchern von Heim nachvollzogen werden kann. In der "endgültigen Massenformel" tauchen diese Parameter auch nicht mehr auf. Dr. Müller forderte immer, dass wir nur diese ins Internet stellen sollten, damit die betreffenden Missverständnisse nicht auftreten. Diese Formel hat Heim 1989 an die Firma MBB geschickt gemeinsam mit Formeln zur Bestimmung der magnetischen Momente einiger Elementarteilchen. In diese Formel gehen keine unbestimmten Parameter mehr ein, sondern nur G, h, c und e, Pi und zeta. Die Herleitung dieser Massenformel ist aber auf Disketten enthalten, zu denen wir alle bisher keinen Zugang hatten. Da diese Formel nun auch die Lebensdauern der Elementarteilchen und die Massen der Neutrinos enthält, sollte nur diese diskutiert werden. Heim hat es nicht mehr geschafft, auch eine Auswahlregel für die Resonanzen zu bestimmen.

Leider wird die Gravitationstheorie von Heim, die fehlerhaft ist, jetzt von einigen Autoren behandelt. Herr Posdzech hat längst überholte Gleichungen ins Internet gestellt. Dr. Müller hat nochmals seine 20 Jahre alten Überlegungen zur Diskussion gestellt. Das verwirrt nur interessierte Physiker. Dr. Grüner und ich wollten in einer "Klarstellung" auch zu dieser fehlerhaften Darstellung von Heim Stellung nehmen. Leider hat sich Herr Müller nicht mit uns abgesprochen und dieses Detail als seine Klarstellung verbrietet. Das ist nicht sehr konstruktiv. Denn wir wollen einen Überblick darüber geben, dass die Ansätze im wesentlichen richtig sind und wollten erst danach auf die einzelnen Unklarheiten eingehen. Jetzt denken die Physiker, die sich mit Heim beschäftigen, dass an der ganzen Theorie nichts dran sein kann, weil sie marginale Fehler entdeckt haben. Das ist betrüblich. Denn trotz einiger Fehler und Unklarheiten liefert Heims Theorie bisher physikalisch nachprüfbare Aussagen für die Elementarteilchenphysik. Wenn die DESY-Physiker der Ansicht gewesen wären, dass Heim Massenwerte in seine Formel gesteckt hätte, so hätte man ihn sofort raus geworfen!

Vielleicht wird der geplante 80 Seiten lange Fachartikel, den Häuser und Dröscher jetzt für eine amerikanische Zeitschrift schreiben werden, die Akzeptanz der Heim-Dröscherschen Theorie ermöglichen.

Ich wünsche Ihnen Frohe Festtage und ein gutes Neues Jahr

Illobrand von Ludwiger

QUOTE (hdeasy+Dec 23 2006, 02:32 PM)

Hi John,

I passed on your point to I.V. Ludwiger and his answer is:

Lieber Herr Deasy,

was der Autor über die Parameter, die in die Massenformel eingehen, schreibt, ist Unsinn!

I didn't say that the mass values were inserted directly in the equations. I think what happened was that Heim ended up with equations with the unknown matrix A as a parameter. In the book he says "It is not possible as yet to give explicit forms for A(i,m) and A(6,6). One investigates each matrix value using emperical data..." here is where the known masses come in. The equation was solved for one of the particles with a known mass value, and the form of a component of A was varied to minimize the error between the computed mass value and known mass value. The form of A was assumed to be a polynomial depending on pi, e and the golden ratio (xi). In this way A is built up so that the set of mass values can be estimated. This gives the appearance of an analytic solution since the components of A all depend on the constants pi, e and the golden ratio (xi). It is however nothing more than a numerical fitting exercise. The A matrix looks like mathematical expressions, but it's really only a table of numbers. What we get out for the masses is exactly what was put into the equations by minimizing the error. I can even tell in what order the particles were done. The proton and electron were done first, since there are no A's involved. Then the muon, neutron and eta were done with one A involved. Next K0, Lambda, Omega- and Xi- were done. These took two A's. Then pi0, K+, sigma0, sigma- were done. These took 3 A's. This continues until we get to delta+ which took seven A's. As more particles are added, it requires more A's since the previous ones have been used.

As far as the new 1989 equations, these are related to the 1982 equations through the added quantum numbers n, m, p, sigma which can be derived with the 1982 equation. All those A coefficients are still in the 1989 equations, but now well hidden. They show up as factors of pi, e and xi. I could probably track all this down, but I've already wasted too much time on this.

jreed

I passed on your point to I.V. Ludwiger and his answer is:

Lieber Herr Deasy,

was der Autor über die Parameter, die in die Massenformel eingehen, schreibt, ist Unsinn!

I didn't say that the mass values were inserted directly in the equations. I think what happened was that Heim ended up with equations with the unknown matrix A as a parameter. In the book he says "It is not possible as yet to give explicit forms for A(i,m) and A(6,6). One investigates each matrix value using emperical data..." here is where the known masses come in. The equation was solved for one of the particles with a known mass value, and the form of a component of A was varied to minimize the error between the computed mass value and known mass value. The form of A was assumed to be a polynomial depending on pi, e and the golden ratio (xi). In this way A is built up so that the set of mass values can be estimated. This gives the appearance of an analytic solution since the components of A all depend on the constants pi, e and the golden ratio (xi). It is however nothing more than a numerical fitting exercise. The A matrix looks like mathematical expressions, but it's really only a table of numbers. What we get out for the masses is exactly what was put into the equations by minimizing the error. I can even tell in what order the particles were done. The proton and electron were done first, since there are no A's involved. Then the muon, neutron and eta were done with one A involved. Next K0, Lambda, Omega- and Xi- were done. These took two A's. Then pi0, K+, sigma0, sigma- were done. These took 3 A's. This continues until we get to delta+ which took seven A's. As more particles are added, it requires more A's since the previous ones have been used.

As far as the new 1989 equations, these are related to the 1982 equations through the added quantum numbers n, m, p, sigma which can be derived with the 1982 equation. All those A coefficients are still in the 1989 equations, but now well hidden. They show up as factors of pi, e and xi. I could probably track all this down, but I've already wasted too much time on this.

jreed

IVL makes good points against your assertion - i.e. that the Ai only affect some masses and there were only hints drawn from the experimental data. Then his point that Heim would never have played such a trick and maintained he had not inserted values, is good. So is the fact that the DESY scientists would have spotted such a simple trick as they analysed the mass formula derivation as they coded it in and were very experienced particle physicists suspicious of new theories.

Another point that struck me was that the neutrino mass predictions, for one, could not have come from data in 1982, as only in 1998 or later was it apparent that they had non-zero mass and the values were utterly unknown. THey are still unknown in the standard model with only limits set by experiment and values for the mass difference of different neutrino types from this oscillation discovered in the last few years. Yet Heim's values are still within the limits. That's just an indication that IVL is right and there really is no 'feedback' as you maintain. But never mind - leave the study of Heim for the time being if you think it's a waste of time - let's await Droscher & Hauser's 80 page review paper next year - that should be a milestone for the theory - it should be peer reviewed and give the first decent introduction to physicists.

Again comparing with Smolin's description of cutting edge Loop quantum gravity, spinors, etc., it is very notable how all these theories agree with Heim's way of background independent theory where space emerges from the metrons. Only Heim includes the additional time-like dimensions. The elegance of the way in which the forces arise from different hermetry combinations and the way they map onto the Standard Model shows again that the theory is deeper than a look up table of masses. Finally the gravito-photon predicition was wonderfully corroborated by Tajmar and 2007 may see interesting developments there.

Another point that struck me was that the neutrino mass predictions, for one, could not have come from data in 1982, as only in 1998 or later was it apparent that they had non-zero mass and the values were utterly unknown. THey are still unknown in the standard model with only limits set by experiment and values for the mass difference of different neutrino types from this oscillation discovered in the last few years. Yet Heim's values are still within the limits. That's just an indication that IVL is right and there really is no 'feedback' as you maintain. But never mind - leave the study of Heim for the time being if you think it's a waste of time - let's await Droscher & Hauser's 80 page review paper next year - that should be a milestone for the theory - it should be peer reviewed and give the first decent introduction to physicists.

Again comparing with Smolin's description of cutting edge Loop quantum gravity, spinors, etc., it is very notable how all these theories agree with Heim's way of background independent theory where space emerges from the metrons. Only Heim includes the additional time-like dimensions. The elegance of the way in which the forces arise from different hermetry combinations and the way they map onto the Standard Model shows again that the theory is deeper than a look up table of masses. Finally the gravito-photon predicition was wonderfully corroborated by Tajmar and 2007 may see interesting developments there.

QUOTE (hdeasy+Dec 23 2006, 04:04 PM)

IVL makes good points against your assertion - i.e. that the Ai only affect some masses and there were only hints drawn from the experimental data. Then his point that Heim would never have played such a trick and maintained he had not inserted values, is good. So is the fact that the DESY scientists would have spotted such a simple trick as they analysed the mass formula derivation as they coded it in and were very experienced particle physicists suspicious of new theories.

- let's await Droscher & Hauser's 80 page review paper next year - that should be a milestone for the theory - it should be peer reviewed and give the first decent introduction to physicists.

A few comments on your reply:

I haven't accused Heim of trying to trick anyone, and I don't think he was. Since his comments about how he found the A matrix appear in the chapter covering resonance spectra and its limits, he was trying to develop a theory of the excited states of particles, not the ground states. To do this, he needed the ground state masses to compute the excited state values, starting from ground state values. He used the ground state masses as this starting point in his equations. He explaines this in his book, as well as the method he used to find his equations for the ground states. The "hints" you refer to are the ground state masses. Heim tells us that in his book. The only particles that don't use the A values are the proton and electron. All the rest do. If the DESY scientists understood what Heim was doing, they wouldn't have seen anything wrong with this. I don't see anything wrong with it either, as long as the equations are not presented as calculating the ground state masses from first principles, which they don't do. Somehow during the time from when this was done (1982) until now, this has been forgotten and now the equations are being presented as calculating ground state masses. WRONG.

If this is not correct, what is your theory about where the A matrix comes from? My information comes from Heim's book. Do have a different source?

As far as Droscher & Hauser's paper, as I understand it this deals only with the gravito-photon theory and space travel applications. There is no discussion about the calculations of particle masses. Is that correct?

jreed

- let's await Droscher & Hauser's 80 page review paper next year - that should be a milestone for the theory - it should be peer reviewed and give the first decent introduction to physicists.

