I just found a treasure trove through googlinghttp://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
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
. 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
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)
Posted on 1/11/2006 11:07:08 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink
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
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
Spread the Word!!
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.
Posted on 1/13/2006 10:30:39 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink "