I think Heim theory is in the right way, in fact String theory use the same principles: a string is a part of space-time vibrating and a brane is a surface of space-time vibrating, just the same that metron on Heim's th. But Heim's can predicts the mass spectrum (and String no).
My question is, someone really understand the reasons and way to calculate this mass spectrum?
Greetings,
This thread is for the purpose of discussing a Theory by Burkhard Heim, published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 1992. [vol. 6, no.3, pp. 217-231]
Authors: T. Auerbach, I. von Ludwiger
Also related would be the nature of mass, gravity, and the nature of dimensions.
To start, here is the link to the paper.
The introduction:
The present article provides an overview of Burkhard Heim´s unified field theory of elementary particles and their internal structures (heim,1984,1989; v.Ludwiger, 1981). Various old and new concepts enter into the theory, including cosmology, quantum field theory, organizing processes similar to Sheldrake’s morphogenetic fields (Sheldrake, 1985), and the existence of a smallest area in a 6-dimensional world. The main results of Heim’s theory are formulas for the masses of elementary particles. Results turn out to be in very good agreement with measured values.
This report is written with the aim of describing the basic architecture of Heim´s theory in mainly non-technical terms for the benefit of the average JSE reader with a scientific background, who is not necessarily a physicist. For this reason the terminology of field theory is often replaced by less specific but more readily comprehensible expressions. In an Appendix selected topics are discussed in more technical terms for the benefit of physicists.
The abstact:
Heim´s Theory is defined in a 6-dimensional world, in 2 dimensions of which events take place that organize processes in the 3 dimensions of our experience. A very small natural constant, called a “metron“, is derived, representing the smallest area that can exist in nature. This lead to the conclusion that space must be composed of a 6-dimensional geometric lattice of very small cells bounded on all sides by metrons. The existence of metrons requires our usual infinitesimal calculus to be replaced by one of finite areas. The unperturbed lattice represents empty vacuum. Local deformations of the lattice indicate of something other than empty space. If the deformation is of the right form and complexity it acquires the property of mass and inertia. Elementary particles are complex dynamical systems of locally confined interacting lattice distortions. Thus the theory geometricizes the world by viewing it as a huge assemblage of very small deformations of a 6-dimensional lattice in vacuum. The theory also has significant consequences for cosmology.
TRoc
This thread is for the purpose of discussing a Theory by Burkhard Heim, published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 1992. [vol. 6, no.3, pp. 217-231]
Authors: T. Auerbach, I. von Ludwiger
Also related would be the nature of mass, gravity, and the nature of dimensions.
To start, here is the link to the paper.
The introduction:
The present article provides an overview of Burkhard Heim´s unified field theory of elementary particles and their internal structures (heim,1984,1989; v.Ludwiger, 1981). Various old and new concepts enter into the theory, including cosmology, quantum field theory, organizing processes similar to Sheldrake’s morphogenetic fields (Sheldrake, 1985), and the existence of a smallest area in a 6-dimensional world. The main results of Heim’s theory are formulas for the masses of elementary particles. Results turn out to be in very good agreement with measured values.
This report is written with the aim of describing the basic architecture of Heim´s theory in mainly non-technical terms for the benefit of the average JSE reader with a scientific background, who is not necessarily a physicist. For this reason the terminology of field theory is often replaced by less specific but more readily comprehensible expressions. In an Appendix selected topics are discussed in more technical terms for the benefit of physicists.
The abstact:
Heim´s Theory is defined in a 6-dimensional world, in 2 dimensions of which events take place that organize processes in the 3 dimensions of our experience. A very small natural constant, called a “metron“, is derived, representing the smallest area that can exist in nature. This lead to the conclusion that space must be composed of a 6-dimensional geometric lattice of very small cells bounded on all sides by metrons. The existence of metrons requires our usual infinitesimal calculus to be replaced by one of finite areas. The unperturbed lattice represents empty vacuum. Local deformations of the lattice indicate of something other than empty space. If the deformation is of the right form and complexity it acquires the property of mass and inertia. Elementary particles are complex dynamical systems of locally confined interacting lattice distortions. Thus the theory geometricizes the world by viewing it as a huge assemblage of very small deformations of a 6-dimensional lattice in vacuum. The theory also has significant consequences for cosmology.
TRoc
Hi TRoc, 
A very small natural constant, called a “metron“, is derived, representing the smallest area that can exist in nature.
Career, back online!
Thoughts.
I can't imagine that possible, I can't remember the word for being able to zoom into something “infinitely”.
It’s like saying the universe is not infinite, lets build a wall around where it ends. On the inside of the wall we have galaxies..., on the outside there is nothing, but nothing is still something even if there is nothing there.
Like saying the big bang created everything, what did it bang into, where did the stuff that banged come from...
Suppose a "metron" is not a bad concept for a natural workable constant, hardly the smallest area that can exist in nature, seems infinite.
Later…
A very small natural constant, called a “metron“, is derived, representing the smallest area that can exist in nature.
Career, back online!
Thoughts.
I can't imagine that possible, I can't remember the word for being able to zoom into something “infinitely”.
It’s like saying the universe is not infinite, lets build a wall around where it ends. On the inside of the wall we have galaxies..., on the outside there is nothing, but nothing is still something even if there is nothing there.
Like saying the big bang created everything, what did it bang into, where did the stuff that banged come from...
Suppose a "metron" is not a bad concept for a natural workable constant, hardly the smallest area that can exist in nature, seems infinite.
Later…
Hi TRoc and Bee,
I confess that Heim's Theory is still just as incomprehensible to me now as before. There are some common chords with some minor aspects of my theory but overall it is quite bewildering. The paper on his mathematical structure of particles is incomplete and is more of a descriptive text and I can't say what it means at all other than a claim that it generates the mass of all the particles. I get the feeling that he was a "closet" thinker and intended to keep it that way. I see that he has a spatial dimension... area (metron) smaller than even the Planck Length. This is not going to endear his theory to me and it is some kind of radical interpretation of everything. I am also not one to like lattices embedded directly in space. I still have not worked out what the extra dimensions really mean.
Now I am sure that there are some good ideas in his work as well. The essence of his Unified Field Theory is similar to the later work of Albert Einstein and the generalization of the 4X4 matrices to contain a symmetric and an anti-symmetric part.... since all matrices can be decomposed into the sum of two matrices of this kind, one representing electromagnetism and the other representing gravity. I think this is a good idea but the inter-relationships may be lost to the theory.
I am interested in your comments and if you have been able to find more on this man other than historical narratives it may prove interesting. Here are some references to Einstein's Theories... that is the best I can do at present.
Einsteins Unified Field Theory
or this one...
THE ELECTROSTATICS OF EINSTEIN'S UNIFIED FIELD Theory - S. Antoci et al
much older theories..
Translation of Einstein's Attempt of a Unified Field Theory with Teleparallelism
Cheers
I confess that Heim's Theory is still just as incomprehensible to me now as before. There are some common chords with some minor aspects of my theory but overall it is quite bewildering. The paper on his mathematical structure of particles is incomplete and is more of a descriptive text and I can't say what it means at all other than a claim that it generates the mass of all the particles. I get the feeling that he was a "closet" thinker and intended to keep it that way. I see that he has a spatial dimension... area (metron) smaller than even the Planck Length. This is not going to endear his theory to me and it is some kind of radical interpretation of everything. I am also not one to like lattices embedded directly in space. I still have not worked out what the extra dimensions really mean.
Now I am sure that there are some good ideas in his work as well. The essence of his Unified Field Theory is similar to the later work of Albert Einstein and the generalization of the 4X4 matrices to contain a symmetric and an anti-symmetric part.... since all matrices can be decomposed into the sum of two matrices of this kind, one representing electromagnetism and the other representing gravity. I think this is a good idea but the inter-relationships may be lost to the theory.
I am interested in your comments and if you have been able to find more on this man other than historical narratives it may prove interesting. Here are some references to Einstein's Theories... that is the best I can do at present.
Einsteins Unified Field Theory
or this one...
THE ELECTROSTATICS OF EINSTEIN'S UNIFIED FIELD Theory - S. Antoci et al
much older theories..
Translation of Einstein's Attempt of a Unified Field Theory with Teleparallelism
Cheers
Hello bee & GE,
Bee, I thought of you when reading this.. he uses the term "condensation" often in explaining the theory. And of course, multi dimensions for Good Elf.
Many limitations though, as GE pointed out. Apparently the "final anwsers" are in an unpublised manuscript.
Much good stuff too.
A re-post of GE's initial link here.
On dimensions:
Later, he is talking about using 12 dimensions for completeness.
I don't have time for more right at the moment, but I wanted to reply.
TRoc
Bee, I thought of you when reading this.. he uses the term "condensation" often in explaining the theory. And of course, multi dimensions for Good Elf.
Many limitations though, as GE pointed out. Apparently the "final anwsers" are in an unpublised manuscript.
Much good stuff too.
A re-post of GE's initial link here.
On dimensions:
QUOTE
It can be shown that the number of real dimensions, i.e. those measureable with yardsticks, is limited to 3. All higher dimensions must be of a different nature entirely. The 4th dimension, for example, is proportional to time, which is measured with clocks and not yardsticks. The 5th and 6th dimensions will have to be something
different again (Cole, 1980), and according to Heim it are associated with organizational properties. They will be called “transdimensions“ or “transcoordinates“to distinguish them from the four dimensions with which we are
all familiar.
Modern superstring theory describing the interactions between elementary particles also involves the use of more than 4 dimensions. However, following a suggestion by the mathematicians Kuluza and Klein, all but 4 of them curl up in such a manner that they exist only in dimensions of the order of 10-35 m. Thus they are hidden and do not manifest themselves in the macroscopic world.
different again (Cole, 1980), and according to Heim it are associated with organizational properties. They will be called “transdimensions“ or “transcoordinates“to distinguish them from the four dimensions with which we are
all familiar.
Modern superstring theory describing the interactions between elementary particles also involves the use of more than 4 dimensions. However, following a suggestion by the mathematicians Kuluza and Klein, all but 4 of them curl up in such a manner that they exist only in dimensions of the order of 10-35 m. Thus they are hidden and do not manifest themselves in the macroscopic world.
Later, he is talking about using 12 dimensions for completeness.
I don't have time for more right at the moment, but I wanted to reply.
TRoc
I was skimming and read about Unified Field Theory which seemed to encompass the use of Quaternions which form 4 vertexes in Computer science at least.
I was drawing some pictures out of the use of vertexes or, ‘latices’ ???, in dimensions which helped me understand more.
Heim was using a lattice and 6 dimensions. The metron being used in the 6th dimension. Is the metron comparable to the Quaternion. The Quaternion representing the 4th dimension and the metron the 6th?
How does that work I am a little newer at this.
The diagram was interesting to look at in the Heim paper.
Would gravity be instant travel?
I was drawing some pictures out of the use of vertexes or, ‘latices’ ???, in dimensions which helped me understand more.
Heim was using a lattice and 6 dimensions. The metron being used in the 6th dimension. Is the metron comparable to the Quaternion. The Quaternion representing the 4th dimension and the metron the 6th?
How does that work I am a little newer at this.
The diagram was interesting to look at in the Heim paper.
Would gravity be instant travel?
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 10 2006, 06:14 AM)
I see that he has a spatial dimension... area (metron) smaller than even the Planck Length.
This doesn't bother me personally too much. The metron is on the order of the Planck Area. In fact, if you calculate the Planck Area using h-bar, then a metron is actually about 2.3 times larger than a Planck Area:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlanckArea.html
Now, my understanding of what the Planck units are, is that they are the "scale" at which we cease to be able to predict what is going on, physically, due to the failure of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to properly "mesh". So, it seems to me it is less of a real physical constraint and more a statement of the limits of current theory.
Heim's theory involves a meshing of quantum and relativistic concepts, so naturally we would expect it to show us how to properly account for things at this scale. Looking down at the end of his paper, we see that the metron, just like the Planck Length, is defined in terms of c, G, and h. (He uses gamma instead of G, but back-calculating you can see the value is identical to the G we are used to.)
So he seems, to me at least, to be preserving the concept of quantized action that the Planck and Dirac constants embody. That, to me, seems more important than the values of the Planck units, which are derived from our admittedly limited knowledge of the nature of the interaction of the phenomena which G, h, and c represent.
The Planck units represent scales at which our understanding fails us. Heim's metron represents the scale at which the forces of the universe literally cease to have physical meaning. He posits that this indicates that effectively no smaller area actually exists, because there is literally no physical phenomena that can probe those scales.
This doesn't bother me personally too much. The metron is on the order of the Planck Area. In fact, if you calculate the Planck Area using h-bar, then a metron is actually about 2.3 times larger than a Planck Area:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlanckArea.html
Now, my understanding of what the Planck units are, is that they are the "scale" at which we cease to be able to predict what is going on, physically, due to the failure of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to properly "mesh". So, it seems to me it is less of a real physical constraint and more a statement of the limits of current theory.
Heim's theory involves a meshing of quantum and relativistic concepts, so naturally we would expect it to show us how to properly account for things at this scale. Looking down at the end of his paper, we see that the metron, just like the Planck Length, is defined in terms of c, G, and h. (He uses gamma instead of G, but back-calculating you can see the value is identical to the G we are used to.)
So he seems, to me at least, to be preserving the concept of quantized action that the Planck and Dirac constants embody. That, to me, seems more important than the values of the Planck units, which are derived from our admittedly limited knowledge of the nature of the interaction of the phenomena which G, h, and c represent.
The Planck units represent scales at which our understanding fails us. Heim's metron represents the scale at which the forces of the universe literally cease to have physical meaning. He posits that this indicates that effectively no smaller area actually exists, because there is literally no physical phenomena that can probe those scales.
QUOTE (WaterBreath+Jan 10 2006, 09:37 PM)
He posits that this indicates that effectively no smaller area actually exists, because there is literally no physical phenomena that can probe those scales.
Nope, the true reason is somewhere else. The Heim's approach seems to be a quite right, as it derives the minimal and maximal curvature of space (i.e. the minimal and maximal Universe diameter) just using its topology rules.
It's not the result of some technical possibility to prove or refute it by any way. From the theoretic point of view (i.e. the quantitative predicability), the Heim's theory is the most advanced theory currently available, no question about it.
Nope, the true reason is somewhere else. The Heim's approach seems to be a quite right, as it derives the minimal and maximal curvature of space (i.e. the minimal and maximal Universe diameter) just using its topology rules.
It's not the result of some technical possibility to prove or refute it by any way. From the theoretic point of view (i.e. the quantitative predicability), the Heim's theory is the most advanced theory currently available, no question about it.
Zephir... I chose poorly when I used the word "probe", because it implies experimentation is involved.
What I really meant is that the forces define spacetime (just as in GR), and since the forces effectively do not exist beyond these minimum and maximum scales, spacetime does not exist either.
In that respect, under Heim's theory, these constants are the direct result of the minimum action represented by Planck's constant. This would make them as fundamental as Planck's constant, and more fundamental than the "Planck Units".
The big questions that remain about Heim's work are 1) whether the logic and particularly the math are consistent throughout, and 2) whether his envisioning of the nature and interaction of the fundamental forces (in short, his base assumptions/propositions) represents reality.
Obviously rigorous and dilligent peer review can resolve #1. But to enable this his opus needs to be opened to a wider audience than it has been thus far. Testing the implications of the interaction Heim predicted between electro-weak and gravity forces, by way of "gravitophotons" (which hit the news recently and generated all this wonderful buzz) is the first step to resolving #2.
If #1 can be satisfied, Heim theory will have a jump on string theory, in that it predicts phenomena that can actually be tested for #2.
What I really meant is that the forces define spacetime (just as in GR), and since the forces effectively do not exist beyond these minimum and maximum scales, spacetime does not exist either.
In that respect, under Heim's theory, these constants are the direct result of the minimum action represented by Planck's constant. This would make them as fundamental as Planck's constant, and more fundamental than the "Planck Units".
The big questions that remain about Heim's work are 1) whether the logic and particularly the math are consistent throughout, and 2) whether his envisioning of the nature and interaction of the fundamental forces (in short, his base assumptions/propositions) represents reality.
Obviously rigorous and dilligent peer review can resolve #1. But to enable this his opus needs to be opened to a wider audience than it has been thus far. Testing the implications of the interaction Heim predicted between electro-weak and gravity forces, by way of "gravitophotons" (which hit the news recently and generated all this wonderful buzz) is the first step to resolving #2.
If #1 can be satisfied, Heim theory will have a jump on string theory, in that it predicts phenomena that can actually be tested for #2.
Hello, Goodly Elvish one, TRoc, Zephir, et al.
The paper immed. jumps into using analogs of Minkowski metrics and adopts the rather antiquated Einsteinian tensor notation. So far, it's a phenomenal read if you can swallow the covariant/contravariant switches and what not. The rest is just some clever advanced linear algebra but MUCH easier than the tensor stuff.
An EXCELLENT tutorial on this is found in a great book (how I taught myself, w/ the help of Schaum's Outlines) called A First Course in String Theory by Barton Zwiebach from MIT. A remarkable take on things, I find. Pretty damned provocative.
-gleeeeeeeefully spinning my solids - and finally getting kickass data!
The paper immed. jumps into using analogs of Minkowski metrics and adopts the rather antiquated Einsteinian tensor notation. So far, it's a phenomenal read if you can swallow the covariant/contravariant switches and what not. The rest is just some clever advanced linear algebra but MUCH easier than the tensor stuff.
An EXCELLENT tutorial on this is found in a great book (how I taught myself, w/ the help of Schaum's Outlines) called A First Course in String Theory by Barton Zwiebach from MIT. A remarkable take on things, I find. Pretty damned provocative.
-gleeeeeeeefully spinning my solids - and finally getting kickass data!
QUOTE (Guest_bee+Jan 10 2006, 09:48 AM)
It’s like saying the universe is not infinite, lets build a wall around where it ends. On the inside of the wall we have galaxies..., on the outside there is nothing, but nothing is still something even if there is nothing there.
Like saying the big bang created everything, what did it bang into, where did the stuff that banged come from...
Suppose a "metron" is not a bad concept for a natural workable constant, hardly the smallest area that can exist in nature, seems infinite.
Later…
If there are universal boundaries there would be space then NO SPACE. Einstein dealt with that!!!
The universe is the surface of an expanding hypersphere.
Nick,
........A hyperdoughnut, bi-spherical in cross-section...maybe?
........A hyperdoughnut, bi-spherical in cross-section...maybe?
QUOTE (Nick+Jan 11 2006, 12:24 AM)
The universe is the surface of an expanding hypersphere.
I would prefer the sphere of +/- fixed diameter, making itself a more dense like collapsar...
I would prefer the sphere of +/- fixed diameter, making itself a more dense like collapsar...
Hi all,
Ummmmmm, "
", now that I've actually read TRoc's link. I dont even know what to tell u. I swear I have never read that or anything like it before. I just had a model of things in my head that seemed so clear. Thought I could be of assistance when I saw the “gravity” page from google, got carried away from there (addicted).
Anyway looks like my assistance here is done! Back to history, mysterious, Egypt… research for me.
All I can say, Heim is a very clever man, no doubt! Hope he makes a difference. Theory may need a bit of work, leave it to your capable hands.
Sorry Nick don’t want to disrupt further.
Cheers, all the best!
Ummmmmm, "
", now that I've actually read TRoc's link. I dont even know what to tell u. I swear I have never read that or anything like it before. I just had a model of things in my head that seemed so clear. Thought I could be of assistance when I saw the “gravity” page from google, got carried away from there (addicted).Anyway looks like my assistance here is done! Back to history, mysterious, Egypt… research for me.
All I can say, Heim is a very clever man, no doubt! Hope he makes a difference. Theory may need a bit of work, leave it to your capable hands.
Sorry Nick don’t want to disrupt further.
Cheers, all the best!
All,
We have a good number of responses to deal with, while not expecting perfection, I will try to order through them.
Good Elf:
I feel the same about not liking the direct embedding of the background lattice onto our concept of space. However, to me, it doesn't matter "too much" because we have to have SOMETHING to refer to. It always seemed to me that this is what Einstein did that I didn't like: give properties to the "emptiness" of space(time). I prefer to just imagine the waves that are moving through space to contain the geometries that we measure.
So my first question is: Is Heim's perspective the same as Einstein's on this?
I'll also direct my next question to you, GE. This paper make a good attempt at describing the added dimensions. I have never heard any names for these dimensions. Are there any others that you know of? I don't mean silly names, like most of those for the quarks, but names that, if nothing else, by analogous thinking, lead us to a better understanding of WHAT is being measured. It seems to me that no matter how fancy we get, these added dimensions MUST always relate somehow back to the 3+1 that we are familiar with. Heim's paper used the building of a house, through the "stacking" of efforts of several dissimilar trades. So, in that sense, I can see that if we wanted to somehow describe the building of a house through an equation, we might need to invoke some extra dimensions. However, are we not "shortcutting" the power of our minds? The imagination is SO key to our ability to obtain reason and logic, even though by our compartmentalization, we deem them separate.
Blam: I can not muster an answer to your question on gravity/time travel. I do believe that there are similarities to the "quaternion" and the "metron". That is probably a better question for the authors themselves. By adhering to the correspondence principal, my belief is that we should find where Heim's theory matches current theories that we agree on, and how it disagrees with theories that have NOT worked. We must remember that ultimately, Einstein FAILED at unification through field perspectives/models. (as did MANY others following his lead)
Waterbreath: [long time no hear ] Very astute reasoning, with the need for us to "mesh perspectives" of QM and GR to "unconstrain" modern theory. This also means keeping some concept of "quantums" in the forefront. Using parameters "which are derived from our admittedly limited knowledge of the nature of the interaction of the phenomena which G, h, and c represent." We must remember that it was US that "invented" mass, gravity, energy, etc. and it is US who has the power to change these concepts. They are labels for phenomena, they were NOT conceived by the same mind, nor at the same time. In analogy to Heim's building model, do we need, in the final description, to separately define such independent concepts as the "framers", the "roofers", the "finish carpenters", etc. or can we lump them together in common groups?
Zephir: I agree with the "topology" of a minimum and maximum space that begins to define all that can happen in the "space" that the maximum contains. As Waterbreath said, "In that respect, under Heim's theory, these constants are the direct result of the minimum action represented by Planck's constant. This would make them as fundamental as Planck's constant, and more fundamental than the "Planck Units". " I would add that the Hubble constant play a similarly important role in the big picture.
Don't mean to leave anybody out, but I am out of time.
TRoc
We have a good number of responses to deal with, while not expecting perfection, I will try to order through them.
Good Elf:
I feel the same about not liking the direct embedding of the background lattice onto our concept of space. However, to me, it doesn't matter "too much" because we have to have SOMETHING to refer to. It always seemed to me that this is what Einstein did that I didn't like: give properties to the "emptiness" of space(time). I prefer to just imagine the waves that are moving through space to contain the geometries that we measure.
So my first question is: Is Heim's perspective the same as Einstein's on this?
I'll also direct my next question to you, GE. This paper make a good attempt at describing the added dimensions. I have never heard any names for these dimensions. Are there any others that you know of? I don't mean silly names, like most of those for the quarks, but names that, if nothing else, by analogous thinking, lead us to a better understanding of WHAT is being measured. It seems to me that no matter how fancy we get, these added dimensions MUST always relate somehow back to the 3+1 that we are familiar with. Heim's paper used the building of a house, through the "stacking" of efforts of several dissimilar trades. So, in that sense, I can see that if we wanted to somehow describe the building of a house through an equation, we might need to invoke some extra dimensions. However, are we not "shortcutting" the power of our minds? The imagination is SO key to our ability to obtain reason and logic, even though by our compartmentalization, we deem them separate.
Blam: I can not muster an answer to your question on gravity/time travel. I do believe that there are similarities to the "quaternion" and the "metron". That is probably a better question for the authors themselves. By adhering to the correspondence principal, my belief is that we should find where Heim's theory matches current theories that we agree on, and how it disagrees with theories that have NOT worked. We must remember that ultimately, Einstein FAILED at unification through field perspectives/models. (as did MANY others following his lead)
Waterbreath: [long time no hear
] Very astute reasoning, with the need for us to "mesh perspectives" of QM and GR to "unconstrain" modern theory. This also means keeping some concept of "quantums" in the forefront. Using parameters "which are derived from our admittedly limited knowledge of the nature of the interaction of the phenomena which G, h, and c represent." We must remember that it was US that "invented" mass, gravity, energy, etc. and it is US who has the power to change these concepts. They are labels for phenomena, they were NOT conceived by the same mind, nor at the same time. In analogy to Heim's building model, do we need, in the final description, to separately define such independent concepts as the "framers", the "roofers", the "finish carpenters", etc. or can we lump them together in common groups?Zephir: I agree with the "topology" of a minimum and maximum space that begins to define all that can happen in the "space" that the maximum contains. As Waterbreath said, "In that respect, under Heim's theory, these constants are the direct result of the minimum action represented by Planck's constant. This would make them as fundamental as Planck's constant, and more fundamental than the "Planck Units". " I would add that the Hubble constant play a similarly important role in the big picture.
Don't mean to leave anybody out, but I am out of time.
TRoc
QUOTE (TRoc+Jan 11 2006, 07:29 PM)
Is Heim's perspective the same as Einstein's on this?
The Heim's theory is the similar extrapolation (improvement) of the Einstein's theory as the Yilmaz's theory (see my older submissions for more details)
The Heim's theory is the similar extrapolation (improvement) of the Einstein's theory as the Yilmaz's theory (see my older submissions for more details)
Not sure who to address here,
Just came on board, not even sure how to use the tools given on this site. But I believe it was Troc that was at the top so I will ask him and anyone else if that is allowed.
I have read the reference given. I do not think it matters who I am, just as long as I do not bog down progress on a site. I might be new, but the subject is not. I am trying to find some reason for this theory.
My question Mr. Thoc, is does this theory predict gravity, it just mentions it and a diagram that is an offshoot of general relativity. But no detail information is given., I cannot find in the search mode it the pdf file. Someone mentioned Planck's length, I began to wonder about, particularity of that when we do not even understand the nature of the tools most use how does this improve our reality. I see no advancements here in progress. Just one more problem given with no way of testing for information or making any statements that gives validity to this model.
Everyone on this subject seem to have a good foundation, I hope dealing with all that is involved in this theory, laws that we use as vehicles to maneuver within the realm of which you are dealing with which is our macro & micro world. So how is this better than say, Einstein? I do not see any. Not sure this is the way to start, but many question I do have.
paradox42
Just came on board, not even sure how to use the tools given on this site. But I believe it was Troc that was at the top so I will ask him and anyone else if that is allowed.
I have read the reference given. I do not think it matters who I am, just as long as I do not bog down progress on a site. I might be new, but the subject is not. I am trying to find some reason for this theory.
My question Mr. Thoc, is does this theory predict gravity, it just mentions it and a diagram that is an offshoot of general relativity. But no detail information is given., I cannot find in the search mode it the pdf file. Someone mentioned Planck's length, I began to wonder about, particularity of that when we do not even understand the nature of the tools most use how does this improve our reality. I see no advancements here in progress. Just one more problem given with no way of testing for information or making any statements that gives validity to this model.
Everyone on this subject seem to have a good foundation, I hope dealing with all that is involved in this theory, laws that we use as vehicles to maneuver within the realm of which you are dealing with which is our macro & micro world. So how is this better than say, Einstein? I do not see any. Not sure this is the way to start, but many question I do have.
paradox42
Oh, Paradox42, I'm only half the man you are...
~rasselas21
~rasselas21
paradox42,
Welcome to the forum p42! You can address anyone, someone or everyone, and there are not too many rules around here.
Is your pseudo-name derived from asking the wrong question?
The main thing that Heim's theory predicts is the masses of the standard model particles (in ground, as well as all excited states). I don't think that it can be said that it predicts gravity, but there are some interesting modifications to Einstein's theory (GR).
There is also a key modification to Newton's gravitational law: Heim states that the gravitational force weakens, and goes to zero at distances ~150LY, and becomes weakly repulsive "at greater distances still". Finally, at the diameter of the Universe, back to zero again for good. It is then "unphysical"; and also at the very small distance of ~1/4 Schwarzchild radius (from GR).
He derives the "metron" from the product of "the minimum "distance and the Compton wavelength of a given mass; producing an area.
Differentials and Integrals are also "revised": throwing out the "infinitely" divisible (& recombining) lines to allow for a finite area.
He is also producing quantisized gravitational waves (gravitons), and predicting a FSL velocity of those waves at 4/3 ©. This has an interesting side note to the superluminal wave that hit our planet on Dec. 26, 2004; preceding (by light) the "largest space explosion of our time".
He follows Einstein's failed attempt at a unified theory with non-symmetric, non-hermitian metric tensors. Heim couples 3 interacting matrices in 6 dimensions to produce his basic metric tensor. This is an important addition: a resonant, symmetric state can not be produced with the coupling of 2 dissonant parameters, you need 3 to achieve a balance. This agrees with a "little" theory of mine, based on triad+ resonances.
Following that note, Heim arrives at 3 different values for the diameter of metronic spheres at the beginning of time: d1=.90992m, d2=1.06426m, d3=3.70121m. These 3 values have a special resonant relationship: BF1=d2-d1, BF2=d3-d2, BF3=d3-d1; BF1+BF2=BF3 (BS=5.58258). BeatFrequency/BeatSum shows the value of the conceptual "quantization" of differentials and integrals.
A negative point to Heim's theory is that it does not limit the number of excited states that each particle can have. Vibrational Resonance Theory, using BF/BS provides that limit.
Heim's theory also does away with the "hidden variables" hypothesis, clears up wave-particle duality, and eliminates the infinities of the quantum field. Not a bad start! Planks' finite quantum, interpreted with standing spherical wave resonances?
TRoc
Welcome to the forum p42! You can address anyone, someone or everyone, and there are not too many rules around here.
Is your pseudo-name derived from asking the wrong question?
The main thing that Heim's theory predicts is the masses of the standard model particles (in ground, as well as all excited states). I don't think that it can be said that it predicts gravity, but there are some interesting modifications to Einstein's theory (GR).
There is also a key modification to Newton's gravitational law: Heim states that the gravitational force weakens, and goes to zero at distances ~150LY, and becomes weakly repulsive "at greater distances still". Finally, at the diameter of the Universe, back to zero again for good. It is then "unphysical"; and also at the very small distance of ~1/4 Schwarzchild radius (from GR).
He derives the "metron" from the product of "the minimum "distance and the Compton wavelength of a given mass; producing an area.
Differentials and Integrals are also "revised": throwing out the "infinitely" divisible (& recombining) lines to allow for a finite area.
He is also producing quantisized gravitational waves (gravitons), and predicting a FSL velocity of those waves at 4/3 ©. This has an interesting side note to the superluminal wave that hit our planet on Dec. 26, 2004; preceding (by light) the "largest space explosion of our time".
He follows Einstein's failed attempt at a unified theory with non-symmetric, non-hermitian metric tensors. Heim couples 3 interacting matrices in 6 dimensions to produce his basic metric tensor. This is an important addition: a resonant, symmetric state can not be produced with the coupling of 2 dissonant parameters, you need 3 to achieve a balance. This agrees with a "little" theory of mine, based on triad+ resonances.
Following that note, Heim arrives at 3 different values for the diameter of metronic spheres at the beginning of time: d1=.90992m, d2=1.06426m, d3=3.70121m. These 3 values have a special resonant relationship: BF1=d2-d1, BF2=d3-d2, BF3=d3-d1; BF1+BF2=BF3 (BS=5.58258). BeatFrequency/BeatSum shows the value of the conceptual "quantization" of differentials and integrals.
A negative point to Heim's theory is that it does not limit the number of excited states that each particle can have. Vibrational Resonance Theory, using BF/BS provides that limit.
Heim's theory also does away with the "hidden variables" hypothesis, clears up wave-particle duality, and eliminates the infinities of the quantum field. Not a bad start! Planks' finite quantum, interpreted with standing spherical wave resonances?
TRoc
First off, welcome to the party, paradox42...
QUOTE (paradox42+Jan 11 2006, 07:36 PM)
does this theory predict gravity
In a manner of speaking, I'd say it does. Because it appears that Heim didn't just start with gravity and work backward to find a foundation that worked. (Though certainly he must have kept certain requirements in mind while formulating the foundations.) He does appear to predict new gravity behavior we haven't yet observed (as TRoc pointed out). But these are at such small and large scales that it is questionable whether we will be able to look for them anytime soon. Supposedly certain extended formulations (such as the 8-dimensional one indicated later in the paper) of Heim theory predict that gravity can be cancelled out by strong magnetic fields in certain configurations. These extensions are almost within reach of testability right now. We need better superconductors first though.
Using known constants of nature (G, h, c, etc.), Heim appears to have been able to formulate a geometric system that incorporates or generates these values and very accurately leads to the proper values of fundamental phenomena such as the fine-structure constant and the masses of several particles. Supposedly these derivations from Heim's first principles are relatively "direct", which if true implies that the model has not been "tweaked" to generate the right numbers in the way that the Standard Model of particle physics has. This is, I think, the best supporting evidence the theory has at the moment to indicate Heim may have at least done something right. Assuming the supposedly very complex math is correct, that is.
Next up, in response to TRoc's post...
In a manner of speaking, I'd say it does. Because it appears that Heim didn't just start with gravity and work backward to find a foundation that worked. (Though certainly he must have kept certain requirements in mind while formulating the foundations.) He does appear to predict new gravity behavior we haven't yet observed (as TRoc pointed out). But these are at such small and large scales that it is questionable whether we will be able to look for them anytime soon. Supposedly certain extended formulations (such as the 8-dimensional one indicated later in the paper) of Heim theory predict that gravity can be cancelled out by strong magnetic fields in certain configurations. These extensions are almost within reach of testability right now. We need better superconductors first though.
Using known constants of nature (G, h, c, etc.), Heim appears to have been able to formulate a geometric system that incorporates or generates these values and very accurately leads to the proper values of fundamental phenomena such as the fine-structure constant and the masses of several particles. Supposedly these derivations from Heim's first principles are relatively "direct", which if true implies that the model has not been "tweaked" to generate the right numbers in the way that the Standard Model of particle physics has. This is, I think, the best supporting evidence the theory has at the moment to indicate Heim may have at least done something right. Assuming the supposedly very complex math is correct, that is.
Next up, in response to TRoc's post...
QUOTE (TRoc+Jan 12 2006, 03:20 AM)
Following that note, Heim arrives at 3 different values for the diameter of metronic spheres at the beginning of time
Does anyone understand why there are 3 different diameters involved here? The paper really didn't make it clear. I thought initially that one referred to minimum distance and another to maximum distance... But then what is the significance of the third? I guess related to that is the question of where his ideas about the time evolution of the universe (dealing with both duration and size) come from... Are they conclusions reached by calculation from his base propositions? Or are they actually part of the base propositions? That information doesn't seem to be in the paper.
The paper is definitely very interesting. Very intriguing. But it doesn't really have enough information to "satiate".
Does anyone understand why there are 3 different diameters involved here? The paper really didn't make it clear. I thought initially that one referred to minimum distance and another to maximum distance... But then what is the significance of the third? I guess related to that is the question of where his ideas about the time evolution of the universe (dealing with both duration and size) come from... Are they conclusions reached by calculation from his base propositions? Or are they actually part of the base propositions? That information doesn't seem to be in the paper.
The paper is definitely very interesting. Very intriguing. But it doesn't really have enough information to "satiate".
QUOTE (TRoc+Jan 12 2006, 03:20 AM)
A negative point to Heim's theory is that it does not limit the number of excited states that each particle can have.
I may reveal a bit too much of my naivete here, but... Can anyone explain why this is a problem? What is meant by "excited states"?
Last point on the topic of this paper directly... I think it might be useful to note that the paper is approaching 14 years old now. I know a lot of work has been done on this theory since then, both with Heim before his death and without him afterwards. The extended 8D work was in the news recently and received a cash prize from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...925331.200.html
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/m...hyperspace.html
I may reveal a bit too much of my naivete here, but... Can anyone explain why this is a problem? What is meant by "excited states"?
Last point on the topic of this paper directly... I think it might be useful to note that the paper is approaching 14 years old now. I know a lot of work has been done on this theory since then, both with Heim before his death and without him afterwards. The extended 8D work was in the news recently and received a cash prize from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...925331.200.html
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/m...hyperspace.html
QUOTE (TRoc+Jan 12 2006, 03:20 AM)
This has an interesting side note to the superluminal wave that hit our planet on Dec. 26, 2004; preceding (by light) the "largest space explosion of our time".