A few comments on your reply:

I haven't accused Heim of trying to trick anyone, and I don't think he was. Since his comments about how he found the A matrix appear in the chapter covering resonance spectra and its limits, he was trying to develop a theory of the excited states of particles, not the ground states. To do this, he needed the ground state masses to compute the excited state values, starting from ground state values. He used the ground state masses as this starting point in his equations. He explaines this in his book, as well as the method he used to find his equations for the ground states. The "hints" you refer to are the ground state masses. Heim tells us that in his book. The only particles that don't use the A values are the proton and electron. All the rest do. If the DESY scientists understood what Heim was doing, they wouldn't have seen anything wrong with this. I don't see anything wrong with it either, as long as the equations are not presented as calculating the ground state masses from first principles, which they don't do. Somehow during the time from when this was done (1982) until now, this has been forgotten and now the equations are being presented as calculating ground state masses. WRONG.

If this is not correct, what is your theory about where the A matrix comes from? My information comes from Heim's book. Do have a different source?

As far as Droscher & Hauser's paper, as I understand it this deals only with the gravito-photon theory and space travel applications. There is no discussion about the calculations of particle masses. Is that correct?

jreed

Hi all,

jreed's

This is not a small difference! The masses of the particles from first principles vs the masses of the excited states of said particles (w/ known masses).

Either way, I have a question, for anyone who can answer. If there is a predictable, mathematical pattern inherent to the masses of the particles, and their "harmonics" (excited states), then it should not be hard to extend that pattern down to a Universal "beginning" (say from ZPE, or Cos Con), NOR should it be hard to extend that pattern upwards, into the elements, and their "excited states".

Does anyone know of mention of this, or have a comment?

regards,

T.Roc

jreed's

QUOTE

"He used the ground state masses as this starting point in his equations."

"Since his comments about how he found the A matrix appear in the chapter covering resonance spectra and its limits, he was trying to develop a theory of the excited states of particles, not the ground states. "

"..equations are not presented as calculating the ground state masses from first principles.."

"Since his comments about how he found the A matrix appear in the chapter covering resonance spectra and its limits, he was trying to develop a theory of the excited states of particles, not the ground states. "

"..equations are not presented as calculating the ground state masses from first principles.."

This is not a small difference! The masses of the particles from first principles vs the masses of the excited states of said particles (w/ known masses).

Either way, I have a question, for anyone who can answer. If there is a predictable, mathematical pattern inherent to the masses of the particles, and their "harmonics" (excited states), then it should not be hard to extend that pattern down to a Universal "beginning" (say from ZPE, or Cos Con), NOR should it be hard to extend that pattern upwards, into the elements, and their "excited states".

Does anyone know of mention of this, or have a comment?

regards,

T.Roc

Sorry if this is off topic but I just wanted to pop my head into this thread. I am a journalist doing preliminary reading and research for an article I want to write on Burkhard Heim and Heim Theory. I don't have a background in science but I read "Guidelines for a space propulsion device based on Heim's quantum theory" by Droscher and Hauser and I read "Heim’s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures" by Auerbach. I admit I don't understand the math entirely but the theory as I understand it has the appearance of being quite elegant.

And, of course, the prospect of an interstellar space vehicle is an intriguing aspect of Heim Theory, to put it mildly.

Anyway, I just wanted to introduce myself. I'll go back to reading this thread in its entirety and anything else on Heim I come across. If there's anything I should be aware of in preparation for this article, please contact me. noahyzimmerman at yahoo dot com

Cheers!

And, of course, the prospect of an interstellar space vehicle is an intriguing aspect of Heim Theory, to put it mildly.

Anyway, I just wanted to introduce myself. I'll go back to reading this thread in its entirety and anything else on Heim I come across. If there's anything I should be aware of in preparation for this article, please contact me. noahyzimmerman at yahoo dot com

Cheers!

@jreed

Maybe you have discovered a point which shows that the mass equation can only be used for the calculation of a few particle masses - maybe the proton, electron and neutrinos. I admit that from the book it not apparent where the values for the A elements come from. I can only repeat what IvL said - namely that Heim said he WAS predicting the particle masses. So either Heim forgot himself how this feedback from measured values was done, or it is not quite as it seems and the A are indeed calculated elsewhere and only in this estimation of the resonances are the ground state masses taken as given. This could mean several things. It could be that as input to the resonance calculations he could either take the estimated ground state masses or the measured ones, and he decided to take the latter. Or it could mean as you suspect that there are only the measured values in most cases. It again shows that we need the full derivation of hte mass formula from first principles. As you know, the Heim Theory group removed their derivation from their web site as they realised it was faulty. They are supposed to correct it and re-instate it on-line. This is another event to look forward to in 2007. If it doesn't occur, then we still have Droscher and Hauser's 80 page review paper and/or the confirmation that the hermetries predict Tajmar's anti-gravity results, which in a few months should be confirmed by other groups. If all these possibilities fail then 2007 will be a disappointing year indeed.

It's true that Droscher and Hauser's gravito-photon calculations are geared toward propulsion applications at the moment. But they are based on the same basic theory as the mass formula. They are careful, however, to separate the two in their papers, as they are far more confident of the gravito-photon calculations. These seem to be more tractable than the mass formula, but no less important in terms of predictive power. So it seems that in 2007 D & H will concentrate on the gravito-photon derivations and the Heim Theory group, working separately, should produce an update on the mass formula calculations. Either way a few months will tell. It reminds me of the discussions in Wikipedia a few years ago - at that time D & H were promising an important paper on the propulsion application. They eventually delivered on that with the AIAA prize and New Scientist publicity as a result. The mass formula implementations here were another important development that was widely reported. So it seems that there are a few milestones - some have been met and some are promised for 2007 - there is every reason to hope that these milestones will be achieved as were the others.

Maybe you have discovered a point which shows that the mass equation can only be used for the calculation of a few particle masses - maybe the proton, electron and neutrinos. I admit that from the book it not apparent where the values for the A elements come from. I can only repeat what IvL said - namely that Heim said he WAS predicting the particle masses. So either Heim forgot himself how this feedback from measured values was done, or it is not quite as it seems and the A are indeed calculated elsewhere and only in this estimation of the resonances are the ground state masses taken as given. This could mean several things. It could be that as input to the resonance calculations he could either take the estimated ground state masses or the measured ones, and he decided to take the latter. Or it could mean as you suspect that there are only the measured values in most cases. It again shows that we need the full derivation of hte mass formula from first principles. As you know, the Heim Theory group removed their derivation from their web site as they realised it was faulty. They are supposed to correct it and re-instate it on-line. This is another event to look forward to in 2007. If it doesn't occur, then we still have Droscher and Hauser's 80 page review paper and/or the confirmation that the hermetries predict Tajmar's anti-gravity results, which in a few months should be confirmed by other groups. If all these possibilities fail then 2007 will be a disappointing year indeed.

It's true that Droscher and Hauser's gravito-photon calculations are geared toward propulsion applications at the moment. But they are based on the same basic theory as the mass formula. They are careful, however, to separate the two in their papers, as they are far more confident of the gravito-photon calculations. These seem to be more tractable than the mass formula, but no less important in terms of predictive power. So it seems that in 2007 D & H will concentrate on the gravito-photon derivations and the Heim Theory group, working separately, should produce an update on the mass formula calculations. Either way a few months will tell. It reminds me of the discussions in Wikipedia a few years ago - at that time D & H were promising an important paper on the propulsion application. They eventually delivered on that with the AIAA prize and New Scientist publicity as a result. The mass formula implementations here were another important development that was widely reported. So it seems that there are a few milestones - some have been met and some are promised for 2007 - there is every reason to hope that these milestones will be achieved as were the others.

QUOTE (nyz+Dec 26 2006, 09:55 AM)

Sorry if this is off topic but I just wanted to pop my head into this thread. I am a journalist doing preliminary reading and research for an article I want to write on Burkhard Heim and Heim Theory. I don't have a background in science but I read "Guidelines for a space propulsion device based on Heim's quantum theory" by Droscher and Hauser and I read "Heim’s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures" by Auerbach. I admit I don't understand the math entirely but the theory as I understand it has the appearance of being quite elegant.

And, of course, the prospect of an interstellar space vehicle is an intriguing aspect of Heim Theory, to put it mildly.

Anyway, I just wanted to introduce myself. I'll go back to reading this thread in its entirety and anything else on Heim I come across. If there's anything I should be aware of in preparation for this article, please contact me. noahyzimmerman at yahoo dot com

Cheers!

@Nyz

Welcome to the forum. You can indeed learn a lot from perusing this thread. Other sources include the wikipedia articles on Heim and his theory, the New scientist article, of which I assume you are aware, and the reporting on Tajmar et al’s results. In New scientist we also found some interesting feedback recently (see links a few posts above) from NS readers who recalled the massive publicity that Heim enjoyed in the 1950’s and the indications that the US military and space effort took his propulsion efforts very seriously. It looks like they were right, if Tajmar’s result is confirmed, and there is every reason to believe it will be, as Tajmar is an extremely cautious experimenter and repeated the experiment with many materials until he convinced himself of the reality of the artificial gravity effect.

If you read Gerrman, the Heim-theory site as well as Olaf’s http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/ (some in English) give additional biographical and background material.

Happy reading!

And, of course, the prospect of an interstellar space vehicle is an intriguing aspect of Heim Theory, to put it mildly.

Anyway, I just wanted to introduce myself. I'll go back to reading this thread in its entirety and anything else on Heim I come across. If there's anything I should be aware of in preparation for this article, please contact me. noahyzimmerman at yahoo dot com

Cheers!

@Nyz

Welcome to the forum. You can indeed learn a lot from perusing this thread. Other sources include the wikipedia articles on Heim and his theory, the New scientist article, of which I assume you are aware, and the reporting on Tajmar et al’s results. In New scientist we also found some interesting feedback recently (see links a few posts above) from NS readers who recalled the massive publicity that Heim enjoyed in the 1950’s and the indications that the US military and space effort took his propulsion efforts very seriously. It looks like they were right, if Tajmar’s result is confirmed, and there is every reason to believe it will be, as Tajmar is an extremely cautious experimenter and repeated the experiment with many materials until he convinced himself of the reality of the artificial gravity effect.

If you read Gerrman, the Heim-theory site as well as Olaf’s http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/ (some in English) give additional biographical and background material.

Happy reading!

Thanks, yes, the Wikipedia articles were actually how I stumbled upon this subject. Mr. Deasy, I sent you an e-mail via your PhysOrg profile panel.

Funny you mention Tajmar -- I'm trying to get in touch with Tajmar, de Matos and Hauser via e-mail. I haven't found contact information for Droscher yet but I'll keep looking. I'm trying to see if I can go to the upcoming STAIF out at University of New Mexico in February to hunt down some leads and interviews. Time and budget permitting, of course.

Sorry to hijack this thread, let the psysics continue...

Funny you mention Tajmar -- I'm trying to get in touch with Tajmar, de Matos and Hauser via e-mail. I haven't found contact information for Droscher yet but I'll keep looking. I'm trying to see if I can go to the upcoming STAIF out at University of New Mexico in February to hunt down some leads and interviews. Time and budget permitting, of course.

Sorry to hijack this thread, let the psysics continue...

Hi NYZ

I have contacted Mr. de Matos. He is not a fan of Heim theory. For the purpose of your article it might not be worthwhile to contact him.

Regards,

JD

I have contacted Mr. de Matos. He is not a fan of Heim theory. For the purpose of your article it might not be worthwhile to contact him.

Regards,

JD

Hi Nyz,

I sent you a mail via your physorg profile as I am at another e-mail address for the Christmas holidays, which I reveal in that mail. I look forward to hearing from you. And I'm glad you heard about this from the Wikipedia articles, which I started up more than 2 years ago.

I sent you a mail via your physorg profile as I am at another e-mail address for the Christmas holidays, which I reveal in that mail. I look forward to hearing from you. And I'm glad you heard about this from the Wikipedia articles, which I started up more than 2 years ago.

QUOTE (JD@PT+Dec 27 2006, 01:50 PM)

I have contacted Mr. de Matos. He is not a fan of Heim theory. For the purpose of your article it might not be worthwhile to contact him.

That's actually good -- I want to have some skeptical voices in the article because the claims made by the theory are so extraordinary and the theory is so controversial. I hope he has the time to respond.

That's actually good -- I want to have some skeptical voices in the article because the claims made by the theory are so extraordinary and the theory is so controversial. I hope he has the time to respond.

So Von Ludwiger, who was quoted in the New Scientist article, is a full time UFO researcher? I'm curious as to why Haiko Leitz didn't mention that in the article. Casts serious doubts...

Sorry, I'm going to pass on this story until there are more credible scientists working on it. Good luck.

Sorry, I'm going to pass on this story until there are more credible scientists working on it. Good luck.

It is disappointing to find out that the ground state masses may have been input and not output of the Heim model, but there has to be some input from reality to develop the theory. It will take some work to figure out what's left of the mass predictions, but I still think it is worth the effort.

Börje Månsson has provided another paper analyzing the Heim Gravity equation. There are some interesting comparisons with General Relativity, and some interesting cosmological effects. It’s all over my head, but I’m interested in what you people think. I’ve posted it here:Heim Gravity Differential Equation (Börje Månsson)

It's in the bottom section, along with the Mueller paper that it refers to, here:

Heim Translation

Börje Månsson has provided another paper analyzing the Heim Gravity equation. There are some interesting comparisons with General Relativity, and some interesting cosmological effects. It’s all over my head, but I’m interested in what you people think. I’ve posted it here:Heim Gravity Differential Equation (Börje Månsson)

It's in the bottom section, along with the Mueller paper that it refers to, here:

Heim Translation

QUOTE (nyz+Dec 28 2006, 11:13 AM)

So Von Ludwiger, who was quoted in the New Scientist article, is a full time UFO researcher?

Sorry, this is completely bullshit. I hope your scientific articles will not contain such kind of misinformation.

IvL is a serious scientist and physicist. He has worked many years for a great German aerospace company that among others has been interested in Heim theory. No matter what you think about what he might do in his spare time.

Sorry, this is completely bullshit. I hope your scientific articles will not contain such kind of misinformation.

IvL is a serious scientist and physicist. He has worked many years for a great German aerospace company that among others has been interested in Heim theory. No matter what you think about what he might do in his spare time.

Yes I agree, Olaf - Newton dabbled in alchemy and spent more time on that than anything else - do we dismiss his theories as a result? No - but reporters are in general fvery shallow. That's why magazine articles are usually so superficial - journalism is just the art of the superficial spread thin over many subjects, master of none.

QUOTE (Jim Graham+Dec 28 2006, 12:46 PM)

It is disappointing to find out that the ground state masses may have been input and not output of the Heim model, but there has to be some input from reality to develop the theory. It will take some work to figure out what's left of the mass predictions, but I still think it is worth the effort.

Börje Månsson has provided another paper analyzing the Heim Gravity equation. There are some interesting comparisons with General Relativity, and some interesting cosmological effects. It’s all over my head, but I’m interested in what you people think. I’ve posted it here:Heim Gravity Differential Equation (Börje Månsson)

It's in the bottom section, along with the Mueller paper that it refers to, here:

Heim Translation

Yes, that about the mass equation is disappointing if it is true. But there are some masses unaffected so let's wait and see.

Borje's paper quoted above is excellent. He shows very well how Heim's gravitational differential equation goes wrong in its interpretation of the field mass. Again there may be a redeeming feature there if the dark energy connection with ordinary particle density is confirmed.

Börje Månsson has provided another paper analyzing the Heim Gravity equation. There are some interesting comparisons with General Relativity, and some interesting cosmological effects. It’s all over my head, but I’m interested in what you people think. I’ve posted it here:Heim Gravity Differential Equation (Börje Månsson)

It's in the bottom section, along with the Mueller paper that it refers to, here:

Heim Translation

Yes, that about the mass equation is disappointing if it is true. But there are some masses unaffected so let's wait and see.

Borje's paper quoted above is excellent. He shows very well how Heim's gravitational differential equation goes wrong in its interpretation of the field mass. Again there may be a redeeming feature there if the dark energy connection with ordinary particle density is confirmed.

QUOTE (Jim Graham+Dec 28 2006, 12:46 PM)

It is disappointing to find out that the ground state masses may have been input and not output of the Heim model, but there has to be some input from reality to develop the theory. It will take some work to figure out what's left of the mass predictions, but I still think it is worth the effort.

I would agree that if Heim theory used the ground state masses that were input and then came up with good estimates of the excited states using the theory it would begin to look interesting. However when I looked at the excited particle states, I couldn't find any good comparisons to the experimental excited states that are observed. A random number generator could do as well or better.

jreed

I would agree that if Heim theory used the ground state masses that were input and then came up with good estimates of the excited states using the theory it would begin to look interesting. However when I looked at the excited particle states, I couldn't find any good comparisons to the experimental excited states that are observed. A random number generator could do as well or better.

jreed

Good work jreed. And everybody. At the very least this shows the dangers in working in such isolation as did Heim. Also it shows how quickly institutional memory can decline.

It is incredible that the ground states were inputs and not derivations. OK, Deasy isn't totally clear about this; and I'm sure, with the best will in the world that the truth is a bit more complex, but the evidence is looking pretty likely.

And there might be a lot that's valuable in Heim theory, but idiosyncratic terminology, mathematical methodologies that aren't widely understood as a matter of course, and just plain proofreading errors resulting from a process in which a legally blind man has dictated a mathematical manuscript to a non-mathematician means that Heim needs all the authority he can get so that people will expend the required effort to understand him.

The mass spectrum attracted attention to his ideas. The derivations were incredible, even if no one understood the math very well. In principle a testable theory! especially if it lent itself to prediction. Now it appears that the mass spectrum wasn't what it appeared to be. Maybe.

Doesn't mean there might not be a germ of truth there. Intuitively I never liked infinitesimals in calculus, myself. Doesn't accord with a grainy universe at small scales.

But even if nothing has really changed at the heart of Heim's insights, a good deal of the authority may have evaporated from the discussion. To the moon in ten minutes via the sixth dimension or whatever--that may be hard to accept off the bat. But that a man has derived the mass spectrum! hard to believe, but if he's done THAT, well maybe there is something to the rest, also.

But apparently he didn't do that. Nor did he claim to have done that.

Oh well.... But an awfully lot of wasted effort by a lot of people a lot more knowledgeable than myself has gone into this. And THAT is a shame.

Good look Deasy and the rest. I can only cheer from the sidelines but I was hoping that in a couple of years the mass spectrum alone might be useful to, say, particle theorists or experimenters.

It is incredible that the ground states were inputs and not derivations. OK, Deasy isn't totally clear about this; and I'm sure, with the best will in the world that the truth is a bit more complex, but the evidence is looking pretty likely.

And there might be a lot that's valuable in Heim theory, but idiosyncratic terminology, mathematical methodologies that aren't widely understood as a matter of course, and just plain proofreading errors resulting from a process in which a legally blind man has dictated a mathematical manuscript to a non-mathematician means that Heim needs all the authority he can get so that people will expend the required effort to understand him.

The mass spectrum attracted attention to his ideas. The derivations were incredible, even if no one understood the math very well. In principle a testable theory! especially if it lent itself to prediction. Now it appears that the mass spectrum wasn't what it appeared to be. Maybe.

Doesn't mean there might not be a germ of truth there. Intuitively I never liked infinitesimals in calculus, myself. Doesn't accord with a grainy universe at small scales.

But even if nothing has really changed at the heart of Heim's insights, a good deal of the authority may have evaporated from the discussion. To the moon in ten minutes via the sixth dimension or whatever--that may be hard to accept off the bat. But that a man has derived the mass spectrum! hard to believe, but if he's done THAT, well maybe there is something to the rest, also.

But apparently he didn't do that. Nor did he claim to have done that.

Oh well.... But an awfully lot of wasted effort by a lot of people a lot more knowledgeable than myself has gone into this. And THAT is a shame.

Good look Deasy and the rest. I can only cheer from the sidelines but I was hoping that in a couple of years the mass spectrum alone might be useful to, say, particle theorists or experimenters.

Sorry.

Good LUCK Deasy, and everybody else...

Spell check should still be edited, of course.

Good LUCK Deasy, and everybody else...

Spell check should still be edited, of course.

QUOTE (Olaf+Dec 28 2006, 02:17 PM)

Sorry, this is completely bullshit. I hope your scientific articles will not contain such kind of misinformation.

IvL is a serious scientist and physicist. He has worked many years for a great German aerospace company that among others has been interested in Heim theory. No matter what you think about what he might do in his spare time.

Hey Olaf, according to the negative rep point you just gave me, I'm spreading "misinformation" about Von Ludwiger. I'm not sure how saying Von Ludwiger is a UFO researcher -- which he is -- qualifies as "misinformation." Also, his research into UFO spacecraft and UFO sightings isn't just some incidental hobby of his he does in his "spare time," he's the head of the Central European branch of MUFON. Furthermore, his interest in Heim theory isn't separate from his UFO business, the two are obviously related in his mind. In fact, UFOs appear to be one of the principle reasons why he's involved with Hein theory. Take a look at the 2001 Sussex talk on the mufon-ces.org homepage.

So please, go ahead and assign me all of the negative rep points you want, Olaf, it only enhances my credibility.

IvL is a serious scientist and physicist. He has worked many years for a great German aerospace company that among others has been interested in Heim theory. No matter what you think about what he might do in his spare time.