I did a little searching for this incident, and found many articles and papers about a flare from the approximate location of the expected magnetar SGR 1806-20. However, I found no mention of any superluminal waves of any sort. The earliest detection I heard mentioned was a lower-intensity precursor of the big flash lasting about 1s and preceding it by about 142s.
Is this what you're referring to? The official hypothesis given is that it is possibly due to whatever event triggered the hypothesized "crust failure" which supposedly led to the actual "giant flare". Obviously there's a lot of hypothesizing going on, because we don't know a whole lot about the true nature of magnetars. But of all the sites I looked at I saw no mention of any hyopthesized superluminal phenomena.
(Well, actually there was one guy and his blog, who claimed that the gamma ray burst travelled the intervening 45000 light-years in preceisely 44.6 hours, corresponding to the exact time of the huge Indian Ocean earthquake/tsunami.... But I'll leave the judgement of his credibility as an exercise for the reader. http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id1279.html)
(Edited to change "miles" to "light-years" in the last paragraph. Stupid mistake.)
I did a little searching for this incident, and found many articles and papers about a flare from the approximate location of the expected magnetar SGR 1806-20. However, I found no mention of any superluminal waves of any sort. The earliest detection I heard mentioned was a lower-intensity precursor of the big flash lasting about 1s and preceding it by about 142s.
Is this what you're referring to? The official hypothesis given is that it is possibly due to whatever event triggered the hypothesized "crust failure" which supposedly led to the actual "giant flare". Obviously there's a lot of hypothesizing going on, because we don't know a whole lot about the true nature of magnetars. But of all the sites I looked at I saw no mention of any hyopthesized superluminal phenomena.
(Well, actually there was one guy and his blog, who claimed that the gamma ray burst travelled the intervening 45000 light-years in preceisely 44.6 hours, corresponding to the exact time of the huge Indian Ocean earthquake/tsunami.... But I'll leave the judgement of his credibility as an exercise for the reader. http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id1279.html)
(Edited to change "miles" to "light-years" in the last paragraph. Stupid mistake.)
QUOTE (TRoc+Jan 12 2006, 08:20 AM)
paradox42,
Welcome to the forum p42! You can address anyone, someone or everyone, and there are not too many rules around here.
Is your pseudo-name derived from asking the wrong question?
The main thing that Heim's theory predicts is the masses of the standard model particles (in ground, as well as all excited states). I don't think that it can be said that it predicts gravity, but there are some interesting modifications to Einstein's theory (GR).
There is also a key modification to Newton's gravitational law: Heim states that the gravitational force weakens, and goes to zero at distances ~150LY, and becomes weakly repulsive "at greater distances still". Finally, at the diameter of the Universe, back to zero again for good. It is then "unphysical"; and also at the very small distance of ~1/4 Schwarzchild radius (from GR).
He derives the "metron" from the product of "the minimum "distance and the Compton wavelength of a given mass; producing an area.
Differentials and Integrals are also "revised": throwing out the "infinitely" divisible (& recombining) lines to allow for a finite area.
He is also producing quantisized gravitational waves (gravitons), and predicting a FSL velocity of those waves at 4/3 ©. This has an interesting side note to the superluminal wave that hit our planet on Dec. 26, 2004; preceding (by light) the "largest space explosion of our time".
He follows Einstein's failed attempt at a unified theory with non-symmetric, non-hermitian metric tensors. Heim couples 3 interacting matrices in 6 dimensions to produce his basic metric tensor. This is an important addition: a resonant, symmetric state can not be produced with the coupling of 2 dissonant parameters, you need 3 to achieve a balance. This agrees with a "little" theory of mine, based on triad+ resonances.
Following that note, Heim arrives at 3 different values for the diameter of metronic spheres at the beginning of time: d1=.90992m, d2=1.06426m, d3=3.70121m. These 3 values have a special resonant relationship: BF1=d2-d1, BF2=d3-d2, BF3=d3-d1; BF1+BF2=BF3 (BS=5.58258). BeatFrequency/BeatSum shows the value of the conceptual "quantization" of differentials and integrals.
A negative point to Heim's theory is that it does not limit the number of excited states that each particle can have. Vibrational Resonance Theory, using BF/BS provides that limit.
Heim's theory also does away with the "hidden variables" hypothesis, clears up wave-particle duality, and eliminates the infinities of the quantum field. Not a bad start! Planks' finite quantum, interpreted with standing spherical wave resonances?
TRoc
[QUOTE]
Welcome to the forum p42! You can address anyone, someone or everyone, and there are not too many rules around here.
Is your pseudo-name derived from asking the wrong question?
The main thing that Heim's theory predicts is the masses of the standard model particles (in ground, as well as all excited states). I don't think that it can be said that it predicts gravity, but there are some interesting modifications to Einstein's theory (GR).
There is also a key modification to Newton's gravitational law: Heim states that the gravitational force weakens, and goes to zero at distances ~150LY, and becomes weakly repulsive "at greater distances still". Finally, at the diameter of the Universe, back to zero again for good. It is then "unphysical"; and also at the very small distance of ~1/4 Schwarzchild radius (from GR).
He derives the "metron" from the product of "the minimum "distance and the Compton wavelength of a given mass; producing an area.
Differentials and Integrals are also "revised": throwing out the "infinitely" divisible (& recombining) lines to allow for a finite area.
He is also producing quantisized gravitational waves (gravitons), and predicting a FSL velocity of those waves at 4/3 ©. This has an interesting side note to the superluminal wave that hit our planet on Dec. 26, 2004; preceding (by light) the "largest space explosion of our time".
He follows Einstein's failed attempt at a unified theory with non-symmetric, non-hermitian metric tensors. Heim couples 3 interacting matrices in 6 dimensions to produce his basic metric tensor. This is an important addition: a resonant, symmetric state can not be produced with the coupling of 2 dissonant parameters, you need 3 to achieve a balance. This agrees with a "little" theory of mine, based on triad+ resonances.
Following that note, Heim arrives at 3 different values for the diameter of metronic spheres at the beginning of time: d1=.90992m, d2=1.06426m, d3=3.70121m. These 3 values have a special resonant relationship: BF1=d2-d1, BF2=d3-d2, BF3=d3-d1; BF1+BF2=BF3 (BS=5.58258). BeatFrequency/BeatSum shows the value of the conceptual "quantization" of differentials and integrals.
A negative point to Heim's theory is that it does not limit the number of excited states that each particle can have. Vibrational Resonance Theory, using BF/BS provides that limit.
Heim's theory also does away with the "hidden variables" hypothesis, clears up wave-particle duality, and eliminates the infinities of the quantum field. Not a bad start! Planks' finite quantum, interpreted with standing spherical wave resonances?
TRoc
[QUOTE]
Muwuhahahahaha!
That was good for a laugh, thanks.
I did some searching for that too, and didn't find anything... real.
That was good for a laugh, thanks.
I did some searching for that too, and didn't find anything... real.
Hi,
I've seen that there's an interesting discussion here.
I'm the author of the recent New Scientist article Take a leap into hyperspace on Heim Theory.
Some of you are more knowledgeable in physics than I am but let me add something regarding this quote:
very good insight about the need for discrete tensors.
A calculus with discrete lengths is already there- the caluclus of differences.
look at the power point presentation by Droscher Hauser given at Huntsville Alabama Spaceflight Center.
Heim is a purely geometric series. Given enough dimensions, you can theoretically prove anything. The extra dimensions, some say are the fudge factors. The Wikipedia talk pages provide a lot of back and forth discussion of the mass calculations.
My first intro to quantum mechanics was my first college chem course. The hydrogen electro orbits were quantized, the angular momentum was quantized, the energy levels, the photons emitted, and absorbed. Then as I went on in Physics we started talking about these wave functions that meant nothing but their squares meant something as a probablility density.
General Relativity was a grad course. I never had enough math to really understand it. In phyciscal chem we played around with lagrangians and hamiltonians and learned how to solve a lot of canned qmech systems but no deep understandings.
In electrical engineering i finally figured out that in quatum mech they were just going back and forth between a frequency and a time domain but calling it momentum and position or energy and time.
Heim gets to the bottom of it very quickly. He unites general relativity and guantum mechanics at the outset. He brings GR to quantum mechanics by bringing geometry to space and time. He brings quantum mechanics to GR by bringing discrete units of space and time to it. On the face of it, it appears to be the correct approach.
I've seen that there's an interesting discussion here.
I'm the author of the recent New Scientist article Take a leap into hyperspace on Heim Theory.
Some of you are more knowledgeable in physics than I am but let me add something regarding this quote:
QUOTE (TRoc+Jan 12 2006, 08:20 AM)
He is also producing quantisized gravitational waves (gravitons), and predicting a FSL velocity of those waves at 4/3 ©.
In his only peer reviewed paper Heim wrote that gravitational waves propagated with 4/3 the speed of light. He later corrected this error. There are no superluminal velocities in HT. There are, however, parallel universes with different natural constants, allowing for relative FTL travel when entering parallel space.
Someone also wrote he had the impression that Heim was a solitary man. Yes, he was. He was injured when he was 19 years old, since then he was without arms and almost deaf and blind. As a consequence he developed a perfect acoustic memory. He could remember word by work of what had been read to him say 20 years ago.
To give you an overview of the publications in english:
Research Group Heim Theory
Everything by Dröscher/Häuser
Good luck, HT is quite complicated and lacking english documentation, but it's worth a deeper look...
Haiko
In his only peer reviewed paper Heim wrote that gravitational waves propagated with 4/3 the speed of light. He later corrected this error. There are no superluminal velocities in HT. There are, however, parallel universes with different natural constants, allowing for relative FTL travel when entering parallel space.
Someone also wrote he had the impression that Heim was a solitary man. Yes, he was. He was injured when he was 19 years old, since then he was without arms and almost deaf and blind. As a consequence he developed a perfect acoustic memory. He could remember word by work of what had been read to him say 20 years ago.
To give you an overview of the publications in english:
Research Group Heim Theory
Everything by Dröscher/Häuser
Good luck, HT is quite complicated and lacking english documentation, but it's worth a deeper look...
Haiko
Hello all, You guys have some great theories on this.
Lets just say you are very close.
CERN- WIll be able to answer some of your questions about this,
by the end year 2010.6
What they will discover in 2007 should put you back on the right track.
Let me also add I 'am NOT a timetravel, Iam not some kid messing with you.
I don't know all their is to know about physics.
the year of 2012, Will make most people close their eyes and turn their heads.
They simple will not execpt what is going to happin.
Keep up with your thoughts, You guys lets just say You Rock!
Lets just say you are very close.
CERN- WIll be able to answer some of your questions about this,
by the end year 2010.6
What they will discover in 2007 should put you back on the right track.
Let me also add I 'am NOT a timetravel, Iam not some kid messing with you.
I don't know all their is to know about physics.
the year of 2012, Will make most people close their eyes and turn their heads.
They simple will not execpt what is going to happin.
Keep up with your thoughts, You guys lets just say You Rock!
Haiko,
Thanks for the correction.
I found quite a lot of info, including a table of the predicted masses, on the ever growing Wikipedia site. Link : Heim Theory
Waterbreath,
I have no idea of why there are 3 different diameters involved, as far as how they were derived. I can really only offer what I already did: that there is a significant resonant relationship with those 3 values.
As far as that guy's blog: ????
As far as my statement, IMO, there is a choice between 2 pills to swallow. One is that because it is "not in the index" of what we know, it can't be related. The other is, given the fact that we (Science) have no working theory of EQ prediction, and we have no complete working theory of "how the Sun works" (NASA statement), and the "coincidence" of these 2 rare events, there is the possibility for correlation. It is important to note that the ~45 hr. difference in time arrivals is TOTALLY different than saying that the superluminal wave travelled 45,000 light years in 45 hrs. It is 45,000 lights years minus 45 hours. The other way to look at that idea is that the SGR 1806-20 event created a bow shock that would only have to reach the outer edge of the solar magnetosphere in order to effect Earth immediately. You can't ring half of a bell.
Someone else's opinion here.
As far as "the number of excited states", I assumed that to mean electron states in the order of elements. If it is other than that, I have been naive too!
TRoc
Thanks for the correction.
I found quite a lot of info, including a table of the predicted masses, on the ever growing Wikipedia site. Link : Heim Theory
Waterbreath,
I have no idea of why there are 3 different diameters involved, as far as how they were derived. I can really only offer what I already did: that there is a significant resonant relationship with those 3 values.
As far as that guy's blog: ????
As far as my statement, IMO, there is a choice between 2 pills to swallow. One is that because it is "not in the index" of what we know, it can't be related. The other is, given the fact that we (Science) have no working theory of EQ prediction, and we have no complete working theory of "how the Sun works" (NASA statement), and the "coincidence" of these 2 rare events, there is the possibility for correlation. It is important to note that the ~45 hr. difference in time arrivals is TOTALLY different than saying that the superluminal wave travelled 45,000 light years in 45 hrs. It is 45,000 lights years minus 45 hours. The other way to look at that idea is that the SGR 1806-20 event created a bow shock that would only have to reach the outer edge of the solar magnetosphere in order to effect Earth immediately. You can't ring half of a bell.
Someone else's opinion here.
As far as "the number of excited states", I assumed that to mean electron states in the order of elements. If it is other than that, I have been naive too!
TRoc
Leitz, thanks for the article, enjoyed reading it.
lilke the other post said. Wikipedia as an excellent post on it. Also read the "TAlk page for the Wikipedia article for a lot of insight. Also has an entry on the Metron. A Metron is simply a Planck length Square.
Heim theory is simply quantized General Relativity. Instead of using regular calculus with infinitesimals, Heim used the calculus of differences. Instead of using Tensor Calculus, he used a form of math he invented called Selector Calculus which is based on the calculus of differences. This avoided all the infinity problems and automatically made his theory quantum mechanically friendly.
Matter arises naturally as a closed resonance in a metron
I think somebody is translating Heim's selector calculus to tensor calculus and regular math. I think a lot of insights in his methods wil be lost then. That's the whole problem with quantum mechanics, it has always been a discrete type of mathematics having to deal with infinities forced on it.
Not only space but time is also quantized in Heim theory.
lilke the other post said. Wikipedia as an excellent post on it. Also read the "TAlk page for the Wikipedia article for a lot of insight. Also has an entry on the Metron. A Metron is simply a Planck length Square.
Heim theory is simply quantized General Relativity. Instead of using regular calculus with infinitesimals, Heim used the calculus of differences. Instead of using Tensor Calculus, he used a form of math he invented called Selector Calculus which is based on the calculus of differences. This avoided all the infinity problems and automatically made his theory quantum mechanically friendly.
Matter arises naturally as a closed resonance in a metron
I think somebody is translating Heim's selector calculus to tensor calculus and regular math. I think a lot of insights in his methods wil be lost then. That's the whole problem with quantum mechanics, it has always been a discrete type of mathematics having to deal with infinities forced on it.
Not only space but time is also quantized in Heim theory.
for a super power point presentation although in pdf download at
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/index.html
where it says talk
Dröscher, W., Häuser, J.
Future Space Propulsion based on Heim's Field Theorya4 letter (1.3 MB)
Talk at AIAA Space Propulsion Conference, von Braun Center, Huntsville Alabama(3.1 MB)
Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, Leopold - Franzens Universität Innsbruck, Austria
Department of Transportation, University of Applied Sciences and Department of High Performance Computing - Center of Logistics and Expert Systems GmbH, Salzgitter, Germany
AIAA Paper 2003-4990
the link is
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu..._Huntsville.pdf
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/index.html
where it says talk
Dröscher, W., Häuser, J.
Future Space Propulsion based on Heim's Field Theorya4 letter (1.3 MB)
Talk at AIAA Space Propulsion Conference, von Braun Center, Huntsville Alabama(3.1 MB)
Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, Leopold - Franzens Universität Innsbruck, Austria
Department of Transportation, University of Applied Sciences and Department of High Performance Computing - Center of Logistics and Expert Systems GmbH, Salzgitter, Germany
AIAA Paper 2003-4990
the link is
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu..._Huntsville.pdf
Abstract: The Physics of Burkhard Heim and its Applications to Space Propulsion
by Illobrand von Ludwiger, M.Sc., prepared for the presentation at the First European Workshop on Field Propulsion, January 20-22, 2001 at the University of Sussex, Brighton, GB
The physicist Burkhard Heim, who deceased on January 14th , 2001, in Northeim, near Goettingen, was the German equivalent to Stephen Hawking and one of the greatest German physicists. Since he left the Max-Planck-Institute in Goettingen in 1954 because of his bodily handicap (he lost his eyes, his hearing and his hands by an accident) he worked privately. When he published his theory in two voluminous books (written in German, about 600 pages) in 1979 and 1984, nobody could believe that Heim discovered the unified mass formula. And nobody remembered that he had become famous in 1959, when he proposed a new propulsion system for spaceflight.
In this paper the author will give a short overview of Heim’s theory and then will deduce some experiments to manipulate gravity. Heim started with Einstein’s General Relativity Theory, but modified it for application in the microscopic range.
Here, the field equations become eigenvalue equations. For invariance reasons Heim had to introduce a 6-dimensional manifold. The existence of a smallest area required the computation with differences rather than with differentials, and with selectors instead of tensors. According to Heim, Einstein’s assumption of one single metric was too simple. He introduced three partial structures, which constitute four possible metrical tensors by correlations. This complicated geometry leads to 1956 eigenvalue equations from which it is possible to deduce the mass spectrum of elementary particles and to describe their internal structure fluxes.
Matter consists of an exchange of maxima and minima of condensations of the smallest areas in subspaces of an R6. Contrary to vacuum fluctuations, matter exists when the geometrical exchange processes always return to their starting point. These geometrical fluxes produce a spin. Since this spin tends to stay orthogonal to the vector of world velocity, each acceleration leads to a resistance force or inertia.
There are several possible ways to generate gravitational fields and gravitational waves in Heim’s theory. A theoretical possibility consists in the generation of gravitons from neutrons. The generation of acceleration fields has been investigated by the spaceflight company DASA. Heim himself proposed to test the contrabaric effect predicted by his theory. For financial reasons these experiments could not be finished.
Illobrand von Ludwiger, M.Sc.