Hey Olaf, according to the negative rep point you just gave me, I'm spreading "misinformation" about Von Ludwiger. I'm not sure how saying Von Ludwiger is a UFO researcher -- which he is -- qualifies as "misinformation." Also, his research into UFO spacecraft and UFO sightings isn't just some incidental hobby of his he does in his "spare time," he's the head of the Central European branch of MUFON. Furthermore, his interest in Heim theory isn't separate from his UFO business, the two are obviously related in his mind. In fact, UFOs appear to be one of the principle reasons why he's involved with Hein theory. Take a look at the 2001 Sussex talk on the mufon-ces.org homepage.

So please, go ahead and assign me all of the negative rep points you want, Olaf, it only enhances my credibility.

Hey NyZ -

You seem to be making the usual mistake of a mere reporter - childish over-simplification. The truth is, of course, far more complex and messy than the simple picture you must prepare for Joe Public. The fact is, however, that Von Ludwiger's involvement with Heim and his theory predated his UFO interest by 2 or more decades. He is a physicist who worked in the Aerospace industry and was involved in some of the pioneering satellites in the 60's and 70's. The UFO work IS just a passtime, as there simply are no paid researchers in the field - the only exception used to be Velasco of CNES, but his operation was de-scoped some time ago. So even France is opting out and now there is no full time funded UFO researcher, certainly in Europe - some of the the big US groups may be able to fund one or two full time workers, but Europe is not like that. So dream on in your simple world where the only sum is 1 + 1 = 2.

You seem to be making the usual mistake of a mere reporter - childish over-simplification. The truth is, of course, far more complex and messy than the simple picture you must prepare for Joe Public. The fact is, however, that Von Ludwiger's involvement with Heim and his theory predated his UFO interest by 2 or more decades. He is a physicist who worked in the Aerospace industry and was involved in some of the pioneering satellites in the 60's and 70's. The UFO work IS just a passtime, as there simply are no paid researchers in the field - the only exception used to be Velasco of CNES, but his operation was de-scoped some time ago. So even France is opting out and now there is no full time funded UFO researcher, certainly in Europe - some of the the big US groups may be able to fund one or two full time workers, but Europe is not like that. So dream on in your simple world where the only sum is 1 + 1 = 2.

QUOTE (jreed+Dec 29 2006, 12:22 AM)

I would agree that if Heim theory used the ground state masses that were input and then came up with good estimates of the excited states using the theory it would begin to look interesting.

That would certainly be good, but there are more than 36 particles whose ground states can be fit with this model. There are still a few "degrees of freedom" in the fit using 36 values in the A matrix (but not many).

Assuming that Heim has an underlying model of spins in various dimensions, as he said, and that this model was used to constrain the choices of the A matrix values, then there might still be more to this than just a pure fit with no predictive power.

I was hoping that the derivation of the A matrix was explained in Heim's books. Does anybody have an idea where we might look?

That would certainly be good, but there are more than 36 particles whose ground states can be fit with this model. There are still a few "degrees of freedom" in the fit using 36 values in the A matrix (but not many).

Assuming that Heim has an underlying model of spins in various dimensions, as he said, and that this model was used to constrain the choices of the A matrix values, then there might still be more to this than just a pure fit with no predictive power.

I was hoping that the derivation of the A matrix was explained in Heim's books. Does anybody have an idea where we might look?

QUOTE (Jim Graham+Dec 28 2006, 12:46 PM)

It is disappointing to find out that the ground state masses may have been input and not output of the Heim model, but there has to be some input from reality to develop the theory.

AT least we have a one-to-one score in this match. John__assumes__ that Heim has adjusted the coefficients Aik in the 1982 version to match the real masses. His clues are

a) that a mass formula with some coefficients (constants) gives the possibility the adjust the output and

b) Heim has not shown in detail how he comes to the exact values of Aik and he states "One investigates each matrix value using the interpretation (101b), the EMPIRICAL DATA OF GROUND STATES" (masses). Then one can heuristically reduce the A(i,m) and A(6,6) to limiting values of pi, e and xi and to the coupling constants alpha and beta from (105a) that come from pi only."

On the other side we have at least Mr. Gruener and Mr. von Ludwiger from the Heim theory group that are convinced*by analysis of the mass formula*(!) that this formula represents the real world inner dynamics of particles. They are convinced too that the results are not adjusted to empirical data by matching coefficients. That's why they concentrate on the 1989 version.

What about the following facts:

Currently nobody of us has understood or re-developed the partial components of the Heim mass formula.

Coming from the end and criticizing some coefficients about that I have no idea what they really represent is not the proper way. Yes, they can be some matching coefficients. But they can be a proper representation as scaling factors of complex spin aggregates to space-time as well! At least we have to understand how the protosimplex spins in charged particles are composed, how they are calculated in 6-dimensional space and how their mass contributions then must be scaled using the geometrical description by Heim. I suppose that you will end with some geometrical scaling factors before summing up.

AT least we have a one-to-one score in this match. John

a) that a mass formula with some coefficients (constants) gives the possibility the adjust the output and

b) Heim has not shown in detail how he comes to the exact values of Aik and he states "One investigates each matrix value using the interpretation (101b), the EMPIRICAL DATA OF GROUND STATES" (masses). Then one can heuristically reduce the A(i,m) and A(6,6) to limiting values of pi, e and xi and to the coupling constants alpha and beta from (105a) that come from pi only."

On the other side we have at least Mr. Gruener and Mr. von Ludwiger from the Heim theory group that are convinced

What about the following facts:

Currently nobody of us has understood or re-developed the partial components of the Heim mass formula.

Coming from the end and criticizing some coefficients about that I have no idea what they really represent is not the proper way. Yes, they can be some matching coefficients. But they can be a proper representation as scaling factors of complex spin aggregates to space-time as well! At least we have to understand how the protosimplex spins in charged particles are composed, how they are calculated in 6-dimensional space and how their mass contributions then must be scaled using the geometrical description by Heim. I suppose that you will end with some geometrical scaling factors before summing up.

QUOTE (Jim Graham+Dec 29 2006, 12:35 PM)

I was hoping that the derivation of the A matrix was explained in Heim's books. Does anybody have an idea where we might look?

This was developed in previous postings:

@Olaf

"These factors are mentioned but not derived in Volume 2, page 335 ff."

@jreed

"Yes, I found that part of Heim's book, and translated it for myself. Heim does explain where the A matrix came from, and what a surprise! Heim says "One investigates each matrix value using the interpretation (101b), the EMPERICAL DATA OF GROUND STATES" (masses). "Then one can heuristically reduce the A(i,m) and A(6,6) to limiting values of pi, e and xi". In other words, the ground state masses were put into the A matrix. No wonder we have such wonderful agreement with the observed data. The masses were already put into the equations, and then we turn around and recompute them. "

The 36 values of the A matrix aren't all used for particles. Only 18 are used for that. They compute the values of 18 particles given in the 1982 equations. The other 18 A matrix values are used to set up excitation spectrum values. Therefore we should expect to find some agreement with the first few excited states. I found some of these, but the rest of the excitation predictions are all incorrect.

jreed

This was developed in previous postings:

@Olaf

"These factors are mentioned but not derived in Volume 2, page 335 ff."

@jreed

"Yes, I found that part of Heim's book, and translated it for myself. Heim does explain where the A matrix came from, and what a surprise! Heim says "One investigates each matrix value using the interpretation (101b), the EMPERICAL DATA OF GROUND STATES" (masses). "Then one can heuristically reduce the A(i,m) and A(6,6) to limiting values of pi, e and xi". In other words, the ground state masses were put into the A matrix. No wonder we have such wonderful agreement with the observed data. The masses were already put into the equations, and then we turn around and recompute them. "

The 36 values of the A matrix aren't all used for particles. Only 18 are used for that. They compute the values of 18 particles given in the 1982 equations. The other 18 A matrix values are used to set up excitation spectrum values. Therefore we should expect to find some agreement with the first few excited states. I found some of these, but the rest of the excitation predictions are all incorrect.

jreed

Terrific work jreed. I realize how disappointing it must be, but your efforts are still incredibly valuable to all of us who've been following this. Thank you!

I'm sad to say it, but I think the Wikipedia page will require some revision. Claims of the prediction of the particle mass spectrum from first principles are no longer supportable.

I'm sad to say it, but I think the Wikipedia page will require some revision. Claims of the prediction of the particle mass spectrum from first principles are no longer supportable.

QUOTE (hdeasy+Dec 23 2006, 04:04 PM)

Finally the gravito-photon predicition was wonderfully corroborated by Tajmar and 2007 may see interesting developments there.

In fairness, the gravito-photon work doesn't constitute a 'prediction,' per se, because it was only offered -after- Tajmar's results were published. The previous prediction published in the award-winning AIAA paper bears little if any resemblance to Tajmar's measured force or methodology - all they have in common is a spinning ring generating a force, but the forces in question operate tangentially, and via differing theoretical mechanisms. The validity of Droesher and Hauser's gravito-photon model needs to be determined through peer-review and experimentation - it's pre-mature to call their efforts to account for Tajmar's reported gravitomagnetic effect any kind of triumph for Heim theory.

The proton and electron mass prediction is interesting, but they appear largely meaningless if they can't be extended to the other particles without the apparently ad hoc A matrix constants. It's no great feat to predict two or three particle masses from first principles. Especially without reasonably accurate excitation energy predictions.

The neutrino mass prediction of Heim's theory does raise an eyebrow, but on the other hand, we had a good idea of the upper mass limit by the 80's. It merits a closer look.

But frankly, without the support of the other particle mass predictions, or a test of the gravito-photon concept, Heim theory seems to have very little to offer.

In fairness, the gravito-photon work doesn't constitute a 'prediction,' per se, because it was only offered -after- Tajmar's results were published. The previous prediction published in the award-winning AIAA paper bears little if any resemblance to Tajmar's measured force or methodology - all they have in common is a spinning ring generating a force, but the forces in question operate tangentially, and via differing theoretical mechanisms. The validity of Droesher and Hauser's gravito-photon model needs to be determined through peer-review and experimentation - it's pre-mature to call their efforts to account for Tajmar's reported gravitomagnetic effect any kind of triumph for Heim theory.

The proton and electron mass prediction is interesting, but they appear largely meaningless if they can't be extended to the other particles without the apparently ad hoc A matrix constants. It's no great feat to predict two or three particle masses from first principles. Especially without reasonably accurate excitation energy predictions.

The neutrino mass prediction of Heim's theory does raise an eyebrow, but on the other hand, we had a good idea of the upper mass limit by the 80's. It merits a closer look.

But frankly, without the support of the other particle mass predictions, or a test of the gravito-photon concept, Heim theory seems to have very little to offer.

QUOTE (Maxwell's Demon+Dec 30 2006, 06:16 PM)

Terrific work jreed. I realize how disappointing it must be, but your efforts are still incredibly valuable to all of us who've been following this. Thank you!

I'm sad to say it, but I think the Wikipedia page will require some revision. Claims of the prediction of the particle mass spectrum from first principles are no longer supportable.

But frankly, without the support of the other particle mass predictions, or a test of the gravito-photon concept, Heim theory seems to have very little to offer.

I didn't start out to debunk Heim theory. For a while I was really sold on it, but when I got in there and starting looking closely at the equations, I had a lot of questions.

Some of the theory didn't make sense to me, for example using imaginary numbers for timelike coordinates and finding eigenvalues of nonlinear operators. I just thought I didn't understand it well enough. I finally got hold of Heim's two books and starting looking things up. Then the question of that A matrix came up, and reading what Heim said aboout it convinced me that a lot of it was done "heuristically" as Heim puts it. I take that to mean that when something could not be calculated, Heim went back to the experimental data and adjusted the unknown factors to make the equations agree with the experimental data. I wonder if this was done to arrive at mass values for the electron and proton. There are so many factors to adjust it's hard to tell, and deriving the equations from the theory seems to be nearly impossible, for me at least.

I'm glad you find what I've turned up useful. What it has done for me is explain how the seemingly amazing agreement of calculated mass values with experimental mass values can be possible. Someone (good elf I think) said that the agreement with experimental data is too good. That is correct. When you consider what has to be done in quantum mechanics with perturbation theory to many orders of expansion to get agreement, you see that Heim theory gets this agreement too easily.

jreed

I'm sad to say it, but I think the Wikipedia page will require some revision. Claims of the prediction of the particle mass spectrum from first principles are no longer supportable.

But frankly, without the support of the other particle mass predictions, or a test of the gravito-photon concept, Heim theory seems to have very little to offer.

I didn't start out to debunk Heim theory. For a while I was really sold on it, but when I got in there and starting looking closely at the equations, I had a lot of questions.

Some of the theory didn't make sense to me, for example using imaginary numbers for timelike coordinates and finding eigenvalues of nonlinear operators. I just thought I didn't understand it well enough. I finally got hold of Heim's two books and starting looking things up. Then the question of that A matrix came up, and reading what Heim said aboout it convinced me that a lot of it was done "heuristically" as Heim puts it. I take that to mean that when something could not be calculated, Heim went back to the experimental data and adjusted the unknown factors to make the equations agree with the experimental data. I wonder if this was done to arrive at mass values for the electron and proton. There are so many factors to adjust it's hard to tell, and deriving the equations from the theory seems to be nearly impossible, for me at least.

I'm glad you find what I've turned up useful. What it has done for me is explain how the seemingly amazing agreement of calculated mass values with experimental mass values can be possible. Someone (good elf I think) said that the agreement with experimental data is too good. That is correct. When you consider what has to be done in quantum mechanics with perturbation theory to many orders of expansion to get agreement, you see that Heim theory gets this agreement too easily.

jreed

jreed,

Be patient. AFAIK, "heuristic" doesn't mean "I cooked the books", it means, "what I've found computes, but disagrees with prevailing theory so much, that it may not be right". Now, that's a long definition for "heuristic", but I think it captures the intention. Einstein used it in the title for the Photoelectric effect paper. The math in that paper WORKS, but disagreed with current theory (waves). He was also using the VERY new concept (not having been accepted by Science yet) of Planck's constant (AE disagreed too), and in a manner that was "larger" than the use that Planck had found. If Heim did "cheat", I doubt that he would openly admit it in the writing. Unless he was a "serial crank", and just wanted to get caught.

At any rate, one thing is for sure: the pattern in the masses of the particles is there, and there should be more than one way to derive it, as improbable as it may sound. I have found one that comes from a polynomial of 2 constants, although it can not be described as "highly accurate". Taken as a whole (through the Isotopes as well) it is undeniable. So, I don't think a well thought out, highly complex system to define these values w/o inputs is impossible at all.

Your last post doesn't sound "too sure" that there is a problem, as far as Heim using input values beforehand. At some point, the "real" values must be compared, and shown in the paper, to facilitate understanding by the reader. Are you sure that this was not what was happening, in the "translation"?

regards,

T.Roc

Be patient. AFAIK, "heuristic" doesn't mean "I cooked the books", it means, "what I've found computes, but disagrees with prevailing theory so much, that it may not be right". Now, that's a long definition for "heuristic", but I think it captures the intention. Einstein used it in the title for the Photoelectric effect paper. The math in that paper WORKS, but disagreed with current theory (waves). He was also using the VERY new concept (not having been accepted by Science yet) of Planck's constant (AE disagreed too), and in a manner that was "larger" than the use that Planck had found. If Heim did "cheat", I doubt that he would openly admit it in the writing. Unless he was a "serial crank", and just wanted to get caught.

At any rate, one thing is for sure: the pattern in the masses of the particles is there, and there should be more than one way to derive it, as improbable as it may sound. I have found one that comes from a polynomial of 2 constants, although it can not be described as "highly accurate". Taken as a whole (through the Isotopes as well) it is undeniable. So, I don't think a well thought out, highly complex system to define these values w/o inputs is impossible at all.

Your last post doesn't sound "too sure" that there is a problem, as far as Heim using input values beforehand. At some point, the "real" values must be compared, and shown in the paper, to facilitate understanding by the reader. Are you sure that this was not what was happening, in the "translation"?

regards,

T.Roc

QUOTE (TRoc+Dec 31 2006, 03:26 PM)

Be patient. AFAIK, "heuristic" doesn't mean "I cooked the books", it means, "what I've found computes, but disagrees with prevailing theory so much, that it may not be right".

In German Heim uses the same word "heuristisch". I have to admit that I did not know what this word exactly means. I just looked in a dictionary and found "** heuristics = the art of finding the truth. ** Heuristic principles are precepts, hypotheses, assumptions by way of trial that are used preliminary, assumed with respect to what has to be found but are not regarded as final." (Bertelsman Universal Lexikon)

It is funny that nobody here responds to the question that directly leads to the need of somehow scaling coefficients. How scale the mass contributions of the different complex spins that occur as 6-dimensional geometrical inner patterns of particles?

Please look at the coefficients Aik! They hardly look like being cheated to produce some highly accurate scaling coefficients. (The final mass values are very accurate, I suppose they are better than the empirical mass values known in 1979 when Heim gave his paper to DESY.)

Look at these coefficients! They are*very simple combinations* of the geometrical constants pi, e and xi and the coupling constants alpha and beta (fine structure constant).

Does anybody know how much of the empirical ground states data of particles were known in 1979?

I propose making a cheating contest: Let's chose about 10 values of nature constants. Who in the community will be able to cheat them with 0.1 % accuracy by using simple combinations of pi, e and xi in the way the Heim Aik are composed?

In German Heim uses the same word "heuristisch". I have to admit that I did not know what this word exactly means. I just looked in a dictionary and found "

It is funny that nobody here responds to the question that directly leads to the need of somehow scaling coefficients. How scale the mass contributions of the different complex spins that occur as 6-dimensional geometrical inner patterns of particles?

Please look at the coefficients Aik! They hardly look like being cheated to produce some highly accurate scaling coefficients. (The final mass values are very accurate, I suppose they are better than the empirical mass values known in 1979 when Heim gave his paper to DESY.)

Look at these coefficients! They are

Does anybody know how much of the empirical ground states data of particles were known in 1979?

I propose making a cheating contest: Let's chose about 10 values of nature constants. Who in the community will be able to cheat them with 0.1 % accuracy by using simple combinations of pi, e and xi in the way the Heim Aik are composed?

QUOTE (Olaf+Dec 31 2006, 07:06 PM)

It is funny that nobody here responds to the question that directly leads to the need of somehow scaling coefficients. How scale the mass contributions of the different complex spins that occur as 6-dimensional geometrical inner patterns of particles?

Please look at the coefficients Aik! They hardly look like being cheated to produce some highly accurate scaling coefficients. (The final mass values are very accurate, I suppose they are better than the empirical mass values known in 1979 when Heim gave his paper to DESY.)

Look at these coefficients! They are very simple combinationsof the geometrical constants pi, e and xi and the coupling constants alpha and beta (fine structure constant).

Does anybody know how much of the empirical ground states data of particles were known in 1979?

I propose making a cheating contest: Let's chose about 10 values of nature constants. Who in the community will be able to cheat them with 0.1 % accuracy by using simple combinations of pi, e and xi in the way the Heim Aik are composed?

I have looked at those expressions in A(i,j) and as far as I'm concerned the only question that needs to be answered is:

WHERE DID THOSE A(i,j) COEFFICIENTS COME FROM?

If one of you Heimists can explain how they were derived with Heim's theory without using the mass values, that would be enough for me. And please, give a complete derivation, not one that just consists of starting with some obscure tensor equations, and then jumps right to the final results. I would like to see the starting assumptions clearly stated and explained and a full mathematical derivation. If Heim did this, it should be possible to reproduce it.

jreed

Please look at the coefficients Aik! They hardly look like being cheated to produce some highly accurate scaling coefficients. (The final mass values are very accurate, I suppose they are better than the empirical mass values known in 1979 when Heim gave his paper to DESY.)

Look at these coefficients! They are very simple combinationsof the geometrical constants pi, e and xi and the coupling constants alpha and beta (fine structure constant).

Does anybody know how much of the empirical ground states data of particles were known in 1979?

I propose making a cheating contest: Let's chose about 10 values of nature constants. Who in the community will be able to cheat them with 0.1 % accuracy by using simple combinations of pi, e and xi in the way the Heim Aik are composed?

I have looked at those expressions in A(i,j) and as far as I'm concerned the only question that needs to be answered is:

WHERE DID THOSE A(i,j) COEFFICIENTS COME FROM?

If one of you Heimists can explain how they were derived with Heim's theory without using the mass values, that would be enough for me. And please, give a complete derivation, not one that just consists of starting with some obscure tensor equations, and then jumps right to the final results. I would like to see the starting assumptions clearly stated and explained and a full mathematical derivation. If Heim did this, it should be possible to reproduce it.

jreed

hello, I'm just a french student in physics who don't really know heim's theory and also my english a little ( level : second year of university). Among "alternative" theory, Heim ones appear to be the only with computation, and so, because a lot of physician just say "this is not necessairly wrong but we just don't uderstand what he wrote " it appear to be one of the few interesting and credible. Well in france, we just have translation of translation of... and the only fact which is currently written on web is that a huge magnetic field could simply propel a ship, the gate seems to be our skills to produce the field. But I have a question, Huge fields exist in nature, neutron stars, pulsars, all make strong magetic field, however they don't advance. Why? Is it a problem in theory?