Phone: ++49 (0) 8063 - 7065
Fax: ++49 (0) 8063 - 6187
eMail: illobrand_von_ludwiger@compuserve.com
by Illobrand von Ludwiger, M.Sc., prepared for the presentation at the First European Workshop on Field Propulsion, January 20-22, 2001 at the University of Sussex, Brighton, GB
The physicist Burkhard Heim, who deceased on January 14th , 2001, in Northeim, near Goettingen, was the German equivalent to Stephen Hawking and one of the greatest German physicists. Since he left the Max-Planck-Institute in Goettingen in 1954 because of his bodily handicap (he lost his eyes, his hearing and his hands by an accident) he worked privately. When he published his theory in two voluminous books (written in German, about 600 pages) in 1979 and 1984, nobody could believe that Heim discovered the unified mass formula. And nobody remembered that he had become famous in 1959, when he proposed a new propulsion system for spaceflight.
In this paper the author will give a short overview of Heim’s theory and then will deduce some experiments to manipulate gravity. Heim started with Einstein’s General Relativity Theory, but modified it for application in the microscopic range.
Here, the field equations become eigenvalue equations. For invariance reasons Heim had to introduce a 6-dimensional manifold. The existence of a smallest area required the computation with differences rather than with differentials, and with selectors instead of tensors. According to Heim, Einstein’s assumption of one single metric was too simple. He introduced three partial structures, which constitute four possible metrical tensors by correlations. This complicated geometry leads to 1956 eigenvalue equations from which it is possible to deduce the mass spectrum of elementary particles and to describe their internal structure fluxes.
Matter consists of an exchange of maxima and minima of condensations of the smallest areas in subspaces of an R6. Contrary to vacuum fluctuations, matter exists when the geometrical exchange processes always return to their starting point. These geometrical fluxes produce a spin. Since this spin tends to stay orthogonal to the vector of world velocity, each acceleration leads to a resistance force or inertia.
There are several possible ways to generate gravitational fields and gravitational waves in Heim’s theory. A theoretical possibility consists in the generation of gravitons from neutrons. The generation of acceleration fields has been investigated by the spaceflight company DASA. Heim himself proposed to test the contrabaric effect predicted by his theory. For financial reasons these experiments could not be finished.
Illobrand von Ludwiger, M.Sc.
Phone: ++49 (0) 8063 - 7065
Fax: ++49 (0) 8063 - 6187
eMail: illobrand_von_ludwiger@compuserve.com
Hi all-
I'm a newbie on this site, and haven't been a physics student for about 30 years...but long ago, thinking about Zeno's paradoxes, I thought that the development of a calculus with a smallest length might be a good idea, and thought about actually developing one, but never did. I thought at the time that the Planck length might be about right for a fundamental unit of distance. So, all the Heim stuff on the web has hit me pretty hard- I haven't been so enthusiastic about Physics in many years.
About Heim, I was wondering about more than a few things, and I wonder if some of the much more knowledgeable people on this site could help me with a few questions:
(1) Physical theories are generally concise. Heim's theories are not concise. It seems possible, in a large enough theory, to insert enough fudge factors to get any arbitrary value for the mass of a particular particle, or even a collection of them. It's kind of like being able to find the justification for any action in the bible, which is a very, very long theory, not a all concise. Does anyone see any sign of such conscious or unconscious trickery?
(2) Has anyone actually calculated the particle masses other than Heim and a couple of his collaborators? Do we really know that such calculations were done? God knows, I don't have the math to do such a calculation.
(3) I guess that there was a computer program, that Heim's collaborators said predicted the masses of the particles with even greater accuracy than Heim's original predictions, based on more exact measurements of physical constants and particle masses. Would it be possible to enter Heim's theories into a modern calculation program like Mathematica?
(4) Does anybody actually buy the hyper drive idea? Is it possible that Heim screwed himself over by having a pro-spaceflight bias, and arbitrarily warped his theories to ensure that result, possibly unconsciously?
We seem to be getting all of Heim's stuff in one lump- perhaps it is as if, for example, Linus Pauling's early work on DNA and physical chemistry was mixed in with his much later and more questionable work on vitamin C. One thing that worries me is that if someone does the hyper drive experiment, and doesn't measure any force produced, most of the physics community might discard the whole Heim theory. I don't really understand much of what he says, but the logic of his whole approach takes my breath away. I worry that the physics community might prematurely discard his theory, because of its length and difficulty, if a prediction or two goes awry.
I'm a newbie on this site, and haven't been a physics student for about 30 years...but long ago, thinking about Zeno's paradoxes, I thought that the development of a calculus with a smallest length might be a good idea, and thought about actually developing one, but never did. I thought at the time that the Planck length might be about right for a fundamental unit of distance. So, all the Heim stuff on the web has hit me pretty hard- I haven't been so enthusiastic about Physics in many years.
About Heim, I was wondering about more than a few things, and I wonder if some of the much more knowledgeable people on this site could help me with a few questions:
(1) Physical theories are generally concise. Heim's theories are not concise. It seems possible, in a large enough theory, to insert enough fudge factors to get any arbitrary value for the mass of a particular particle, or even a collection of them. It's kind of like being able to find the justification for any action in the bible, which is a very, very long theory, not a all concise. Does anyone see any sign of such conscious or unconscious trickery?
(2) Has anyone actually calculated the particle masses other than Heim and a couple of his collaborators? Do we really know that such calculations were done? God knows, I don't have the math to do such a calculation.
(3) I guess that there was a computer program, that Heim's collaborators said predicted the masses of the particles with even greater accuracy than Heim's original predictions, based on more exact measurements of physical constants and particle masses. Would it be possible to enter Heim's theories into a modern calculation program like Mathematica?
(4) Does anybody actually buy the hyper drive idea? Is it possible that Heim screwed himself over by having a pro-spaceflight bias, and arbitrarily warped his theories to ensure that result, possibly unconsciously?
We seem to be getting all of Heim's stuff in one lump- perhaps it is as if, for example, Linus Pauling's early work on DNA and physical chemistry was mixed in with his much later and more questionable work on vitamin C. One thing that worries me is that if someone does the hyper drive experiment, and doesn't measure any force produced, most of the physics community might discard the whole Heim theory. I don't really understand much of what he says, but the logic of his whole approach takes my breath away. I worry that the physics community might prematurely discard his theory, because of its length and difficulty, if a prediction or two goes awry.
very good insight about the need for discrete tensors.
A calculus with discrete lengths is already there- the caluclus of differences.
look at the power point presentation by Droscher Hauser given at Huntsville Alabama Spaceflight Center.
Heim is a purely geometric series. Given enough dimensions, you can theoretically prove anything. The extra dimensions, some say are the fudge factors. The Wikipedia talk pages provide a lot of back and forth discussion of the mass calculations.
My first intro to quantum mechanics was my first college chem course. The hydrogen electro orbits were quantized, the angular momentum was quantized, the energy levels, the photons emitted, and absorbed. Then as I went on in Physics we started talking about these wave functions that meant nothing but their squares meant something as a probablility density.
General Relativity was a grad course. I never had enough math to really understand it. In phyciscal chem we played around with lagrangians and hamiltonians and learned how to solve a lot of canned qmech systems but no deep understandings.
In electrical engineering i finally figured out that in quatum mech they were just going back and forth between a frequency and a time domain but calling it momentum and position or energy and time.
Heim gets to the bottom of it very quickly. He unites general relativity and guantum mechanics at the outset. He brings GR to quantum mechanics by bringing geometry to space and time. He brings quantum mechanics to GR by bringing discrete units of space and time to it. On the face of it, it appears to be the correct approach.
I just found a treasure trove through googling
http://www.betterhumans.com/News/5138/Default.aspx
the following are reproductions of posts by Hugh Deasy, HDeasy, the author of the Widkipedia articles on Heim theory and the Heim Biography. He is a physicist and knows what he is talking about. they were found on www.betterhumans.com
"hdeasy says:
Heim to replace String Theory
Didn't I already push Heim here? Forget - anyway, I started the Wikipedia pages on him - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Theory . It has the ring of truth to it - as a physicist, I got Heim's books and checked over some of the very complex maths. What is apparent even without getting too deep int it is that it's wonderfully self-consistent. The idea is beautifully simple and the principle clear, in contrast to String theory. Also, unlike the latter, it correctly gives the masses.
Posted on 1/9/2006 3:50:25 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink"
" hdeasy says:
Maths in Heim
There is plenty of Math in Heim theory - too much, in fact, for normal mortals. That's the whole point. It takes a professor in Theoretical Physics on average a year of intensive study to tackle the math to the extent that he can appreciate the mass formula and maybe some of the Heim-Droscher stuff. I have Heim's books but haven't had the time to study them intently - dipping into them here and there, though, they are consistent - he plays around with a quantised version of the Ricci tensor and does a double transform involving curvilinear coordinates. This leads to a set of operators whose eigen-vectors give the mass spectrum of elementary particles. That alone is fiendishly complex and involves the 6-d version. The 8-2 (or 12-d) version gives additional grav forces including one for transforming photons to 'gravito-photons' = one type of which interacts with electrons and the other with nucleons - the latter has the largest cross section and has an anti-gravity effect. THus a sort of symmetry breaking leads to net anti-gravity. That's more or less the principle behind the space drive - you need strong magnets rotating to get the gravitophotons. How's that for sarters?
Posted on 1/9/2006 8:05:15 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink "
" Posted on 1/10/2006 10:18:29 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink
rodentman says:
Question for hdeasy
My question is: is there anybody who seriously understands both String Theory and the Heim-Loretnz theory?
If so, has there been any unbiased comparison of the two theories to see which would be a more likely canidate for a unifying theory?
So far, Ive heard that String Theory is unbelievably mathematically intricate, and this is why its so popular. Ive also heard that there has been no emperical evidence to support it or experiments to prove it. (I know they are currently trying to measure gravity seapage to no avail)
Rodentman
Posted on 1/11/2006 11:07:08 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink
hdeasy says:
People familiar with Heim and String theory
Yes, I believe that some of the doctors and professors of physics in the Heim-Theory group are familiar with String theory, Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) and Heim theory. Certainly Droscher would be, as it was he who brought out the correspondence with the standard model's QCD. I've read comments on the comparison between Heim Theory and LQG, which have certain similariittes - the spin lattice of LQG is like the network of 'metrons' in Heim - tiny surface areas of order Planck radius squared. Also, Heim & LQG are background independent, whereas String theory is background dependent - i.e. space is a neutral background for the particles to move around on. Thus all those comparing Heim, LQG and String Theory have some understanding of all 3 theories. LQG essentially re-invented quantised space years after Heim had introduced it with his metrons.
Posted on 1/11/2006 12:06:32 PM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink
hdeasy says:
People familiar with Heim and String theory
And as for predictions - yes, String Theory is notoriously incapable of predicting physical effects - certainly not the masses. Even LQG is short on predictions - one would be a minor change in speed of light over huge cosmic distances. But Heim Theory has many predicitons - it calcualtes the particle masses accurately - that was Heim's goal - to get a concrete prediction. Now although most masses are known, the neutrino masses are still inaccurately determined, and the Heim estimates are within the upper limits set by experiment. THus in the future, if they can be measured more precisely and found to agree with Heim's values, then that will be a further proof. The other proof would be to build the powerful rotating magnet system and confirm a weight reduction predicted by the gravito-photon interaction of Heim theory. The side effect would be quick spaceships!
Posted on 1/11/2006 12:13:54 PM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink "
-----------------------------------
" hdeasy says:
Advantages of Heim
Now I've been following the theory of Burkhard Heim for a few years now - I know someone in the Heim Theory group, and advised the journalist on the New Scientist article. I also wrote the original Wikipedia pagges on Heim, though they've undergone many changes - notably a French version suddenly appeared after the NS article last week! Besides the space drive the amazing thing is the mass formula - I have a copy of a shortish piece of code which takes the set of integer eigen-values from part I of the set of mass equations and generates from them the masses of 16 of the known particles to within six signifigant figures! This is amazing, as no other theory comes even close - the standard model has lattice QCD, which uses massive CPU time on most powerful computers to approximate some baryon masses - they were delight to get withing 10%! Heim gets to within 0.01% and also for leptons and other particles, on simple Sun wokstation in a fraction of a second of CPU.
What's more, the mass formula doesn't rely on a Higgs Boson. In the theory, mass arises as a consequence of the geometrical twists in space, which constitute the particles. Note that Heim's space is a lattice of 6-D surface elements of dimension h*h (Planck's constant squared). So the 'aether' is a lattice of these 'metrons' or surface elements - a bit like the spin lattice in Loop Quantum Gravity.
Finally, Heim is consistent with special and General Relativity, since his theory is a union of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. In quantising General Relativity, Heim did, 40 or 50 years ago, a thing similar to what Loop Quantum Gravity is doing now. The difference is in at which stage the quantisation is performed - for Heim it's the Chtistoffel symbols and Ricci tensor - for LQG something else (which explains why the latter doesn't get the same results of Heim: but their similar origin in Relativity means that both theories are 'background independent' - an advantage over String theory, which treats space as a passive background upon which the particles move).
So all in all Heim theory is really exciting and it's great that it's finally getting publicity again - Heim made the ocver of Stern and other mags in the 1950's and Ithink it was Time magazine or Paris Match that did a feature on him in the 60s. But then he retreated from pubic scrutiny until all the major scientists that recognised his genius (Heisenberg, Jourdan etc.) had died away - then 20 or 30 years later he popped up with the mass formula! A bit like Newton in his secrecy, hiding his results from his 'year of miracles' until Leibnitz threatened to steal his glory... So slowly the results of his isolated activity is coming to fruition. He reminds me of Mozart, as this is Mozart's year, in that the latter composed symphonies complete in his head and just jotted them down without error. Similarly Heim worked it all out in his head (he was nearly blind, deaf and handless) until the 'readout phase'.
Posted on 1/13/2006 9:20:00 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink
rodentman says:
Spread the Word!!
Hdeasy
I'm glad your spreading the word. It will be tough, since so many people have fallen in love with string theory.
At many universities, every student of theoretical and quantum physics is wanting to get into string theory.
Also, a lot of the public is making a mockery of the Heim theory and the AIAA award. They believe its another pork project funded by idiot politicians. (Check out the starTrek board)
It remeinds me a bit of how Life extension was seen a few years back. Anyone who suggested it was possible was delusional.
RodentMan
Posted on 1/13/2006 10:30:39 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink "
http://www.betterhumans.com/News/5138/Default.aspx
the following are reproductions of posts by Hugh Deasy, HDeasy, the author of the Widkipedia articles on Heim theory and the Heim Biography. He is a physicist and knows what he is talking about. they were found on www.betterhumans.com
"hdeasy says:
Heim to replace String Theory
Didn't I already push Heim here? Forget - anyway, I started the Wikipedia pages on him - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Theory . It has the ring of truth to it - as a physicist, I got Heim's books and checked over some of the very complex maths. What is apparent even without getting too deep int it is that it's wonderfully self-consistent. The idea is beautifully simple and the principle clear, in contrast to String theory. Also, unlike the latter, it correctly gives the masses.
Posted on 1/9/2006 3:50:25 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink"
" hdeasy says:
Maths in Heim
There is plenty of Math in Heim theory - too much, in fact, for normal mortals. That's the whole point. It takes a professor in Theoretical Physics on average a year of intensive study to tackle the math to the extent that he can appreciate the mass formula and maybe some of the Heim-Droscher stuff. I have Heim's books but haven't had the time to study them intently - dipping into them here and there, though, they are consistent - he plays around with a quantised version of the Ricci tensor and does a double transform involving curvilinear coordinates. This leads to a set of operators whose eigen-vectors give the mass spectrum of elementary particles. That alone is fiendishly complex and involves the 6-d version. The 8-2 (or 12-d) version gives additional grav forces including one for transforming photons to 'gravito-photons' = one type of which interacts with electrons and the other with nucleons - the latter has the largest cross section and has an anti-gravity effect. THus a sort of symmetry breaking leads to net anti-gravity. That's more or less the principle behind the space drive - you need strong magnets rotating to get the gravitophotons. How's that for sarters?
Posted on 1/9/2006 8:05:15 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink "
" Posted on 1/10/2006 10:18:29 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink
rodentman says:
Question for hdeasy
My question is: is there anybody who seriously understands both String Theory and the Heim-Loretnz theory?
If so, has there been any unbiased comparison of the two theories to see which would be a more likely canidate for a unifying theory?
So far, Ive heard that String Theory is unbelievably mathematically intricate, and this is why its so popular. Ive also heard that there has been no emperical evidence to support it or experiments to prove it. (I know they are currently trying to measure gravity seapage to no avail)
Rodentman
Posted on 1/11/2006 11:07:08 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink
hdeasy says:
People familiar with Heim and String theory
Yes, I believe that some of the doctors and professors of physics in the Heim-Theory group are familiar with String theory, Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) and Heim theory. Certainly Droscher would be, as it was he who brought out the correspondence with the standard model's QCD. I've read comments on the comparison between Heim Theory and LQG, which have certain similariittes - the spin lattice of LQG is like the network of 'metrons' in Heim - tiny surface areas of order Planck radius squared. Also, Heim & LQG are background independent, whereas String theory is background dependent - i.e. space is a neutral background for the particles to move around on. Thus all those comparing Heim, LQG and String Theory have some understanding of all 3 theories. LQG essentially re-invented quantised space years after Heim had introduced it with his metrons.
Posted on 1/11/2006 12:06:32 PM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink
hdeasy says:
People familiar with Heim and String theory
And as for predictions - yes, String Theory is notoriously incapable of predicting physical effects - certainly not the masses. Even LQG is short on predictions - one would be a minor change in speed of light over huge cosmic distances. But Heim Theory has many predicitons - it calcualtes the particle masses accurately - that was Heim's goal - to get a concrete prediction. Now although most masses are known, the neutrino masses are still inaccurately determined, and the Heim estimates are within the upper limits set by experiment. THus in the future, if they can be measured more precisely and found to agree with Heim's values, then that will be a further proof. The other proof would be to build the powerful rotating magnet system and confirm a weight reduction predicted by the gravito-photon interaction of Heim theory. The side effect would be quick spaceships!