QUOTE (klinfran+Jan 2 2007, 05:11 AM)

I have a question, Huge fields exist in nature, neutron stars, pulsars, all make strong magnetic field, however they don't advance. Why?

The Heim's force is the result of mutual interaction of at least two fields: the electromagnetic and the gravitational one. These fields must be arranged in certain geometry to manifest itself in some measurable way.

I suppose, these composite fields exist in the Nature, but they were overlooked by mainstream science for the long time (you know: no theory = no phenomena). For example the so called divining rod effects and geopathogenic zones/anomalies above the conductive layers in lithosphere can have some connection to gravitoelectromagnetism, as they're interfering with the high-voltage electric line paths significantly in periodic patterns and they can be detected by radioreceivers.

The Heim's force is the result of mutual interaction of at least two fields: the electromagnetic and the gravitational one. These fields must be arranged in certain geometry to manifest itself in some measurable way.

I suppose, these composite fields exist in the Nature, but they were overlooked by mainstream science for the long time (you know: no theory = no phenomena). For example the so called divining rod effects and geopathogenic zones/anomalies above the conductive layers in lithosphere can have some connection to gravitoelectromagnetism, as they're interfering with the high-voltage electric line paths significantly in periodic patterns and they can be detected by radioreceivers.

Not quite sure what Heim has to do with business, but thanks for the nice thoughts.

Hello everyone. I've been offline for a while, having messed up my home computer, and not being overly motivated to fix it at the time, so I missed a lot of the activity going on (I have read through everything since getting back on line).

I'm a little saddened that the research has taken the turn that it has. The "root for the underdog" in me was hoping that someone like BH would have developed a working theory in isolation and it was overlooked until recently. To the people I've told the theory to, I use the comparison of BH with Stephen Hawking. If it wasn't for technology enabling SH to communicate with his fellow scientist, he would have been in some isolation, overlooked by the scientific community as well.

Anyway, In the efforts to better understand what is going on with the mass formula, I'm wondering if some of the other (smaller) publications might shed some light on the subject. I went looking through the heim-theory website and saw a reference to his 1977 paper in Naturforschung. I noticed a reference to it on protosimplex, but not a translation.

Does anyone have this paper, and if so is it translated into english? According to the reference for heim-theory site, it is:

Heim, B. 1977: Vorschlag eines Weges zur einheitlichen Beschreibung der Elementarteilchen, Z.f. Naturforschung, 32a, pp. 233-243

I'm a little saddened that the research has taken the turn that it has. The "root for the underdog" in me was hoping that someone like BH would have developed a working theory in isolation and it was overlooked until recently. To the people I've told the theory to, I use the comparison of BH with Stephen Hawking. If it wasn't for technology enabling SH to communicate with his fellow scientist, he would have been in some isolation, overlooked by the scientific community as well.

Anyway, In the efforts to better understand what is going on with the mass formula, I'm wondering if some of the other (smaller) publications might shed some light on the subject. I went looking through the heim-theory website and saw a reference to his 1977 paper in Naturforschung. I noticed a reference to it on protosimplex, but not a translation.

Does anyone have this paper, and if so is it translated into english? According to the reference for heim-theory site, it is:

Heim, B. 1977: Vorschlag eines Weges zur einheitlichen Beschreibung der Elementarteilchen, Z.f. Naturforschung, 32a, pp. 233-243

Hi all,

Another confirmation of Heim theory found??

Sciam Blog: Dark Force?

What do you think about that??

/Joss

Another confirmation of Heim theory found??

Sciam Blog: Dark Force?

What do you think about that??

/Joss

Olaf

I tried to send you an email (twice) through the forum server, and it has been bounced back. I believe you need to check your profile on the server: I suspect you have to change/update your email address.

As to your offer, I am not in the situation to take a "graphic" scan of the article to be processed. I don't have a German language based OCR application to convert the scan into (German) text, then run it through a German to English translation application. Without any basic German language skills, I couldn't determine where the errors were in the OCR application before it was fed into a translation app to produce the English version: which in itself would need to be corrected / adjusted.

Heim enthusiast

Olaf offered to send me a copy of the article I asked about earlier, so that I could translate it. As I just indicated, I could not really do a very good job at it. Would anyone else in this thread be willing to take on the task?

DEK

I tried to send you an email (twice) through the forum server, and it has been bounced back. I believe you need to check your profile on the server: I suspect you have to change/update your email address.

As to your offer, I am not in the situation to take a "graphic" scan of the article to be processed. I don't have a German language based OCR application to convert the scan into (German) text, then run it through a German to English translation application. Without any basic German language skills, I couldn't determine where the errors were in the OCR application before it was fed into a translation app to produce the English version: which in itself would need to be corrected / adjusted.

Heim enthusiast

Olaf offered to send me a copy of the article I asked about earlier, so that I could translate it. As I just indicated, I could not really do a very good job at it. Would anyone else in this thread be willing to take on the task?

DEK

QUOTE (DEK46656+Jan 7 2007, 05:00 PM)

Heim, B. 1977: Vorschlag eines Weges zur einheitlichen Beschreibung der Elementarteilchen, Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung, 32a, pp. 233-243

Burkhard Heim, 1977: Suggestion of a way leading to an unified description of elementary particles; Zeitschrift fuer Natur forschung (Magazine for nature research), 32a, pages 233-243

You can download a scan of this paper until February,01 from this url:

Heim5

My own paper copy is in very bad quality, looks similar to the bad scan quality in the linked document. OCR software surely will fail in recognising this paper.

In my eyes a translation will not make much sense, because this paper is far to short do understand anything. I think Heim published this with the intension to set priority for his approaches. But you will see, most of his mass formula already was finished in 1976 when even no pocket calculators were available.

Burkhard Heim, 1977: Suggestion of a way leading to an unified description of elementary particles; Zeitschrift fuer Natur forschung (Magazine for nature research), 32a, pages 233-243

You can download a scan of this paper until February,01 from this url:

Heim5

My own paper copy is in very bad quality, looks similar to the bad scan quality in the linked document. OCR software surely will fail in recognising this paper.

In my eyes a translation will not make much sense, because this paper is far to short do understand anything. I think Heim published this with the intension to set priority for his approaches. But you will see, most of his mass formula already was finished in 1976 when even no pocket calculators were available.

Olaf

Thanks for putting the PDF out there for download. I had suggested the paper because of a reference I had read to it (I believe from your site). This was the "test the waters" paper for when BH was ready to tell the scientific world about his efforts. According to the reference, it was well received, and prompted the production of his books. I was thinking there might be something in it that might help in understanding the mass formulas better.

Thanks for the work.

DEK

Thanks for putting the PDF out there for download. I had suggested the paper because of a reference I had read to it (I believe from your site). This was the "test the waters" paper for when BH was ready to tell the scientific world about his efforts. According to the reference, it was well received, and prompted the production of his books. I was thinking there might be something in it that might help in understanding the mass formulas better.

Thanks for the work.

DEK

QUOTE (Olaf+Jan 12 2007, 09:39 AM)

In my eyes a translation will not make much sense, because this paper is far to short do understand anything. I think Heim published this with the intension to set priority for his approaches. But you will see, most of his mass formula already was finished in 1976 when even no pocket calculators were available.

You better check your computer history. I did my Ph.D. thesis in the years 1973-1976. I did numerical calculations using perturbation theory of scattering from hydrogen atoms using an IBM 360 mainframe computer. I had to have the program on punchcards, but it was easy to change one card and get a new result. I believe I also had a hand calculator at the time, although it may not have had all the functions we have on them today.

I'll take a look at the paper you have posted and see if there is anything new in it.

jreed

You better check your computer history. I did my Ph.D. thesis in the years 1973-1976. I did numerical calculations using perturbation theory of scattering from hydrogen atoms using an IBM 360 mainframe computer. I had to have the program on punchcards, but it was easy to change one card and get a new result. I believe I also had a hand calculator at the time, although it may not have had all the functions we have on them today.

I'll take a look at the paper you have posted and see if there is anything new in it.

jreed

QUOTE (Olaf+Jan 12 2007, 09:39 AM)

But you will see, most of his mass formula already was finished in 1976 when even no pocket calculators were available.

Very sorry John and thank you for the correction. You are right. This is what wikipedia says:

"The first pocket calculators were produced in 1969 and 1970 by the Japanese companies Compucorp, Sanyo, Sharp and Canon. They had not much more than the four basic mathematical operations. In 1972 the first scientific calculator has been produced (HP-35 from Hewlett-Packard)."

I have to apologize for the trace of polemics that I had added.

I just remembered my first pocket calculator that has been sold in West Germany for 30 $ in the early 70s (only +- */ and % available). At this time we still were using slide rules in school. In 1982 when I already had finished school they decided to allow pocket calculators in East Germany.

I fear you will not find anything satisfying in that paper. It is far too short.

John, I have respect for the some hundred hours of work you have spent in Heim theory.

Very sorry John and thank you for the correction. You are right. This is what wikipedia says:

"The first pocket calculators were produced in 1969 and 1970 by the Japanese companies Compucorp, Sanyo, Sharp and Canon. They had not much more than the four basic mathematical operations. In 1972 the first scientific calculator has been produced (HP-35 from Hewlett-Packard)."

I have to apologize for the trace of polemics that I had added.

I just remembered my first pocket calculator that has been sold in West Germany for 30 $ in the early 70s (only +- */ and % available). At this time we still were using slide rules in school. In 1982 when I already had finished school they decided to allow pocket calculators in East Germany.

I fear you will not find anything satisfying in that paper. It is far too short.

John, I have respect for the some hundred hours of work you have spent in Heim theory.

QUOTE (Olaf+Jan 12 2007, 03:46 PM)

Very sorry John and thank you for the correction. You are right. This is what wikipedia says:

"The first pocket calculators were produced in 1969 and 1970 by the Japanese companies Compucorp, Sanyo, Sharp and Canon. They had not much more than the four basic mathematical operations. In 1972 the first scientific calculator has been produced (HP-35 from Hewlett-Packard)."

I have to apologize for the trace of polemics that I had added.

I just remembered my first pocket calculator that has been sold in West Germany for 30 $ in the early 70s (only +- */ and % available). At this time we still were using slide rules in school. In 1982 when I already had finished school they decided to allow pocket calculators in East Germany.

I fear you will not find anything satisfying in that paper. It is far too short.

John, I have respect for the some hundred hours of work you have spent in Heim theory.

Scientific American featured a story on the first pocket calculator a few years ago.

"The curious case of the Kurta" It was a mechanical pocket calculator employing gears that was invented by a concentration camp prisoner named Kurta. He perfected it in a machine shop where he was the supervisor. He was half Jewish. When the SS guards above him were shown the calculator they were so impressed they told him'We will tell the fuhrer about your calculator. Maybe he will free you from the camp." The germans were that impressed with technology, they have ahigh regard for inventors.

Kurta survived the concentration camp and moved to the United States after the war.

"The first pocket calculators were produced in 1969 and 1970 by the Japanese companies Compucorp, Sanyo, Sharp and Canon. They had not much more than the four basic mathematical operations. In 1972 the first scientific calculator has been produced (HP-35 from Hewlett-Packard)."

I have to apologize for the trace of polemics that I had added.

I just remembered my first pocket calculator that has been sold in West Germany for 30 $ in the early 70s (only +- */ and % available). At this time we still were using slide rules in school. In 1982 when I already had finished school they decided to allow pocket calculators in East Germany.

I fear you will not find anything satisfying in that paper. It is far too short.

John, I have respect for the some hundred hours of work you have spent in Heim theory.

Scientific American featured a story on the first pocket calculator a few years ago.

"The curious case of the Kurta" It was a mechanical pocket calculator employing gears that was invented by a concentration camp prisoner named Kurta. He perfected it in a machine shop where he was the supervisor. He was half Jewish. When the SS guards above him were shown the calculator they were so impressed they told him'We will tell the fuhrer about your calculator. Maybe he will free you from the camp." The germans were that impressed with technology, they have ahigh regard for inventors.

Kurta survived the concentration camp and moved to the United States after the war.

QUOTE (Olaf+Jan 12 2007, 09:39 AM)

In my eyes a translation will not make much sense, because this paper is far to short do understand anything. I think Heim published this with the intension to set priority for his approaches. But you will see, most of his mass formula already was finished in 1976 when even no pocket calculators were available.

I have looked at this paper. There isn't much in it. I suggest for an introduction that Heim's MBB presentation will be much better. Everything in the scanned paper and much more is covered in the MBB presentation.

To Olaf and Jim:

I now have the MBB presentation translation in a complete form. All the German text has been taken out, and all the parts are combined in one Word document. It is easy to read, but may difficult to understand. I left some of the comments in. If either of you would like to post this document, I will be glad to send it to you.

jreed

I have looked at this paper. There isn't much in it. I suggest for an introduction that Heim's MBB presentation will be much better. Everything in the scanned paper and much more is covered in the MBB presentation.

To Olaf and Jim:

I now have the MBB presentation translation in a complete form. All the German text has been taken out, and all the parts are combined in one Word document. It is easy to read, but may difficult to understand. I left some of the comments in. If either of you would like to post this document, I will be glad to send it to you.

jreed

QUOTE (jreed+Jan 15 2007, 12:16 AM)

I now have the MBB presentation translation in a complete form. All the German text has been taken out, and all the parts are combined in one Word document. It is easy to read, but may difficult to understand. I left some of the comments in. If either of you would like to post this document, I will be glad to send it to you.

Good idea. I was planning on cleaning up the translation site like this, to make room for excerpts from Heim's books. I know that you've translated some of the book material already. I have started copy-typing from the sections that you mentioned, and tracing back the references in the books, hoping that it will help the rest of us catch up with you. It's very slow going, since transcribing the German is itself a messy job. I've also been busy with other projects lately, and only spent a few hours so far.

I'll post the cleaned-up translation file, if you like...Jim

Good idea. I was planning on cleaning up the translation site like this, to make room for excerpts from Heim's books. I know that you've translated some of the book material already. I have started copy-typing from the sections that you mentioned, and tracing back the references in the books, hoping that it will help the rest of us catch up with you. It's very slow going, since transcribing the German is itself a messy job. I've also been busy with other projects lately, and only spent a few hours so far.

I'll post the cleaned-up translation file, if you like...Jim

A new article recently posted on physorg.com Dark energy may be vacuum leads me to believe that it may be time for Hiem to be thrust into the main stream of these discussions.

As quoted from the article:

Dr. Jesper Sollerman and Dr. Tamara Davis lead the team who show that despite the increased sophistication in cosmological models over the last century the best model to explain the acceleration remains one that was proposed by Einstein back in 1917. Although Einstein's reasoning at the time was flawed (he proposed the modification to his theory so it could support a static universe, because in those days everyone 'knew' the universe was not expanding, it may be that he was right all along.

and a little later...

and a little later...

...So far it looks like our theory is correct and that the strange acceleration of the expansion of the universe can be explained by Einstein's 'cosmological constant'.

In modern terms the cosmological constant is viewed as a quantum mechanical phenomenon called the 'energy of the vacuum'. In other words, the energy of empty space. It is this energy that is causing the universe to accelerate. The new data shows that none of the fancy new theories that have been proposed in the last decade are necessary to explain the acceleration. Rather, vacuum energy is the most likely cause and the expansion history of the universe can be explained by simply adding this constant background of acceleration into the normal theory of gravity.

I really think that these experts that are working on cosmology should give a serious look at [E]HT, work the math, and see how it stands up to the data collection. There has been other observations (peer reviewed articles) that have been posted in the past that would help reinforce [E]HT as a viable theory, one of which I posted back in July Is this an observation that helps support HT?

I am not near the caliber of scientific or mathematic skills as other active members in this forum, but I am very tempted to post a reply to this article, or even contact the authors of the study asking them if they had considered [E]HT in their analysis. I think that kind of question would carry more weight from someone more qualified. Are there any takers?

As quoted from the article:

QUOTE

Dr. Jesper Sollerman and Dr. Tamara Davis lead the team who show that despite the increased sophistication in cosmological models over the last century the best model to explain the acceleration remains one that was proposed by Einstein back in 1917. Although Einstein's reasoning at the time was flawed (he proposed the modification to his theory so it could support a static universe, because in those days everyone 'knew' the universe was not expanding, it may be that he was right all along.

and a little later...

QUOTE (->

QUOTE |

Dr. Jesper Sollerman and Dr. Tamara Davis lead the team who show that despite the increased sophistication in cosmological models over the last century the best model to explain the acceleration remains one that was proposed by Einstein back in 1917. Although Einstein's reasoning at the time was flawed (he proposed the modification to his theory so it could support a static universe, because in those days everyone 'knew' the universe was not expanding, it may be that he was right all along. |

and a little later...

...So far it looks like our theory is correct and that the strange acceleration of the expansion of the universe can be explained by Einstein's 'cosmological constant'.

In modern terms the cosmological constant is viewed as a quantum mechanical phenomenon called the 'energy of the vacuum'. In other words, the energy of empty space. It is this energy that is causing the universe to accelerate. The new data shows that none of the fancy new theories that have been proposed in the last decade are necessary to explain the acceleration. Rather, vacuum energy is the most likely cause and the expansion history of the universe can be explained by simply adding this constant background of acceleration into the normal theory of gravity.

I really think that these experts that are working on cosmology should give a serious look at [E]HT, work the math, and see how it stands up to the data collection. There has been other observations (peer reviewed articles) that have been posted in the past that would help reinforce [E]HT as a viable theory, one of which I posted back in July Is this an observation that helps support HT?

I am not near the caliber of scientific or mathematic skills as other active members in this forum, but I am very tempted to post a reply to this article, or even contact the authors of the study asking them if they had considered [E]HT in their analysis. I think that kind of question would carry more weight from someone more qualified. Are there any takers?

QUOTE (DEK46656+Jan 18 2007, 01:34 AM)

A new article recently posted on physorg.com Dark energy may be vacuum leads me to believe that it may be time for Hiem to be thrust into the main stream of these discussions.

As quoted from the article:

and a little later...

I really think that these experts that are working on cosmology should give a serious look at [E]HT, work the math, and see how it stands up to the data collection. There has been other observations (peer reviewed articles) that have been posted in the past that would help reinforce [E]HT as a viable theory, one of which I posted back in July Is this an observation that helps support HT?

I am not near the caliber of scientific or mathematic skills as other active members in this forum, but I am very tempted to post a reply to this article, or even contact the authors of the study asking them if they had considered [E]HT in their analysis. I think that kind of question would carry more weight from someone more qualified. Are there any takers?

Maybe then you could use this:

"...However, if the particle connection ρ=h2/Gm3 is correct, the Heim proper solution (The solution without field mass), can be made a bases for a solution of ordinary General Relativity field equations. The connection can be interpreted as a dark energy generation from ordinary masses. ..."

from

"The Heim gravity differential equation (Borje Mansson) - A further exploration of Heim Gravity, and corrections to the equation 12/28/2006"

contained at Jim Grahams "Heim Theory Translation" pages.

Best regards,

--ivica

P.S. I'm unregistered so I can not post link.

As quoted from the article:

and a little later...

I really think that these experts that are working on cosmology should give a serious look at [E]HT, work the math, and see how it stands up to the data collection. There has been other observations (peer reviewed articles) that have been posted in the past that would help reinforce [E]HT as a viable theory, one of which I posted back in July Is this an observation that helps support HT?

I am not near the caliber of scientific or mathematic skills as other active members in this forum, but I am very tempted to post a reply to this article, or even contact the authors of the study asking them if they had considered [E]HT in their analysis. I think that kind of question would carry more weight from someone more qualified. Are there any takers?

QUOTE

...but I am very tempted to post a reply to this article, or even contact the authors of the study asking them if they had considered [E]HT in their analysis.

Maybe then you could use this:

"...However, if the particle connection ρ=h2/Gm3 is correct, the Heim proper solution (The solution without field mass), can be made a bases for a solution of ordinary General Relativity field equations. The connection can be interpreted as a dark energy generation from ordinary masses. ..."

from

"The Heim gravity differential equation (Borje Mansson) - A further exploration of Heim Gravity, and corrections to the equation 12/28/2006"

contained at Jim Grahams "Heim Theory Translation" pages.

Best regards,

--ivica

P.S. I'm unregistered so I can not post link.

Hi all,

I wondered if Olaf, JReed, or anyone else, has read the following papers concerning Lepton & Neutrino mass formula (Koide)? There are more, and a thread in the "other" forum of Brannen's, but I wanted to see the perspective of some people familiar with Heim theory.

**Koide Mass Formula for Neutrinos**

Carl A. Brannen

Liquafaction Corp., Woodinville, WA†

(Dated: April 11, 2006)

PDF Link

**The Lepton Masses**

Carl A. Brannen

Liquafaction Corp., Woodinville, WA†

(Dated: May 2, 2006)

PDF Link

**The Lepton Masses**

Carl A. Brannen

Liquafaction Corp., Woodinville, WA†

(Dated: May 2, 2006)

PDF Link

In the standard model, the lepton masses appear as arbitrary constants determined by experiment. But in 1982, Yoshio Koide proposed a formula for the charged lepton masses that is still going strong a quarter century later. The success of Koide’s formula remains unexplained, but its perfect accuracy, and its simplicity in explaining the charged lepton mass hierarchy, suggest that it may

be the basis for a new theory of mass, a theory simpler than that of the standard model. In this paper, we extend the Koide mass formula to an eigenvector equation, find further coincidences, apply the formula to the neutrinos, and speculatively suggest a complete solution to the problem of the hierarchy of lepton masses and the MNS mixing matrix.

see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula

**The strange formula of Dr. Koide**

Alejandro Rivero∗ and Andre Gsponer†

April 24, 2006

PDF Link

Abstract

We present a short historical and bibliographical review of the lepton mass formula of Yoshio Koide, as well as some speculations on its extensions to quark and neutrino masses, and its possible relations to more recent theoretical developments.

regards,

T.Roc

Tim, thanks for the link.