Posted on 1/11/2006 12:13:54 PM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink "
-----------------------------------
" hdeasy says:
Advantages of Heim
Now I've been following the theory of Burkhard Heim for a few years now - I know someone in the Heim Theory group, and advised the journalist on the New Scientist article. I also wrote the original Wikipedia pagges on Heim, though they've undergone many changes - notably a French version suddenly appeared after the NS article last week! Besides the space drive the amazing thing is the mass formula - I have a copy of a shortish piece of code which takes the set of integer eigen-values from part I of the set of mass equations and generates from them the masses of 16 of the known particles to within six signifigant figures! This is amazing, as no other theory comes even close - the standard model has lattice QCD, which uses massive CPU time on most powerful computers to approximate some baryon masses - they were delight to get withing 10%! Heim gets to within 0.01% and also for leptons and other particles, on simple Sun wokstation in a fraction of a second of CPU.
What's more, the mass formula doesn't rely on a Higgs Boson. In the theory, mass arises as a consequence of the geometrical twists in space, which constitute the particles. Note that Heim's space is a lattice of 6-D surface elements of dimension h*h (Planck's constant squared). So the 'aether' is a lattice of these 'metrons' or surface elements - a bit like the spin lattice in Loop Quantum Gravity.
Finally, Heim is consistent with special and General Relativity, since his theory is a union of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. In quantising General Relativity, Heim did, 40 or 50 years ago, a thing similar to what Loop Quantum Gravity is doing now. The difference is in at which stage the quantisation is performed - for Heim it's the Chtistoffel symbols and Ricci tensor - for LQG something else (which explains why the latter doesn't get the same results of Heim: but their similar origin in Relativity means that both theories are 'background independent' - an advantage over String theory, which treats space as a passive background upon which the particles move).
So all in all Heim theory is really exciting and it's great that it's finally getting publicity again - Heim made the ocver of Stern and other mags in the 1950's and Ithink it was Time magazine or Paris Match that did a feature on him in the 60s. But then he retreated from pubic scrutiny until all the major scientists that recognised his genius (Heisenberg, Jourdan etc.) had died away - then 20 or 30 years later he popped up with the mass formula! A bit like Newton in his secrecy, hiding his results from his 'year of miracles' until Leibnitz threatened to steal his glory... So slowly the results of his isolated activity is coming to fruition. He reminds me of Mozart, as this is Mozart's year, in that the latter composed symphonies complete in his head and just jotted them down without error. Similarly Heim worked it all out in his head (he was nearly blind, deaf and handless) until the 'readout phase'.
Posted on 1/13/2006 9:20:00 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink
rodentman says:
Spread the Word!!
Hdeasy
I'm glad your spreading the word. It will be tough, since so many people have fallen in love with string theory.
At many universities, every student of theoretical and quantum physics is wanting to get into string theory.
Also, a lot of the public is making a mockery of the Heim theory and the AIAA award. They believe its another pork project funded by idiot politicians. (Check out the starTrek board)
It remeinds me a bit of how Life extension was seen a few years back. Anyone who suggested it was possible was delusional.
RodentMan
Posted on 1/13/2006 10:30:39 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink "
Well it seems a metron needs that 6th dimension to exist forming a cube shape of course that can be equidistant representing no mass. Also it is good not to think in absolutes ...all the time:) I really think this defines what matter is because of the closed system. I still have to read this more but very interesting so far as how Heim made 12 dimensions to try to comply with QM.
It seems if you are measuring something that the 1st dimension would be an indirect measurement based on the shapes of the other 6 sides.
My take on it as a programmer. (I am working on this as a graphic engine base right now and hopefully will show some results, for simplistic (non-redundant) lighting and gravity effects):
=======================
== Still going nowhere ==
1st: A Point would be a spin state.
2nd: The Plane would be a stretch
3rd: The Polygon would be able to expand and retract
== Going into time and transitional dimensions ==
4th: The Quaternion allows for rotation of the polygon
5th: The Warp stretches the polygon to another 3d area I think
== Making the full Translation? ==
6th: The Metron is the closure of the cube creating an entirely new object or translating the initial object fully. This is where travel would occur according to this theory.
I don’t see real movement (inertia) occurring until the metron dimension because you have a full and complete copy of the initial object. So in this dimension maybe hyper travel can occur. Mathematically speaking of course. Still seems to be some inconsistencies though according to deformation of the metron creating mass. Confused there.
“It is well known in physics that energy is stored in the gravitational field surrounding any material object. He concludes that in accordance with Einstein? relation E=mc2 (E=energy, c=velocity of light=300´000km/s) the field must have associated with it a field mass, whose gravitation modifies the total gravitational attraction o object. In addition, the field mass gives rise to a second gravitational field. The relation between the two field very similar to the relation between electric and magnetic fields.”
The first dimension could be the closure of the loop creating gravity.
“Einstein? general relativity results in a set of 16 coupled equations (6 of which occur twice). The figure 16 is equal to the square of the number of dimensions. Hence, according to relativity, our world appears to be 4-dimensional (because 16=4²) and consists of 3 real dimensions and one proportional to time.”
This would take us up to the quaternion used for rotation in Computer Science.
“In contrast, Heim finds 36 equations describing the microcosm. Again, this must equal the square of the number of dimensions, so that the microscopic world appears to be at least 6-dimensional. Since there can only one set of laws in nature it must be possible by appropriate transformations to carry the microscopic equations over into the macroscopic world and vice versa. The conclusion, therefore, is that the universe we live in is at least 6-dimensional and not 4-dimensional.”
3d must have a mirror 6d?
These equations represent the aspects of measurement of all possible lengths of each point(corner) of the object. So 36 from the 6 sided cube.
“It can be shown that the number of real dimensions, i.e. those measurable with yardsticks, is limited to 3. All higher dimensions must be of a different nature entirely. The 4th dimension, for example, is proportional to time, which is measured with clocks and not yardsticks. The 5th and 6th dimensions will have to be something different again (Cole, 1980), and according to Heim it are associated with organizational properties. They will be called ?transdimensions? or ?transcoordinates?to distinguish them from the four dimensions with which we are
all familiar.”
I agree with this to a point. Although the Quaternion rotates and I can physically view that I am not necessarily measuring that. I would definitely say ‘trans’ for the 5th and 6th because the object is in the process of transforming to an entirely new one although I wouldn't consider a complete transformation until the metron or final stage. In CS we call this translate or transform.
It’s so hard not to think in large measurements with this theory. Laughs.
You have to consistently think in terms of a small amount of equations for the universe which can become mind numbing
That’s my personal theory though. Humans tend to think in complete cycles so ideas must be presented that way or there is a corruption.
“In Heim’s theory differentiation and integration must be changed to comply with the metronic requirements mentioned above. A line cannot be subdivided into infinitely small segments, because an infinitesimal length cannot be part of an area of finite, metronic size. Similarly, integration is changed into a summation of finite lengths. While the mathematics of finite lengths has been developed in the literature (Nörlund, 1924, Gelfond 1958) the novel feature of Heim’s metronic theory is that it is a mathematics of finite areas.”
“Despite the insight gained into particle physics, the theory is not entirely equvalent to modern quantum theory.
or this reason Heim has extended the theory to 12 dimensions. Only this extension allows full quantization, and
s a consequence it becomes possible to unite relativity and quantum theory. Even 6 dimensions are not
ufficient to accomplish this. A more detailed account of these new development will be published in a 3rd
olume (Heim, personal communication).”
Maybe a seventh dimension could explain multiple or infinite metrons creating infinite measurements though to comply with QM better? Why make 12 dimensions as it sounds like 2 metrons put together creating redundancy? It should be LCD. I would still think many metrons are needed in parallel for power but this might include a higher dimension. It depends on how many you can put together. As I looked at the charts there are measurements measuring the folds of space as the metrons stay the same though.
“Uniformity of the lattice signifies emptiness. Conversely, if the lattice is locally deformed or distorted, this deformation signifies the presence of something other than emptiness.”
Usually when editing a computer world an equidistant lattice is used as a ‘grid’ representing no matter so it makes sense on the overall picture although doesn’t necessarily explain Intelligent design though because there is no absolute. I am not talking about God here, I mean from us. We can also describe ourselves as Gods in a way as far as creativity and intent.
It seems if you are measuring something that the 1st dimension would be an indirect measurement based on the shapes of the other 6 sides.
My take on it as a programmer. (I am working on this as a graphic engine base right now and hopefully will show some results, for simplistic (non-redundant) lighting and gravity effects):
=======================
== Still going nowhere ==
1st: A Point would be a spin state.
2nd: The Plane would be a stretch
3rd: The Polygon would be able to expand and retract
== Going into time and transitional dimensions ==
4th: The Quaternion allows for rotation of the polygon
5th: The Warp stretches the polygon to another 3d area I think
== Making the full Translation? ==
6th: The Metron is the closure of the cube creating an entirely new object or translating the initial object fully. This is where travel would occur according to this theory.
I don’t see real movement (inertia) occurring until the metron dimension because you have a full and complete copy of the initial object. So in this dimension maybe hyper travel can occur. Mathematically speaking of course. Still seems to be some inconsistencies though according to deformation of the metron creating mass. Confused there.
“It is well known in physics that energy is stored in the gravitational field surrounding any material object. He concludes that in accordance with Einstein? relation E=mc2 (E=energy, c=velocity of light=300´000km/s) the field must have associated with it a field mass, whose gravitation modifies the total gravitational attraction o object. In addition, the field mass gives rise to a second gravitational field. The relation between the two field very similar to the relation between electric and magnetic fields.”
The first dimension could be the closure of the loop creating gravity.
“Einstein? general relativity results in a set of 16 coupled equations (6 of which occur twice). The figure 16 is equal to the square of the number of dimensions. Hence, according to relativity, our world appears to be 4-dimensional (because 16=4²) and consists of 3 real dimensions and one proportional to time.”
This would take us up to the quaternion used for rotation in Computer Science.
“In contrast, Heim finds 36 equations describing the microcosm. Again, this must equal the square of the number of dimensions, so that the microscopic world appears to be at least 6-dimensional. Since there can only one set of laws in nature it must be possible by appropriate transformations to carry the microscopic equations over into the macroscopic world and vice versa. The conclusion, therefore, is that the universe we live in is at least 6-dimensional and not 4-dimensional.”
3d must have a mirror 6d?
These equations represent the aspects of measurement of all possible lengths of each point(corner) of the object. So 36 from the 6 sided cube.
“It can be shown that the number of real dimensions, i.e. those measurable with yardsticks, is limited to 3. All higher dimensions must be of a different nature entirely. The 4th dimension, for example, is proportional to time, which is measured with clocks and not yardsticks. The 5th and 6th dimensions will have to be something different again (Cole, 1980), and according to Heim it are associated with organizational properties. They will be called ?transdimensions? or ?transcoordinates?to distinguish them from the four dimensions with which we are
all familiar.”
I agree with this to a point. Although the Quaternion rotates and I can physically view that I am not necessarily measuring that. I would definitely say ‘trans’ for the 5th and 6th because the object is in the process of transforming to an entirely new one although I wouldn't consider a complete transformation until the metron or final stage. In CS we call this translate or transform.
It’s so hard not to think in large measurements with this theory. Laughs.
You have to consistently think in terms of a small amount of equations for the universe which can become mind numbing
That’s my personal theory though. Humans tend to think in complete cycles so ideas must be presented that way or there is a corruption.
“In Heim’s theory differentiation and integration must be changed to comply with the metronic requirements mentioned above. A line cannot be subdivided into infinitely small segments, because an infinitesimal length cannot be part of an area of finite, metronic size. Similarly, integration is changed into a summation of finite lengths. While the mathematics of finite lengths has been developed in the literature (Nörlund, 1924, Gelfond 1958) the novel feature of Heim’s metronic theory is that it is a mathematics of finite areas.”
“Despite the insight gained into particle physics, the theory is not entirely equvalent to modern quantum theory.
or this reason Heim has extended the theory to 12 dimensions. Only this extension allows full quantization, and
s a consequence it becomes possible to unite relativity and quantum theory. Even 6 dimensions are not
ufficient to accomplish this. A more detailed account of these new development will be published in a 3rd
olume (Heim, personal communication).”
Maybe a seventh dimension could explain multiple or infinite metrons creating infinite measurements though to comply with QM better? Why make 12 dimensions as it sounds like 2 metrons put together creating redundancy? It should be LCD. I would still think many metrons are needed in parallel for power but this might include a higher dimension. It depends on how many you can put together. As I looked at the charts there are measurements measuring the folds of space as the metrons stay the same though.
“Uniformity of the lattice signifies emptiness. Conversely, if the lattice is locally deformed or distorted, this deformation signifies the presence of something other than emptiness.”
Usually when editing a computer world an equidistant lattice is used as a ‘grid’ representing no matter so it makes sense on the overall picture although doesn’t necessarily explain Intelligent design though because there is no absolute. I am not talking about God here, I mean from us. We can also describe ourselves as Gods in a way as far as creativity and intent.
iGlad to see you working through it Blam. Did you find the Hugh Deasey comments helpful?
t was my understanding that Heim had dropped back down to 6 dimensions but that Droescher-Hauser has bumped back the theory back up to 8 dimensions with their extensions. Their extensions are responsible for gravitophotons and maybe Quintessence (darkmatter forces).
I guess there's no substitute for somebody really serious about learning this stuff than buying the Heim books in Deutsche and learning that language. With Systran translator available today, it shouldn't be too hard to read
trying to go back and forth between regular tensor calculus and selector calculus has a price. I really learned a lot from reading Newton's Principia. A few of his diagrams were just priceless. Especially the one showing his version of vector addition of a satellilte orbiting the earth.
I didn't see any Heim books on Amazon.com. Wait a couple of months.
There will even be a Heim theory for Dummies.
t was my understanding that Heim had dropped back down to 6 dimensions but that Droescher-Hauser has bumped back the theory back up to 8 dimensions with their extensions. Their extensions are responsible for gravitophotons and maybe Quintessence (darkmatter forces).
I guess there's no substitute for somebody really serious about learning this stuff than buying the Heim books in Deutsche and learning that language. With Systran translator available today, it shouldn't be too hard to read
trying to go back and forth between regular tensor calculus and selector calculus has a price. I really learned a lot from reading Newton's Principia. A few of his diagrams were just priceless. Especially the one showing his version of vector addition of a satellilte orbiting the earth.
I didn't see any Heim books on Amazon.com. Wait a couple of months.
There will even be a Heim theory for Dummies.
Forgot to tell you this: Protosimplex – Ideas of Burkhard Heim
I know Hugh Deasy, he's very knowledgeable about HT and right in his assesments.
The problem is this: HT can't be a competitor to Loop Quantum Gravity or String Theory because required form is not met: no english papers in physics journals. Dröscher is working on a paper on the underlying theory. And the Heim Research Group could come up with a paper in months... if there was funding. Everybody thinks they are scientists at universities who are paid to work on this. But they are basically scientists who knew Heim, companions - Ludwiger was an industrial physicist at MBB - who have to earn a living and work on HT in their spare time - a tough starting position to take on established projects like LQG and ST.
Cheers, Haiko
I know Hugh Deasy, he's very knowledgeable about HT and right in his assesments.
The problem is this: HT can't be a competitor to Loop Quantum Gravity or String Theory because required form is not met: no english papers in physics journals. Dröscher is working on a paper on the underlying theory. And the Heim Research Group could come up with a paper in months... if there was funding. Everybody thinks they are scientists at universities who are paid to work on this. But they are basically scientists who knew Heim, companions - Ludwiger was an industrial physicist at MBB - who have to earn a living and work on HT in their spare time - a tough starting position to take on established projects like LQG and ST.
Cheers, Haiko
QUOTE (Haiko Lietz+Jan 15 2006, 01:03 AM)
HT can't be a competitor to Loop Quantum Gravity or String Theory because required form is not met: no english papers in physics journals.
Despite this, no other oficial theory can compete with the Heim's theory by the quantitative way, as no other theory is able to compute the mass particle properties using just a insintric vacuum constants. As usually, the single lone person becomes more effective in physic understanding, as the whole well sponsored teams - this is the point of problem...
The further ignoring of this fact is just a wasting of money.
Despite this, no other oficial theory can compete with the Heim's theory by the quantitative way, as no other theory is able to compute the mass particle properties using just a insintric vacuum constants. As usually, the single lone person becomes more effective in physic understanding, as the whole well sponsored teams - this is the point of problem...
The further ignoring of this fact is just a wasting of money.
As Zephir says it doesn't matter what language Heim papers is in or how many adherents it has. The question is: Is it the right theory? We will soon find out/
The military of this world have awoken to it and are not going to let it slip by. To me it seems that Loop theory and string theory are just patch thories while Heim is an original bold stroke that goes right to the heart of the quantum mechanical concept.
If richard Feynaman was still alive, he would jump right on it.
Here's a table of contents for volume I of Heim's 1978 book translated with Systran
It appears that he is developing his calculus of differences and his discrete tensor calculus called selector calculus which operates on the metrons.
Preface v
Contents of ix
Introduction 1
I. The MAKROMARE BACKGROUND of MIKROMARER PROCESSES
1. Logical and empirical basis 9
2. The makromare background 14
3. The not along ash space-time structure 23
4. Mikromare Diskontinuitaeten 33
II. THE WELTTENSORIUM
1. World dimensions 37
2. Construction of the Welttensoriums 52
3. Hermite world structures 59
4. Gravitative regional structures and their extrema 75
III. METRONI STRUKTURTENSORIEN
1. Metroni elementary operations 99
2. Selector 115
3. Selector theory primitively structured Tensorien 127
4. Metroni hyperstructures and Metronisierungsverfahren 136
5. Polymetrie of relative metronischer condensations 147
IV. THE WORLD AS HYPERCSTRUCTURE
1. Structural condensation stages 173
2. Hermetrieformen 192
3. Hermetri elementary structures 212
4. Kosmogoni consequences from the term of the Weltmetrons 249
5. Background and sources of the quantum principle 266
6. Preview on volume II 293
Term register 299
Appendix of table 301
Compilation of some theoretical data more stably
and metastable elementary particle 302
Table of contents and name 303
The military of this world have awoken to it and are not going to let it slip by. To me it seems that Loop theory and string theory are just patch thories while Heim is an original bold stroke that goes right to the heart of the quantum mechanical concept.
If richard Feynaman was still alive, he would jump right on it.
Here's a table of contents for volume I of Heim's 1978 book translated with Systran
It appears that he is developing his calculus of differences and his discrete tensor calculus called selector calculus which operates on the metrons.
Preface v
Contents of ix
Introduction 1
I. The MAKROMARE BACKGROUND of MIKROMARER PROCESSES
1. Logical and empirical basis 9
2. The makromare background 14
3. The not along ash space-time structure 23
4. Mikromare Diskontinuitaeten 33
II. THE WELTTENSORIUM
1. World dimensions 37
2. Construction of the Welttensoriums 52
3. Hermite world structures 59
4. Gravitative regional structures and their extrema 75
III. METRONI STRUKTURTENSORIEN
1. Metroni elementary operations 99
2. Selector 115
3. Selector theory primitively structured Tensorien 127
4. Metroni hyperstructures and Metronisierungsverfahren 136
5. Polymetrie of relative metronischer condensations 147
IV. THE WORLD AS HYPERCSTRUCTURE
1. Structural condensation stages 173
2. Hermetrieformen 192
3. Hermetri elementary structures 212
4. Kosmogoni consequences from the term of the Weltmetrons 249
5. Background and sources of the quantum principle 266
6. Preview on volume II 293
Term register 299
Appendix of table 301
Compilation of some theoretical data more stably
and metastable elementary particle 302
Table of contents and name 303
QUOTE (will314159+Jan 15 2006, 06:23 AM)
...We will soon find out..
Well, don't hurry so much... Is it the superstring or even 20+ years older Yilmaz's gravity theory the right theory, or at least the more right than, says, the GR theory?
Who knows - but both they're an over 40 years old theories! It seems, the fifty-sixty years doesn't mean so much here...
Personally, I've found the Heim's theory a little bit schematic. It doesn't tells us about the particle internal structure too much. Yes, the particles consist from "layers", but the real mechanism of its formation remains hidden. I believe, thanks the superstring theory an QLG theory we have a better overall idea about the particle internal topology, than Heim's theory provides at this time.
I believe, with respect of understanding the Heim's theory lies somewhere between the Standard model and the more general (although not finished yet) the superstring/M-theory. It's generalization of the semi-classical Wheelers geometrodynamic theory by incorporating the hidden dimension concept. I believe, the Heim's theory can become a new generation of the Standard model, which is most usefull theory from practical point of view.
Well, don't hurry so much...
Is it the superstring or even 20+ years older Yilmaz's gravity theory the right theory, or at least the more right than, says, the GR theory? Who knows - but both they're an over 40 years old theories! It seems, the fifty-sixty years doesn't mean so much here...
Personally, I've found the Heim's theory a little bit schematic. It doesn't tells us about the particle internal structure too much. Yes, the particles consist from "layers", but the real mechanism of its formation remains hidden. I believe, thanks the superstring theory an QLG theory we have a better overall idea about the particle internal topology, than Heim's theory provides at this time.
I believe, with respect of understanding the Heim's theory lies somewhere between the Standard model and the more general (although not finished yet) the superstring/M-theory. It's generalization of the semi-classical Wheelers geometrodynamic theory by incorporating the hidden dimension concept. I believe, the Heim's theory can become a new generation of the Standard model, which is most usefull theory from practical point of view.
my understanding of Heim is that there are no quarks or gluons having an individual existence. the particles (baryons) themselves are the elementary building blocks. But the scattering experiments somehow manifest results consistent with those pesky things. So much for QCD.
at least that explains why you don't find quarks by themselves.
at least that explains why you don't find quarks by themselves.
QUOTE (will314159+Jan 15 2006, 11:57 AM)
...my understanding of Heim is that there are no quarks or gluons having an individual existence....
The nonexistence of quarks is due the fact, they forming just a 1/3 of helical wave, which is composing the mixed weak-EMG interactions. Such wave isn't able to exist alone, as its obvious from the knot model (the knot shape describes the path of vacuum motion inside of quark)
I'm not very sure, whether the Heim's theory explains it so easily... The curvature ratio of helical parts in both directions is about 1000:1 in fact, so that the dense proton nuclei formed by quarks has about 10E-18 m, whereas whole proton diameter is about 10E-15 m. Therefore, the proton/neutron can be described by the two-body gravitational system, where the Z-boson is forming the inner loop, whereas the EMG part the external one and both they correspond the Heim's layer model of hadrons.
The nonexistence of quarks is due the fact, they forming just a 1/3 of helical wave, which is composing the mixed weak-EMG interactions. Such wave isn't able to exist alone, as its obvious from the knot model (the knot shape describes the path of vacuum motion inside of quark)
I'm not very sure, whether the Heim's theory explains it so easily...
The curvature ratio of helical parts in both directions is about 1000:1 in fact, so that the dense proton nuclei formed by quarks has about 10E-18 m, whereas whole proton diameter is about 10E-15 m. Therefore, the proton/neutron can be described by the two-body gravitational system, where the Z-boson is forming the inner loop, whereas the EMG part the external one and both they correspond the Heim's layer model of hadrons.
thankz zeph for the string theory explanation of quarks and the diagram. You 'r the man.
From the talk pages of the Wikipedia Heim theory article, this is what i've learned about the HEIM theory aspects of the quarks
first the ANTI
" I can confidently say that most physicists would be skeptical of a theory that claimed to predict the masses of protons and neutrons without any apparent attention to the nuclear forces or more than token attention to quarks, to name one of my many concerns
Concerns about initial article At the very least, this article appears to be strongly biased toward one POV: at this point, a claim that someone had succeeded in devising a unified field theory that correctly predicts particle masses would be extraodinarily controversial. (Wikipedia is not a place to debate the merits of scientific theories, but having looked briefly at the external site mentioned in the article, I can confidently say that most physicists would be skeptical of a theory that claimed to predict the masses of protons and neutrons without any apparent attention to the nuclear forces or more than token attention to quarks, to name one of my many concerns.) ."
then the REBUTTAL, from HDEASEY pointing out that that in a small space as in a metron there's not room for a lot of structure like there is in a STRING.
"
As for the theory omitting the strong force and quarks: this is not entirely true. The reason that Baryons are treated as elementary particles is that they are seen as complex processes with interactions sometimes leading to apparent condensations or thickenings which effect scattering experiments to give the impression of quarks. Thus in Heim theory, this explains why quarks are never seen in isolation - they are viewed as aspects of the internal processess of the Baryons. Remember that the fundamental element of Heim theory is the Metron, of dimension h*h, which makes it smaller than strings, so there is room for much internal structure in realtively large particles such as the baryons."
then tthere is some verbiage
"
The community working on Heim theory is indeed rather small, as considerable mathematical experise is needed to make any headway on the theory. Thus at the moment there is a Catch 22 - to get more physicists involved, more publicity is needed. But without their involvement, it is hard to attain publicity. One of the problems with Heim is that he waited so long before showing any results in public. He worked closely with prominent theorists such as Pascual Jordan, but they are all dead now and the new generation of physicists knows essentially nothing about Heim. The effort of familiarisation with Heim's special notation and methods frightens off many physicists. Thus again there is a catch 22 - more recognition for the theory will be attained only when more physicists work on it, but they won't work on it until it is recognised. This catch-22 arises because he avoided the normal channels of publication. But there are comparable cases in the past of scientists sealing themselves from the world - think of Newton's Year of Miracles - in isolation due to plague, he occupied his time by inventing calculus, discovering the chromatic composition of light, and conceiving of the inverse-square law of universal gravitation. hdeasy --User:Hdeasy|hughey "
From the talk pages of the Wikipedia Heim theory article, this is what i've learned about the HEIM theory aspects of the quarks
first the ANTI
" I can confidently say that most physicists would be skeptical of a theory that claimed to predict the masses of protons and neutrons without any apparent attention to the nuclear forces or more than token attention to quarks, to name one of my many concerns
Concerns about initial article At the very least, this article appears to be strongly biased toward one POV: at this point, a claim that someone had succeeded in devising a unified field theory that correctly predicts particle masses would be extraodinarily controversial. (Wikipedia is not a place to debate the merits of scientific theories, but having looked briefly at the external site mentioned in the article, I can confidently say that most physicists would be skeptical of a theory that claimed to predict the masses of protons and neutrons without any apparent attention to the nuclear forces or more than token attention to quarks, to name one of my many concerns.) ."
then the REBUTTAL, from HDEASEY pointing out that that in a small space as in a metron there's not room for a lot of structure like there is in a STRING.
"
As for the theory omitting the strong force and quarks: this is not entirely true. The reason that Baryons are treated as elementary particles is that they are seen as complex processes with interactions sometimes leading to apparent condensations or thickenings which effect scattering experiments to give the impression of quarks. Thus in Heim theory, this explains why quarks are never seen in isolation - they are viewed as aspects of the internal processess of the Baryons. Remember that the fundamental element of Heim theory is the Metron, of dimension h*h, which makes it smaller than strings, so there is room for much internal structure in realtively large particles such as the baryons."
then tthere is some verbiage
"
The community working on Heim theory is indeed rather small, as considerable mathematical experise is needed to make any headway on the theory. Thus at the moment there is a Catch 22 - to get more physicists involved, more publicity is needed. But without their involvement, it is hard to attain publicity. One of the problems with Heim is that he waited so long before showing any results in public. He worked closely with prominent theorists such as Pascual Jordan, but they are all dead now and the new generation of physicists knows essentially nothing about Heim. The effort of familiarisation with Heim's special notation and methods frightens off many physicists. Thus again there is a catch 22 - more recognition for the theory will be attained only when more physicists work on it, but they won't work on it until it is recognised. This catch-22 arises because he avoided the normal channels of publication. But there are comparable cases in the past of scientists sealing themselves from the world - think of Newton's Year of Miracles - in isolation due to plague, he occupied his time by inventing calculus, discovering the chromatic composition of light, and conceiving of the inverse-square law of universal gravitation. hdeasy --User:Hdeasy|hughey "
Translation of the table of contents of Heim 1984 Book. This would be Volume II. Used Systran
"
RESCH PUBLISHING HOUSE INNSBRUCK 1984
With the appearance this 2. Volume is present now the Heim theory of the elementary structures of the subject in a very extensive form, which however not when conclusion is to be regarded… The viewpoints of physical basic phenomena pointed out by home could serve as suggestion for the further development of physics, in order to approach the goal of a uniform physical conception of the world aimed at for a long time and/or reach this.
(publishing house text)
At the beginning of volume 2 home presents a scenario of the cosmological origin of our world, how it results from the relations found by it. Computingable explanations for some observed phenomena (Rotvertschiebung, space of bubbles…) result.
The remaining chapters serve the investigation of internal dynamic procedures of the six-dimensional area, with whose assistance the computingable representation of the mass spectrum of all balancable Elemntarteilchen succeeds in the long run. (OI)
Bibliographic data
Burkhard home
Uniform description of the world – elementary structures of the subject Bd. 2
Volume 2; Resch publishing house; Innsbruck; 1984; 96: 2; xii + 385 S.; ISBN 3-85 382-036-0; LN; DM 166,00
Cosmology: The minimum complex condensation – actualization of the cosmic movement – the cosmological problem and reference structures – solution of the cosmological paradox – cosmogony – borders of space and time
Synmetronik of the world: Structure units and lattice cores – field activation by spin field lectors – the synmetronische fundamental problem – of Synmetronik of the Hermetrieformen – field activation and condensor lens river
Correlation and correspondence: The enantiostereoisomeren river aggregates of the coupling structures – Prototrope Konjunktoren – Konjunktor and Stratonspin – anti-structures – of correspondence fields and the prototrope structure of the universe
Partialspektren of complex Hermetrie: Elementary configuration samples – internal structuring of stratonischer elements – the invariants of possible basic patterns – resonance spectra and its borders – jurisdiction and view
Table of contents
Contents of xi
Introduction 1
V. COSMOLOGY:
1. The minimum complex condensation 7
2. Actualization of the cosmic movement 17
3. The cosmological problem and reference structures 30
4. Solution of the cosmological paradox 44
5. Cosmogony 55
6. Borders of space and time 65
VI. SYNMETRONIK THE WORLD
1. Structure units and lattice cores 79
2. Field activation by spin field lectors 86
3. The synmetronische fundamental problem of 97
4. Synmetronik of the Hermetrieformen 118
5. Field activation and condensor lens river 150
VII. CORRELATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
1. The enantiostereoisomeren river aggregates of the Kopplungsstrukturen165
2. Prototrope Konjunktoren 196
3. Konjunktor and Stratonspin 203
4. Anti-structures 219
5. Correspondence fields and the prototrope structure of the Universums230
VIII. PARTIALSPEKTREN COMPLEX HERMETRIE
1. Elementary configuration samples 243
2. Interustrukturierung of stratonischer elements 252
3. The invariants of possible basic patterns 279
4. Resonance spectra and their borders 320
Jurisdiction and view 355
Term register 369
Appendix of table 371
Table of contents 377
Back to the start of page
"
RESCH PUBLISHING HOUSE INNSBRUCK 1984
With the appearance this 2. Volume is present now the Heim theory of the elementary structures of the subject in a very extensive form, which however not when conclusion is to be regarded… The viewpoints of physical basic phenomena pointed out by home could serve as suggestion for the further development of physics, in order to approach the goal of a uniform physical conception of the world aimed at for a long time and/or reach this.
(publishing house text)
At the beginning of volume 2 home presents a scenario of the cosmological origin of our world, how it results from the relations found by it. Computingable explanations for some observed phenomena (Rotvertschiebung, space of bubbles…) result.
The remaining chapters serve the investigation of internal dynamic procedures of the six-dimensional area, with whose assistance the computingable representation of the mass spectrum of all balancable Elemntarteilchen succeeds in the long run. (OI)
Bibliographic data
Burkhard home
Uniform description of the world – elementary structures of the subject Bd. 2
Volume 2; Resch publishing house; Innsbruck; 1984; 96: 2; xii + 385 S.; ISBN 3-85 382-036-0; LN; DM 166,00
Cosmology: The minimum complex condensation – actualization of the cosmic movement – the cosmological problem and reference structures – solution of the cosmological paradox – cosmogony – borders of space and time
Synmetronik of the world: Structure units and lattice cores – field activation by spin field lectors – the synmetronische fundamental problem – of Synmetronik of the Hermetrieformen – field activation and condensor lens river
Correlation and correspondence: The enantiostereoisomeren river aggregates of the coupling structures – Prototrope Konjunktoren – Konjunktor and Stratonspin – anti-structures – of correspondence fields and the prototrope structure of the universe
Partialspektren of complex Hermetrie: Elementary configuration samples – internal structuring of stratonischer elements – the invariants of possible basic patterns – resonance spectra and its borders – jurisdiction and view
Table of contents
Contents of xi
Introduction 1
V. COSMOLOGY:
1. The minimum complex condensation 7
2. Actualization of the cosmic movement 17
3. The cosmological problem and reference structures 30
4. Solution of the cosmological paradox 44
5. Cosmogony 55
6. Borders of space and time 65
VI. SYNMETRONIK THE WORLD
1. Structure units and lattice cores 79
2. Field activation by spin field lectors 86
3. The synmetronische fundamental problem of 97
4. Synmetronik of the Hermetrieformen 118
5. Field activation and condensor lens river 150
VII. CORRELATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
1. The enantiostereoisomeren river aggregates of the Kopplungsstrukturen165
2. Prototrope Konjunktoren 196
3. Konjunktor and Stratonspin 203
4. Anti-structures 219
5. Correspondence fields and the prototrope structure of the Universums230
VIII. PARTIALSPEKTREN COMPLEX HERMETRIE
1. Elementary configuration samples 243
2. Interustrukturierung of stratonischer elements 252
3. The invariants of possible basic patterns 279
4. Resonance spectra and their borders 320
Jurisdiction and view 355
Term register 369
Appendix of table 371
Table of contents 377
Back to the start of page
Hi all... I posted earlier on "Physics News" forum titled "Ionic Thrusters". (It "morphed" into discussion of hyper drive technology). My main concern was conducting lab experiments before a full understanding of the physics involved have been worked out. An example I would give would be Enrico Fermi shortly before the "Trinity" atomic bomb test, July 1945. He had doubts in his mind that the release of energy could be far greater than expected. (Some scientists on the project believed they might accidentally start the earths atmosphere on fire!). The main point is Fermi had real doubts in his mind. The atom bomb changed world history better or worse on a new path. World history will surely change if Heim's theory leads to hyper drive technology. I wonder how many "hands on" scientists like Enrico Fermi will be out there leading the way but at the same time be considering the dangers....Mike001.
Do you mean like a 'hyper bomb?' What would that look like?
To Blam, thats exactly my point. A device that accidentally creates an uncontrolled release of energy that vents from a parallel universe or dimension into ours. Sounds crazy? Before modern science the concept of an atomic bomb would have sounded just as implausible to someone living in the dark ages. Heim's theory introduces two more fundamental forces that are not yet well defined, and their interaction or unification with the other known forces have to be understood before an experiment should be attempted....Mike001
I agree that's why I am doing this computer simulation. I think the Wiki page should be cleaned up as well and all of that. This is the same with nanotech, robots and global air pollution. I am hoping that these other dimensions produce a similar amount of energy to the nuclear but maybe spread it into other dimensions like a black hole.
This is essential today also not to let the information get 'locked in' to a private entity. Also the info should be safe and not geared toward that type of stuff.
This is essential today also not to let the information get 'locked in' to a private entity. Also the info should be safe and not geared toward that type of stuff.
Now I've been following the theory of Burkhard Heim for a few years now - I know someone in the Heim Theory group, and advised Haiko Lietz on the New Scientist article. I also wrote the original Wikipedia pages on him, though they've undergone many changes - notably a French version suddenly appeared after the NS article last week! As noted above, there was a lively discussion on those Wiki pages, and initially I was struggling to defend its existence, but then arguments marshalled by me and some allies who flocked to my side in my hour of need ( 
) fought back against the critics to justify the pages'existence. This has been justified since then first by the AIAA prize and later by the New Scientist and other publicity. Besides the space drive the amazing thing is the mass formula - I have a copy of a shortish piece of code which takes the set of integer eigen-values from part I of the set of mass equations and generates from them the masses of 16 of the known particles to within six significant figures! This is amazing, as no other theory comes even close - the standard model has lattice QCD, which uses massive CPU time on most powerful computers to approximate some baryon masses - they were delight to get within 10%! Heim gets to within 0.01% and also for leptons and other particles, on simple Sun workstation in a fraction of a second of CPU.