Ah,

Tim, thanks for the link.

Ah,

The year is just beginning, but I’m already willing to award this press release the title of “most outrageously misleading string theory hype of 2007″. It is going to be extremely hard for anyone else to match it.

said Peter Woit in his blog "Not Even Wrong".

More at

//www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=510

I wondered if Olaf, JReed, or anyone else, has read the following papers concerning Lepton & Neutrino mass formula (Koide)? There are more, and a thread in the "other" forum of Brannen's, but I wanted to see the perspective of some people familiar with Heim theory.

Carl A. Brannen

Liquafaction Corp., Woodinville, WA†

(Dated: April 11, 2006)

PDF Link

QUOTE

Since 1982 the Koide mass relation has provided an amazingly accurate relation between the masses of the charged leptons. In this note we show how the Koide relation can be expanded to cover the neutrinos, and we use the relation to predict neutrino masses.

Carl A. Brannen

Liquafaction Corp., Woodinville, WA†

(Dated: May 2, 2006)

PDF Link

QUOTE (->

QUOTE |

Since 1982 the Koide mass relation has provided an amazingly accurate relation between the masses of the charged leptons. In this note we show how the Koide relation can be expanded to cover the neutrinos, and we use the relation to predict neutrino masses. |

Carl A. Brannen

Liquafaction Corp., Woodinville, WA†

(Dated: May 2, 2006)

PDF Link

In the standard model, the lepton masses appear as arbitrary constants determined by experiment. But in 1982, Yoshio Koide proposed a formula for the charged lepton masses that is still going strong a quarter century later. The success of Koide’s formula remains unexplained, but its perfect accuracy, and its simplicity in explaining the charged lepton mass hierarchy, suggest that it may

be the basis for a new theory of mass, a theory simpler than that of the standard model. In this paper, we extend the Koide mass formula to an eigenvector equation, find further coincidences, apply the formula to the neutrinos, and speculatively suggest a complete solution to the problem of the hierarchy of lepton masses and the MNS mixing matrix.

see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula

Alejandro Rivero∗ and Andre Gsponer†

April 24, 2006

PDF Link

Abstract

We present a short historical and bibliographical review of the lepton mass formula of Yoshio Koide, as well as some speculations on its extensions to quark and neutrino masses, and its possible relations to more recent theoretical developments.

regards,

T.Roc

QUOTE (DEK46656+Jan 18 2007, 01:34 AM)

A new article recently posted on physorg.com Dark energy may be vacuum leads me to believe that it may be time for Hiem to be thrust into the main stream of these discussions.

I am not near the caliber of scientific or mathematic skills as other active members in this forum, but I am very tempted to post a reply to this article, or even contact the authors of the study asking them if they had considered [E]HT in their analysis. I think that kind of question would carry more weight from someone more qualified. Are there any takers?

I agree with you DEK46656! This issue shall be more publicized.

In my recent post I've mentoned about something like this already. Just see that article:

Sciam Blog

Seems that scientific community is looking for other theories (not involving mysterious Dark Mater or Dark Energy) which could properly explain some cosmological observations.

Can I ask forum members with better scientific background to update Wikipedia article about Heim Theory

with some information about this?

Wiki: Heim Theory

I mean simple description how according to EHT gravitational field looks like, together with simple diagram which will show the difference between mainstream theory and EHT.

Could you???

Hope it will help EHT to "...be thrust into the main stream of these discussions".

Best regards,

/Joss

I am not near the caliber of scientific or mathematic skills as other active members in this forum, but I am very tempted to post a reply to this article, or even contact the authors of the study asking them if they had considered [E]HT in their analysis. I think that kind of question would carry more weight from someone more qualified. Are there any takers?

I agree with you DEK46656! This issue shall be more publicized.

In my recent post I've mentoned about something like this already. Just see that article:

Sciam Blog

Seems that scientific community is looking for other theories (not involving mysterious Dark Mater or Dark Energy) which could properly explain some cosmological observations.

Can I ask forum members with better scientific background to update Wikipedia article about Heim Theory

with some information about this?

Wiki: Heim Theory

I mean simple description how according to EHT gravitational field looks like, together with simple diagram which will show the difference between mainstream theory and EHT.

Could you???

Hope it will help EHT to "...be thrust into the main stream of these discussions".

Best regards,

/Joss

As Borje points here

"The Heim gravity differential equation (Borje Mansson) - A further exploration of Heim Gravity, and corrections to the equation 12/28/2006"

(contained at Jim Grahams "Heim Theory Translation" pages)

Heims derivation of the particle connection ro=h**2/Gm**3 should be checked!

Does anyone having Heims books can shed more lights on that?

Best regards,

--ivica

P.S. I'm unregistered so I can not post the link.

"The Heim gravity differential equation (Borje Mansson) - A further exploration of Heim Gravity, and corrections to the equation 12/28/2006"

(contained at Jim Grahams "Heim Theory Translation" pages)

Heims derivation of the particle connection ro=h**2/Gm**3 should be checked!

Does anyone having Heims books can shed more lights on that?

Best regards,

--ivica

P.S. I'm unregistered so I can not post the link.

A brief aside:

**Physicists Develop Test for 'String Theory'**

I'm sure that most of you will probably have read the article cited above before reading this post, but I can't contain my excitement. At last the possibility to disprove string theory may be close at hand (though the article makes it clear that in all likelihood they'll follow their MO and just rewrite string theory to fit any new observations).

Perhaps some day they'll be able to get on with the real science and leave their pretty math at home...

I'm sure that most of you will probably have read the article cited above before reading this post, but I can't contain my excitement. At last the possibility to disprove string theory may be close at hand (though the article makes it clear that in all likelihood they'll follow their MO and just rewrite string theory to fit any new observations).

QUOTE

“If the bounds are satisfied, we would still not know that string theory is correct,” said Distler. “But, if the bounds are violated, we would know that string theory, as it is currently understood, could not be correct. At the very least, the theory would have to be reshaped in a highly nontrivial way.”

Perhaps some day they'll be able to get on with the real science and leave their pretty math at home...

QUOTE

Physicists Develop Test for 'String Theory'

Tim, thanks for the link.

Ah,

QUOTE (->

QUOTE |

Physicists Develop Test for 'String Theory' |

Tim, thanks for the link.

Ah,

The year is just beginning, but I’m already willing to award this press release the title of “most outrageously misleading string theory hype of 2007″. It is going to be extremely hard for anyone else to match it.

said Peter Woit in his blog "Not Even Wrong".

More at

//www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=510

I saw that report on that scattering test. It had a misleading title - "New test for String Theory", since as you read further it is simply another test that String theory must pass in order to be shown to be viable. If the test is passed it says nothing about the correctness of String theory, as many theories satisfy this constraint. This is another example of the thinking outlined in “The Trouble with Physics” by Lee Smolin, which is similar to the book “Not even Wrong”. Smolin points out that Sring theory still makes no really unique predictions – other theories say the same. Also, dark energy was a catastrophe for string theory as most versions imply a positive cosmological constant. The surviving form has already been patched up to account for that defeat. So we are now for the first time seeing a crack in the monolithic unity of the string theorists – the split within the string community stems from this and other patch ups which begin to look less and less likely.

Some of those other problems are:

- String theory is static – there is no dynamics.

- It is background-dependent: i.e. not frame independent like General Relativity or Heim Theory!

- It needs supersymmetry etc.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory...and_controversy for a summary.

Some of those other problems are:

- String theory is static – there is no dynamics.

- It is background-dependent: i.e. not frame independent like General Relativity or Heim Theory!

- It needs supersymmetry etc.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory...and_controversy for a summary.

QUOTE (hdeasy+Jan 28 2007, 01:31 PM)

Some of those other problems are String theory is static – there is no dynamics It is background-dependent: i.e. not frame independent like General Relativity or Heim Theory It needs supersymmetry etc....

The true is, from the more general theory perspective, like the AWT the string theory (especially the latest version M-theory) and the Heim's theory appears a pretty complementary. The M-theory is based on the description of the vibrations inside the (mem)brane network, while the Heim's theory is based on the selector calculus formalism of torsion fields description in the protosimplex structures. By such way we can say, the Heim's uses the foam model for geometric description of vacuum and particle, but the LQG approach for prediction of its qualitative properties.

It's not so difficult to understand, both these theories are based on the same rather trivial model of reality, i.e. the foam model of vacuum. They just don't know about it, because they're using a different terminology and geometric approach. It seems, the string theory is restricted just to the particle description and it's nonrecursive, i.e. it considers the vacuum as an empty environement, so that the particles strings are hanging in the space like cherries(?) by the string theory.

Despite of these less or more apparent similarities, the Heim's theory appears a much more advanced theory, especially with respect of the number of the quantitative/testable predictions supplied. The Heim's genius outdid the results of two generations of the string theorists. Furthermore, I'm afraid, some assumptions of string formal postulates are too formal, so that the string theory should be deeply reformulated with respect to the latest insights, to be able to lead to some usable results at all.

The true is, from the more general theory perspective, like the AWT the string theory (especially the latest version M-theory) and the Heim's theory appears a pretty complementary. The M-theory is based on the description of the vibrations inside the (mem)brane network, while the Heim's theory is based on the selector calculus formalism of torsion fields description in the protosimplex structures. By such way we can say, the Heim's uses the foam model for geometric description of vacuum and particle, but the LQG approach for prediction of its qualitative properties.

It's not so difficult to understand, both these theories are based on the same rather trivial model of reality, i.e. the foam model of vacuum. They just don't know about it, because they're using a different terminology and geometric approach. It seems, the string theory is restricted just to the particle description and it's nonrecursive, i.e. it considers the vacuum as an empty environement, so that the particles strings are hanging in the space like cherries(?) by the string theory.

Despite of these less or more apparent similarities, the Heim's theory appears a much more advanced theory, especially with respect of the number of the quantitative/testable predictions supplied. The Heim's genius outdid the results of two generations of the string theorists. Furthermore, I'm afraid, some assumptions of string formal postulates are too formal, so that the string theory should be deeply reformulated with respect to the latest insights, to be able to lead to some usable results at all.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.