What's more, the mass formula doesn't rely on a Higgs Boson. In the theory, mass arises as a consequence of the geometrical twists in space, which constitute the particles. Note that Heim's space is a lattice of 6-D surface elements of dimension (Planck length squared). So the 'aether' is a lattice of these 'metrons' or surface elements - a bit like the spin lattice in Loop Quantum Gravity. Only if the twists in space are stable is a real particle formed as opposed to a virtual one.
Finally, Heim is consistent with special and General Relativity, since his theory is a union of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. In quantising General Relativity, Heim did, 40 or 50 years ago, a thing similar to what Loop Quantum Gravity is doing now. The difference is in at which stage the quantisation is performed - for Heim it's the Chtistoffel symbols and Ricci tensor - for LQG something else (which explains why the latter doesn't get the same results of Heim: but their similar origin in Relativity means that both theories are 'background independent' - an advantage over String theory, which treats space as a passive background upon which the particles move).
So all in all Heim theory is really exciting and it's great that it's finally getting publicity again - Heim made the cover of Stern and other mags in the 1950's and I think it was Time magazine or Paris Match that did a feature on him in the 60s. But then he retreated from pubic scrutiny until all the major scientists that recognised his genius (Heisenberg, Jourdan etc.) had died away - then 20 or 30 years later he popped up with the mass formula! A bit like Newton in his secrecy, hiding his results from his 'year of miracles' until Leibnitz threatened to steal his glory, or Darwin waiting a similar time until the same danger rushed him into print. So slowly the results of Heim's isolated activity is coming to fruition. He also reminds me a bit of Mozart, as this is Mozart's year, in that the latter composed symphonies complete in his head and just jotted them down without error. Similarly Heim worked it all out in his head (he was nearly blind, deaf and handless) until the 'readout phase'.
) fought back against the critics to justify the pages'existence. This has been justified since then first by the AIAA prize and later by the New Scientist and other publicity. Besides the space drive the amazing thing is the mass formula - I have a copy of a shortish piece of code which takes the set of integer eigen-values from part I of the set of mass equations and generates from them the masses of 16 of the known particles to within six significant figures! This is amazing, as no other theory comes even close - the standard model has lattice QCD, which uses massive CPU time on most powerful computers to approximate some baryon masses - they were delight to get within 10%! Heim gets to within 0.01% and also for leptons and other particles, on simple Sun workstation in a fraction of a second of CPU. What's more, the mass formula doesn't rely on a Higgs Boson. In the theory, mass arises as a consequence of the geometrical twists in space, which constitute the particles. Note that Heim's space is a lattice of 6-D surface elements of dimension (Planck length squared). So the 'aether' is a lattice of these 'metrons' or surface elements - a bit like the spin lattice in Loop Quantum Gravity. Only if the twists in space are stable is a real particle formed as opposed to a virtual one.
Finally, Heim is consistent with special and General Relativity, since his theory is a union of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. In quantising General Relativity, Heim did, 40 or 50 years ago, a thing similar to what Loop Quantum Gravity is doing now. The difference is in at which stage the quantisation is performed - for Heim it's the Chtistoffel symbols and Ricci tensor - for LQG something else (which explains why the latter doesn't get the same results of Heim: but their similar origin in Relativity means that both theories are 'background independent' - an advantage over String theory, which treats space as a passive background upon which the particles move).
So all in all Heim theory is really exciting and it's great that it's finally getting publicity again - Heim made the cover of Stern and other mags in the 1950's and I think it was Time magazine or Paris Match that did a feature on him in the 60s. But then he retreated from pubic scrutiny until all the major scientists that recognised his genius (Heisenberg, Jourdan etc.) had died away - then 20 or 30 years later he popped up with the mass formula! A bit like Newton in his secrecy, hiding his results from his 'year of miracles' until Leibnitz threatened to steal his glory, or Darwin waiting a similar time until the same danger rushed him into print. So slowly the results of Heim's isolated activity is coming to fruition. He also reminds me a bit of Mozart, as this is Mozart's year, in that the latter composed symphonies complete in his head and just jotted them down without error. Similarly Heim worked it all out in his head (he was nearly blind, deaf and handless) until the 'readout phase'.
Thanks HDeasy
Your Wikipedia article and the talkpages are the starting points. I had already quoted you extensively quoted from your comments on betterhumans.com. I tried to earlier participate in that discussion but couldn't figure out how to post. I usually use Opera browser. I swithced to IE for that forum.
I still had some very simple questions.
1. a particle is resonance in a metron. does it always involve just one metron or can it involve more that one. Are some particles bigger than others?
2. My exposure to QM was first through chemistry, Lagrangians, Hamiltonians and the standard cookbook forumals, then I got a BS in Pysics. The QM there was very simple, going back and forth between momentum and space representations. Bra-ket theory. What little insight i know is by reading the Feynman books. I've tried reading the Wheeler Gravitation books but 'I've never had a course in differential geometry or Tensors. I was just wondering if I wouldn't be better off learning Heim's Selector Calculus and getting his insights?
I'm 54 and a retired lawyer and disabled Vietnam Vet. I got a lot out of perusing Newton's Principia.
3. How come the big Mathematical Physicist Guns lilke Attiyeh and Witten haven't responded to a Geometrical Formula that spits out Particle Masses. It's almost as amazing as a geometrical series invloving the square root of five having something to do with information theory or the growth or rabbits (Fibonacci numbers)?
Take Care!
p.s.
of course electrons are bigger. but how much of the electron cloud is the heisenberg uncertainty principle due to their zippyness.
Your Wikipedia article and the talkpages are the starting points. I had already quoted you extensively quoted from your comments on betterhumans.com. I tried to earlier participate in that discussion but couldn't figure out how to post. I usually use Opera browser. I swithced to IE for that forum.
I still had some very simple questions.
1. a particle is resonance in a metron. does it always involve just one metron or can it involve more that one. Are some particles bigger than others?
2. My exposure to QM was first through chemistry, Lagrangians, Hamiltonians and the standard cookbook forumals, then I got a BS in Pysics. The QM there was very simple, going back and forth between momentum and space representations. Bra-ket theory. What little insight i know is by reading the Feynman books. I've tried reading the Wheeler Gravitation books but 'I've never had a course in differential geometry or Tensors. I was just wondering if I wouldn't be better off learning Heim's Selector Calculus and getting his insights?
I'm 54 and a retired lawyer and disabled Vietnam Vet. I got a lot out of perusing Newton's Principia.
3. How come the big Mathematical Physicist Guns lilke Attiyeh and Witten haven't responded to a Geometrical Formula that spits out Particle Masses. It's almost as amazing as a geometrical series invloving the square root of five having something to do with information theory or the growth or rabbits (Fibonacci numbers)?
Take Care!
p.s.
of course electrons are bigger. but how much of the electron cloud is the heisenberg uncertainty principle due to their zippyness.
Here is the Systranslation of Volume III. This is the 1996 Heim Theory Vollume that has the Droscher Extensions. The German Info was obtained from
http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/books/b40.htm
"Walter of Droescher – Burkhard Heim
Structures
the physical world
and their not-material side
RESCH PUBLISHING HOUSE INNSBRUCK 1996
"in the 3. Volume of the book series succeeds to understand it in each case Droescher and Heim from a mathematical formalism closed in itself both the coupling constants and of them (geometrically representable) reciprocal effect fields. This is done via the description of the physical world as component part 8 and/or 12-dimensionalen of a coordinate area.
…
So the entire quantum theory in its indeterministischen form of futurischer probability statements of the possible one from this illustration process can be deduced, which applies also to a uniform description of all reciprocal effects and the cosmogony of the subject.
This universality decreases/goes back to the fact that the illustration chain appears as control process whenever a happening in the sense of not-stationary dynamics sets relative temporal points of zero, whereby the control does not restructure (or also not) kind evenly been made by these probability fields and in the range of the Physis existing subject in their temporal behavior.
This quantitative investigation obviously represents a logical stand structure, which (despite the not-material side of the world) only quantitative statements permits, but to the examination analyzable theses by conceptions of the world, because the thesis concerned in any case quantltativen this, shade "of the world is not suitable to be sufficient must."
From the existence time determination submitted in the supplement "term lectors" it follows that the opinion of existing hyper and their is not fictitious Unterraeumen, but in the background of physical happening stands.
Innsbruck, on 27 January 1996, 1998 Andreas Resch
Bibliographic data
Walter Droescher, Burkhard Heim
Uniform description of the world – structures of the physical world and their not-material side
Resch publishing house; Innsbruck; 1996; 3; 163 + 16 S.; ISBN 3-85 382-059-X; Book; DM 95,00
The supplement is only contained starting from pressure date 1998 in the book!
PROBLEM DEFINITION AND BEGINNING: Present conditions of physical reciprocal effect theories – suggestion of a structure-theoretical beginning – hyperarea of the world
RECIPROCAL EFFECTS: Apeiron and temporalness – space and timeless coupling constants – the Kosmogoni extension – forms of spatiotemporal reciprocal effects
HYPERCSPACE DYNAMICS: Projections in time and space – symmetries of the kosmogonischen origin – cosmogony of the elements of a Subuniversums – hyperspace dynamics and indeterministische quantum theory
CONTROLLING OF THE TIME STRUCTURE: Transformatori couplings – Informationshermetrie and Synmetronik – cosmogony of the subject
CONSEQUENCES AND SUMMARY: Consequences and questions – summary – term register – bibliography – table of contents and name
SUPPLEMENT: TERM LECTORS: Uniform description of the existence times of material elementary structures
Table of contents
Preface v
Contents of ix
Introduction 1
I. PROBLEM DEFINITION AND BEGINNING
1. Present conditions of physical reciprocal effect theories 9
2. Suggestion of a structure-theoretical beginning 12
3. Hyperarea of the world 19
II. HYPERCSPACE DYNAMICS
1. Projections in time and space 27
2. Symmetries of the kosmogonischen origin 30
3. Cosmogony of the elements of a Subuniversums 43
4. Hyperspace dynamics and indeterministische quantum theory 47
III. RECIPROCAL EFFECTS
1. Apeiron and temporalness 59
2. Space and timeless coupling constants the 71
3. Kosmogoni extension 85
4. Forms of spatiotemporal reciprocal effects 90
IV. CONTROLLING OF THE TIME STRUCTURE
1. Transformatori couplings 107
2. Informationshermetrie and Synmetronik 112
3. Cosmogony of the subject 129
V. CONSEQUENCES AND SUMMARY
1. Consequences and questions 145
2. Summary 151
Term register 157
Bibliography 159
Table of contents and name 161
Supplement: Term lectors (ATTENTION only starting from pressure date 1998!) 161
Uniform description of the existence times of material elementary structures
Back to the start of page
© Olaf Posdzech, 1998
"
http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/books/b40.htm
"Walter of Droescher – Burkhard Heim
Structures
the physical world
and their not-material side
RESCH PUBLISHING HOUSE INNSBRUCK 1996
"in the 3. Volume of the book series succeeds to understand it in each case Droescher and Heim from a mathematical formalism closed in itself both the coupling constants and of them (geometrically representable) reciprocal effect fields. This is done via the description of the physical world as component part 8 and/or 12-dimensionalen of a coordinate area.
…
So the entire quantum theory in its indeterministischen form of futurischer probability statements of the possible one from this illustration process can be deduced, which applies also to a uniform description of all reciprocal effects and the cosmogony of the subject.
This universality decreases/goes back to the fact that the illustration chain appears as control process whenever a happening in the sense of not-stationary dynamics sets relative temporal points of zero, whereby the control does not restructure (or also not) kind evenly been made by these probability fields and in the range of the Physis existing subject in their temporal behavior.
This quantitative investigation obviously represents a logical stand structure, which (despite the not-material side of the world) only quantitative statements permits, but to the examination analyzable theses by conceptions of the world, because the thesis concerned in any case quantltativen this, shade "of the world is not suitable to be sufficient must."
From the existence time determination submitted in the supplement "term lectors" it follows that the opinion of existing hyper and their is not fictitious Unterraeumen, but in the background of physical happening stands.
Innsbruck, on 27 January 1996, 1998 Andreas Resch
Bibliographic data
Walter Droescher, Burkhard Heim
Uniform description of the world – structures of the physical world and their not-material side
Resch publishing house; Innsbruck; 1996; 3; 163 + 16 S.; ISBN 3-85 382-059-X; Book; DM 95,00
The supplement is only contained starting from pressure date 1998 in the book!
PROBLEM DEFINITION AND BEGINNING: Present conditions of physical reciprocal effect theories – suggestion of a structure-theoretical beginning – hyperarea of the world
RECIPROCAL EFFECTS: Apeiron and temporalness – space and timeless coupling constants – the Kosmogoni extension – forms of spatiotemporal reciprocal effects
HYPERCSPACE DYNAMICS: Projections in time and space – symmetries of the kosmogonischen origin – cosmogony of the elements of a Subuniversums – hyperspace dynamics and indeterministische quantum theory
CONTROLLING OF THE TIME STRUCTURE: Transformatori couplings – Informationshermetrie and Synmetronik – cosmogony of the subject
CONSEQUENCES AND SUMMARY: Consequences and questions – summary – term register – bibliography – table of contents and name
SUPPLEMENT: TERM LECTORS: Uniform description of the existence times of material elementary structures
Table of contents
Preface v
Contents of ix
Introduction 1
I. PROBLEM DEFINITION AND BEGINNING
1. Present conditions of physical reciprocal effect theories 9
2. Suggestion of a structure-theoretical beginning 12
3. Hyperarea of the world 19
II. HYPERCSPACE DYNAMICS
1. Projections in time and space 27
2. Symmetries of the kosmogonischen origin 30
3. Cosmogony of the elements of a Subuniversums 43
4. Hyperspace dynamics and indeterministische quantum theory 47
III. RECIPROCAL EFFECTS
1. Apeiron and temporalness 59
2. Space and timeless coupling constants the 71
3. Kosmogoni extension 85
4. Forms of spatiotemporal reciprocal effects 90
IV. CONTROLLING OF THE TIME STRUCTURE
1. Transformatori couplings 107
2. Informationshermetrie and Synmetronik 112
3. Cosmogony of the subject 129
V. CONSEQUENCES AND SUMMARY
1. Consequences and questions 145
2. Summary 151
Term register 157
Bibliography 159
Table of contents and name 161
Supplement: Term lectors (ATTENTION only starting from pressure date 1998!) 161
Uniform description of the existence times of material elementary structures
Back to the start of page
© Olaf Posdzech, 1998
"
QUOTE (will314159+Jan 16 2006, 02:14 PM)
Thanks HDeasy
Your Wikipedia article and the talkpages are the starting points. I had already quoted you extensively quoted from your comments on betterhumans.com. I tried to earlier participate in that discussion but couldn't figure out how to post. I usually use Opera browser. I swithced to IE for that forum.
I still had some very simple questions.
1. a particle is resonance in a metron. does it always involve just one metron or can it involve more that one. Are some particles bigger than others?
2. My exposure to QM was first through chemistry, Lagrangians, Hamiltonians and the standard cookbook forumals, then I got a BS in Pysics. The QM there was very simple, going back and forth between momentum and space representations. Bra-ket theory. What little insight i know is by reading the Feynman books. I've tried reading the Wheeler Gravitation books but 'I've never had a course in differential geometry or Tensors. I was just wondering if I wouldn't be better off learning Heim's Selector Calculus and getting his insights?
I'm 54 and a retired lawyer and disabled Vietnam Vet. I got a lot out of perusing Newton's Principia.
3. How come the big Mathematical Physicist Guns lilke Attiyeh and Witten haven't responded to a Geometrical Formula that spits out Particle Masses. It's almost as amazing as a geometrical series invloving the square root of five having something to do with information theory or the growth or rabbits (Fibonacci numbers)?
Take Care!
p.s.
of course electrons are bigger. but how much of the electron cloud is the heisenberg uncertainty principle due to their zippyness.
Thanks will314159,
Now to your questions:
> 1. a particle is resonance in a metron. does it always involve just one metron or > can it involve more that one. Are some particles bigger than others?
Particles always involve many metrons - since a nucleon is of average width 10**-15 m (1 fm) wide and a metron Planck lenght wide, i.e. 10**-35 m, you see that there are as many protons along a metre as there are metrons along a proton. Exact numbers vary from particle to particle - I admit I don't know exactly how - might get back to you on it.
> 2. My exposure to QM was first through chemistry, Lagrangians, Hamiltonians >and the standard cookbook forumals, then I got a BS in Pysics. The QM there >was very simple, going back and forth between momentum and space >representations. Bra-ket theory. What little insight i know is by reading the >Feynman books. I've tried reading the Wheeler Gravitation books but 'I've never >had a course in differential geometry or Tensors. I was just wondering if I >wouldn't be better off learning Heim's Selector Calculus and getting his insights?
Hmm - maybe - though they say that even a prof in physics takes about a year of intensive study to grasp the theory. Hauser already dissuaded a student contributing to Wikipedia from doing a PhD in Heim Theory as his primary degree was not theoretical physics. But if yours was in that direction you might brush up and the Heim theory group would help you the rest of hte way.
>I'm 54 and a retired lawyer and disabled Vietnam Vet. I got a lot out of perusing >Newton's Principia.
Witten was a lawyer too, I believe and look at him now! Shows a good intellect usually. Alos, remember that Heim was handicapped, so that shouldn't stop you.
I wish you all the luch in the world investigating this.
>3. How come the big Mathematical Physicist Guns lilke Attiyeh and Witten haven't >responded to a Geometrical Formula that spits out Particle Masses. It's almost as >amazing as a geometrical series invloving the square root of five having >something to do with information theory or the growth or rabbits (Fibonacci >numbers)?
THe problem is that this is early days still in publicising Heim Theory. I don't know about Witten, but hte Loop Quantum Gravity people were contacted and though fairly open, they were daunted by the unconventinal notation and I think unwilling to invest time in what they consider still a bit of a dark horse. But someone with no committments of their sort might be better off - I think it needs a few graduate students to take the plunge and do some inital work - remember it is really only Droescher working on it full time now - all the rest are part-timers. But see what return he got for his investment of a few year in Heim theory - he managed to understand it, and expand it to exptra dimensions and forces. So for anyone willing to invest time, now is the time! There are rich picking in there somewhere! Then the more conservative carreer physicists will possibly regret not getting in at the start.
Your Wikipedia article and the talkpages are the starting points. I had already quoted you extensively quoted from your comments on betterhumans.com. I tried to earlier participate in that discussion but couldn't figure out how to post. I usually use Opera browser. I swithced to IE for that forum.
I still had some very simple questions.
1. a particle is resonance in a metron. does it always involve just one metron or can it involve more that one. Are some particles bigger than others?
2. My exposure to QM was first through chemistry, Lagrangians, Hamiltonians and the standard cookbook forumals, then I got a BS in Pysics. The QM there was very simple, going back and forth between momentum and space representations. Bra-ket theory. What little insight i know is by reading the Feynman books. I've tried reading the Wheeler Gravitation books but 'I've never had a course in differential geometry or Tensors. I was just wondering if I wouldn't be better off learning Heim's Selector Calculus and getting his insights?
I'm 54 and a retired lawyer and disabled Vietnam Vet. I got a lot out of perusing Newton's Principia.
3. How come the big Mathematical Physicist Guns lilke Attiyeh and Witten haven't responded to a Geometrical Formula that spits out Particle Masses. It's almost as amazing as a geometrical series invloving the square root of five having something to do with information theory or the growth or rabbits (Fibonacci numbers)?
Take Care!
p.s.
of course electrons are bigger. but how much of the electron cloud is the heisenberg uncertainty principle due to their zippyness.
Thanks will314159,
Now to your questions:
> 1. a particle is resonance in a metron. does it always involve just one metron or > can it involve more that one. Are some particles bigger than others?
Particles always involve many metrons - since a nucleon is of average width 10**-15 m (1 fm) wide and a metron Planck lenght wide, i.e. 10**-35 m, you see that there are as many protons along a metre as there are metrons along a proton. Exact numbers vary from particle to particle - I admit I don't know exactly how - might get back to you on it.
> 2. My exposure to QM was first through chemistry, Lagrangians, Hamiltonians >and the standard cookbook forumals, then I got a BS in Pysics. The QM there >was very simple, going back and forth between momentum and space >representations. Bra-ket theory. What little insight i know is by reading the >Feynman books. I've tried reading the Wheeler Gravitation books but 'I've never >had a course in differential geometry or Tensors. I was just wondering if I >wouldn't be better off learning Heim's Selector Calculus and getting his insights?
Hmm - maybe - though they say that even a prof in physics takes about a year of intensive study to grasp the theory. Hauser already dissuaded a student contributing to Wikipedia from doing a PhD in Heim Theory as his primary degree was not theoretical physics. But if yours was in that direction you might brush up and the Heim theory group would help you the rest of hte way.
>I'm 54 and a retired lawyer and disabled Vietnam Vet. I got a lot out of perusing >Newton's Principia.
Witten was a lawyer too, I believe and look at him now! Shows a good intellect usually. Alos, remember that Heim was handicapped, so that shouldn't stop you.
I wish you all the luch in the world investigating this.
>3. How come the big Mathematical Physicist Guns lilke Attiyeh and Witten haven't >responded to a Geometrical Formula that spits out Particle Masses. It's almost as >amazing as a geometrical series invloving the square root of five having >something to do with information theory or the growth or rabbits (Fibonacci >numbers)?
THe problem is that this is early days still in publicising Heim Theory. I don't know about Witten, but hte Loop Quantum Gravity people were contacted and though fairly open, they were daunted by the unconventinal notation and I think unwilling to invest time in what they consider still a bit of a dark horse. But someone with no committments of their sort might be better off - I think it needs a few graduate students to take the plunge and do some inital work - remember it is really only Droescher working on it full time now - all the rest are part-timers. But see what return he got for his investment of a few year in Heim theory - he managed to understand it, and expand it to exptra dimensions and forces. So for anyone willing to invest time, now is the time! There are rich picking in there somewhere! Then the more conservative carreer physicists will possibly regret not getting in at the start.
Thanks for the reply HDeasy.
The particle size question was too easy, i should've got it by little googling, but thanks for being patient.
I actually went to a pretty good school, UNC chapel hill. And Duke is just 7 miles away. Bryce De Witt had taught there briefly (visiting) at the Physics Dept. He was a good friend of my EM prof. De Witt's grad student Everett (at Princeton) had come with the Many Histories- Many World interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Deutsch has taken off with that now with his multiverse book. His argument in a nutshell: since quantum computing is for real, where else is the computing taking place except in these alternate universes? hmmm (Heim alternate dimensions ????)
Anyway, that's where I got my interest in the many worlds concept and GR but never got the time and/or discipline to learn tensor calculus and/or differential geometry.
It's got my interest this time around
Deeply appreciate the time from your busy schedule.
The particle size question was too easy, i should've got it by little googling, but thanks for being patient.
I actually went to a pretty good school, UNC chapel hill. And Duke is just 7 miles away. Bryce De Witt had taught there briefly (visiting) at the Physics Dept. He was a good friend of my EM prof. De Witt's grad student Everett (at Princeton) had come with the Many Histories- Many World interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Deutsch has taken off with that now with his multiverse book. His argument in a nutshell: since quantum computing is for real, where else is the computing taking place except in these alternate universes? hmmm (Heim alternate dimensions ????)
Anyway, that's where I got my interest in the many worlds concept and GR but never got the time and/or discipline to learn tensor calculus and/or differential geometry.
It's got my interest this time around
Deeply appreciate the time from your busy schedule.
Dunno if the Resch publishing house is actually selling volumes of the Heim books or not, but they do list his books on a webpage and provide an e-mail address for those that want to purchase them:
Heim books
Burkhard home
Uniform description of the world
The interest in the Heim theory increased more in the last years ever and required therefore a total expenditure of the hauptwerke with spreading register under the title: " Burkhard home: Uniform description of the world "
HOME, Burkhard: Elementary structures of the subject . Uniform structural quantenfeldtheorie of the subject and gravitation. Bd. 1. - 3., change of. Aufl. Innsbruck: Resch, 1998 (uniform description of the world; 1) - X, 313 S., ISBN 3-85382-008-5, LN: EUR 86,00 [ D ]
HOME, Burkhard: Elementary structures of the subject . Uniform structural quantenfeldtheorie of the subject and gravitation. Bd. 2. - 2., unveraend. Aufl. - Innsbruck: Resch, 1996 (uniform description of the world; 2) - XII, 385 S., ISBN 3-85382-036-0 LN: EUR 89,60 [ D ]
DROE, walter/HOME, Burkhard: Structures of the physical world and its not-material side . - Innsbruck: Resch, 1996 (uniform description of the world; 3) - X, 163 + 16 S., ISBN 3-85382-059-X LN: EUR 48,70 [ D ]
HOME, Burkhard/DROE, walter/RESCH, Andreas: Introduction to Burkhard home: Uniform description of the world . With term -, formula and total registers. - Innsbruck: Resch, 1998 (uniform description of the world; 4) ISBN 3-85382-064-6, LN: EUR 50,20 [ D ]
Order: IGW@uibk.ac.at
The Heim theory stated in the volumes of the series of publications stated here supplies, briefly in summary to agreement with measured values the following results:
- proof of the equality of carrier and heavy mass (after this proof A. Einstein has in vain searched)
- mass, spin, isospin, charge, strangeness, radioactive half-life of elementary particle, their antiparticles, radioactivity
- explanation of the gravitation
- explanation of the magnetic field of the earth and the neutrons
- Sommerfeld fine structure constant as pure number
- explanation of wave particle dualism
- derivative of the uncertainty relation
- emergence of the time and the cosmos
I guess "heim" translates into "home" when the page is translated.
Heim books
QUOTE
Burkhard home
Uniform description of the world
The interest in the Heim theory increased more in the last years ever and required therefore a total expenditure of the hauptwerke with spreading register under the title: " Burkhard home: Uniform description of the world "
HOME, Burkhard: Elementary structures of the subject . Uniform structural quantenfeldtheorie of the subject and gravitation. Bd. 1. - 3., change of. Aufl. Innsbruck: Resch, 1998 (uniform description of the world; 1) - X, 313 S., ISBN 3-85382-008-5, LN: EUR 86,00 [ D ]
HOME, Burkhard: Elementary structures of the subject . Uniform structural quantenfeldtheorie of the subject and gravitation. Bd. 2. - 2., unveraend. Aufl. - Innsbruck: Resch, 1996 (uniform description of the world; 2) - XII, 385 S., ISBN 3-85382-036-0 LN: EUR 89,60 [ D ]
DROE, walter/HOME, Burkhard: Structures of the physical world and its not-material side . - Innsbruck: Resch, 1996 (uniform description of the world; 3) - X, 163 + 16 S., ISBN 3-85382-059-X LN: EUR 48,70 [ D ]
HOME, Burkhard/DROE, walter/RESCH, Andreas: Introduction to Burkhard home: Uniform description of the world . With term -, formula and total registers. - Innsbruck: Resch, 1998 (uniform description of the world; 4) ISBN 3-85382-064-6, LN: EUR 50,20 [ D ]
Order: IGW@uibk.ac.at
The Heim theory stated in the volumes of the series of publications stated here supplies, briefly in summary to agreement with measured values the following results:
- proof of the equality of carrier and heavy mass (after this proof A. Einstein has in vain searched)
- mass, spin, isospin, charge, strangeness, radioactive half-life of elementary particle, their antiparticles, radioactivity
- explanation of the gravitation
- explanation of the magnetic field of the earth and the neutrons
- Sommerfeld fine structure constant as pure number
- explanation of wave particle dualism
- derivative of the uncertainty relation
- emergence of the time and the cosmos
I guess "heim" translates into "home" when the page is translated.
Systan translated HEIM to Home and I changed back to Heim on my machine translation.. but when I asked it to translate HOME it gave me Haupt and when I did HAUPT I got Head. There's only so much you can do with those programs.
"Systan übersetzte HEIM zum Haus und ich änderte zurück zu Heim auf meiner maschinellen Übersetzung. aber, als ich um um sie bat, um HAUS zu übersetzen, es gab mir Haupt und als ich HAUPT tat, erhielt ich Kopf. Es gibt nur soviel Sie kann mit jenen Programmen tun."
"Systan übersetzte HEIM zum Haus und ich änderte zurück zu Heim auf meiner maschinellen Übersetzung. aber, als ich um um sie bat, um HAUS zu übersetzen, es gab mir Haupt und als ich HAUPT tat, erhielt ich Kopf. Es gibt nur soviel Sie kann mit jenen Programmen tun."
"- the standard model has lattice QCD, which uses massive CPU time on most powerful computers to approximate some baryon masses - they were delight to get within 10%! Heim gets to within 0.01% and also for leptons and other particles, on simple Sun workstation in a fraction of a second of CPU."
Wow, I was hoping this would be the case for me to have a very accurate universe plus quests or scenarios on my home computer. I am thinking the scenarios would be based of of mass condensation. Also I was thinking of a term dissipation that might be used for energy spread into other dimensions. Still have to read so many articles that were posted about this here. I am very excited about this because it is the first simple dimensional theory I have gotten into. Also I want to make the program open source or under an OSI approved contract so people can distribute it freely and manipulate the original sourcecode.
What’s odd about it is if it took so little processing power to simulate it then I wonder how little energy it would take to create a hyper-engine in the real world or realspace.
“Only if the twists in space are stable is a real particle formed as opposed to a virtual one.”
Yah, this is very interesting because I was thinking that because of the connections of objects and relativity that mass was too interconnected to other objects to be one singular particle although it can be looked at as a cross dimensional single particle I guess but in a sense our minds are too small to comprehend that way. I was confused at all the scientists on other forums thinking too much in absolutes but I guess QM doesn’t fit with dimensional theory that well. I just hope that we can somehow fix that.
Well I’ll keep reading away to make sure my ideas fit with current theories.
Also check out this discussion. This forum seems very nice as well.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.ph...5597#post875597
Wow, I was hoping this would be the case for me to have a very accurate universe plus quests or scenarios on my home computer. I am thinking the scenarios would be based of of mass condensation. Also I was thinking of a term dissipation that might be used for energy spread into other dimensions. Still have to read so many articles that were posted about this here. I am very excited about this because it is the first simple dimensional theory I have gotten into. Also I want to make the program open source or under an OSI approved contract so people can distribute it freely and manipulate the original sourcecode.
What’s odd about it is if it took so little processing power to simulate it then I wonder how little energy it would take to create a hyper-engine in the real world or realspace.
“Only if the twists in space are stable is a real particle formed as opposed to a virtual one.”
Yah, this is very interesting because I was thinking that because of the connections of objects and relativity that mass was too interconnected to other objects to be one singular particle although it can be looked at as a cross dimensional single particle I guess but in a sense our minds are too small to comprehend that way. I was confused at all the scientists on other forums thinking too much in absolutes but I guess QM doesn’t fit with dimensional theory that well. I just hope that we can somehow fix that.
Well I’ll keep reading away to make sure my ideas fit with current theories.
Also check out this discussion. This forum seems very nice as well.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.ph...5597#post875597
QUOTE (will314159+Jan 14 2006, 08:51 PM)
iGlad to see you working through it Blam. Did you find the Hugh Deasey comments helpful?
t was my understanding that Heim had dropped back down to 6 dimensions but that Droescher-Hauser has bumped back the theory back up to 8 dimensions with their extensions. Their extensions are responsible for gravitophotons and maybe Quintessence (darkmatter forces).
I guess there's no substitute for somebody really serious about learning this stuff than buying the Heim books in Deutsche and learning that language. With Systran translator available today, it shouldn't be too hard to read
trying to go back and forth between regular tensor calculus and selector calculus has a price. I really learned a lot from reading Newton's Principia. A few of his diagrams were just priceless. Especially the one showing his version of vector addition of a satellilte orbiting the earth.
I didn't see any Heim books on Amazon.com. Wait a couple of months.
There will even be a Heim theory for Dummies.
Speaking of version for 'dummies' - Von Ludwiger is working on transcribing tapes of Heim speaking on his theory (in German admittedly) and wants to then have it translated into English and published as an introduction. Apparently when he talks about it, it's much easier to understand where he's coming from.
Apropos: does anyone have an idea about publishers might be interested in that?
Or would Lulu.com be the thing for getting it quickly on Amazon?
t was my understanding that Heim had dropped back down to 6 dimensions but that Droescher-Hauser has bumped back the theory back up to 8 dimensions with their extensions. Their extensions are responsible for gravitophotons and maybe Quintessence (darkmatter forces).
I guess there's no substitute for somebody really serious about learning this stuff than buying the Heim books in Deutsche and learning that language. With Systran translator available today, it shouldn't be too hard to read
trying to go back and forth between regular tensor calculus and selector calculus has a price. I really learned a lot from reading Newton's Principia. A few of his diagrams were just priceless. Especially the one showing his version of vector addition of a satellilte orbiting the earth.
I didn't see any Heim books on Amazon.com. Wait a couple of months.
There will even be a Heim theory for Dummies.
Speaking of version for 'dummies' - Von Ludwiger is working on transcribing tapes of Heim speaking on his theory (in German admittedly) and wants to then have it translated into English and published as an introduction. Apparently when he talks about it, it's much easier to understand where he's coming from.
Apropos: does anyone have an idea about publishers might be interested in that?
Or would Lulu.com be the thing for getting it quickly on Amazon?
thanks for the post HDeasy, I was just thinking was things had really slowed down. Actually I was wrong in the quote. The Droscher extensions bring the theory back up to 12 dimensions.
I was just reading some physics gossip on the net and going through General Relativity again. How Schrodinger wound up in your country of Ireland. He opposed the Nazis so he had to leave Austria, but had a tough time in England and America because of his unusual living arrangements. He lived with his wife AND mistress. I found out why my hero Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac has a French name. His father was Swiss who taught French at Bristol. He hated his father and refused to invite him to the Nobel prize ceremony. The Dirac Delta function is a wierd thing, a spike. We used it in electrical engineering a lot as well as physics. Dirac started out in EE. Anyway I got an autographed copy of his principles of Quantum Mechanics. I remember him asking me if the pen would write when I asked him to autograph it. Antony Scalia asked me the same thing, He was an old man when I met him. He had come up from Florida State to deliver a lecture at the morehead Planetarium at UNC. He was married to Wigner's sister. John von Neumann hated the Dirac Delta function. i had a German Hungarian Electrical Engineering professor that had known Johnny. he said von Neumann loved to drink.
Back to the subject
As far as Heim.
The subject never made TV or the big media here. It never made the Washington post or the new york times, Reuters or the Associated Press. I saw it as a little blurb on the MSNBC site. The i googled it. Which led to the Wikipedia article. The I meticulously went through every single google and yahoo entry and technorati blog search and have probably built up about a couple of hundred pages.
The point being. The big media really have not picked up on the true significance of this theory yet.
Some of it from exotic sources like the Raelians or Vedanta philosoply.
I have never heard of Lulu. I just went to the site. Seems extensive. This Heim thing is going to take a while to build up. Little things would help. Like for example a 16 line or so vbasic program that spits out the particle masses (is that what peopl
I was just reading some physics gossip on the net and going through General Relativity again. How Schrodinger wound up in your country of Ireland. He opposed the Nazis so he had to leave Austria, but had a tough time in England and America because of his unusual living arrangements. He lived with his wife AND mistress. I found out why my hero Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac has a French name. His father was Swiss who taught French at Bristol. He hated his father and refused to invite him to the Nobel prize ceremony. The Dirac Delta function is a wierd thing, a spike. We used it in electrical engineering a lot as well as physics. Dirac started out in EE. Anyway I got an autographed copy of his principles of Quantum Mechanics. I remember him asking me if the pen would write when I asked him to autograph it. Antony Scalia asked me the same thing, He was an old man when I met him. He had come up from Florida State to deliver a lecture at the morehead Planetarium at UNC. He was married to Wigner's sister. John von Neumann hated the Dirac Delta function. i had a German Hungarian Electrical Engineering professor that had known Johnny. he said von Neumann loved to drink.
Back to the subject
As far as Heim.
The subject never made TV or the big media here. It never made the Washington post or the new york times, Reuters or the Associated Press. I saw it as a little blurb on the MSNBC site. The i googled it. Which led to the Wikipedia article. The I meticulously went through every single google and yahoo entry and technorati blog search and have probably built up about a couple of hundred pages.
The point being. The big media really have not picked up on the true significance of this theory yet.
Some of it from exotic sources like the Raelians or Vedanta philosoply.
I have never heard of Lulu. I just went to the site. Seems extensive. This Heim thing is going to take a while to build up. Little things would help. Like for example a 16 line or so vbasic program that spits out the particle masses (is that what peopl