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 people use now) or do they just use an excel spreadsheet?. Anyway this thing will build up slowly. Then the demand will build. The spacefllight and warp speed is gravy. The real excitement should be the TOE.
Listening to HEIM? Depends what he sounds like? Marketing? Depends on the cost. If too high. It"ll be on Kazaa Resurrection in MP3 form in no time at all.
What would be really nice is some interactive tutorials starting out with vectors to tensors to field theory. There's some really neat physics animations on the net. I don't know if there are any at that level.
In any case. You have probably done more than anyone to introduce people to this difficult subject. I deeply appreciate your time.
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 people use now) or do they just use an excel spreadsheet?. Anyway this thing will build up slowly. Then the demand will build. The spacefllight and warp speed is gravy. The real excitement should be the TOE.
Listening to HEIM? Depends what he sounds like? Marketing? Depends on the cost. If too high. It"ll be on Kazaa Resurrection in MP3 form in no time at all.
What would be really nice is some interactive tutorials starting out with vectors to tensors to field theory. There's some really neat physics animations on the net. I don't know if there are any at that level.
In any case. You have probably done more than anyone to introduce people to this difficult subject. I deeply appreciate your time.
will314159:
“Like for example a 16 line or so vbasic program that spits out the particle masses (is that what people use now) or do they just use an excel spreadsheet?”
It would be kind of cool to have a simple ‘equation creator’ online that you could enter in the equation and then get answers from that.
For extremely accurate graphical(modeled) representations, I’ll be trying the 36 equations off of 6D in C. C is the most common native or most accurate language because of no complicated class objects to sort through. Actually I might use assembly as well maybe as it’s even more accurate but C should suffice.
If anyone wants to give advice on what to put down that’s fine too. I still have to sort through allot of this. Plus it would be nice if it was ‘open source’ so people could go back into the source code and manipulate things on their own without having to rely on the original creator.
Here are some contracts:
http://www.opensource.org/
“What would be really nice is some interactive tutorials starting out with vectors to tensors to field theory.”
As far as presentation or interactive tutorial, for something simple online, I would think Flash would be best or maybe OpenOffice.org Presentation and Formula for simple gif animations. There is an Opensource ‘free’ Flash kit here. Their front page gives examples of how this type of media works.
http://www.laszlosystems.com/
Mike001:
Also I understand like on Wikipedia for example people should only post the important stuff and not like bomb information. Totally understandable.
By the way, I think, at that level, it would just create a black hole like a singularity effect they might call it. I have heard of moving black holes through space and what damage they would cause to earth for example. It could actually go entirely through the planet causing extensive damage like downed trees etc.
Also thanks hdeasy for taking the initiative.
“Like for example a 16 line or so vbasic program that spits out the particle masses (is that what people use now) or do they just use an excel spreadsheet?”
It would be kind of cool to have a simple ‘equation creator’ online that you could enter in the equation and then get answers from that.
For extremely accurate graphical(modeled) representations, I’ll be trying the 36 equations off of 6D in C. C is the most common native or most accurate language because of no complicated class objects to sort through. Actually I might use assembly as well maybe as it’s even more accurate but C should suffice.
If anyone wants to give advice on what to put down that’s fine too. I still have to sort through allot of this. Plus it would be nice if it was ‘open source’ so people could go back into the source code and manipulate things on their own without having to rely on the original creator.
Here are some contracts:
http://www.opensource.org/
“What would be really nice is some interactive tutorials starting out with vectors to tensors to field theory.”
As far as presentation or interactive tutorial, for something simple online, I would think Flash would be best or maybe OpenOffice.org Presentation and Formula for simple gif animations. There is an Opensource ‘free’ Flash kit here. Their front page gives examples of how this type of media works.
http://www.laszlosystems.com/
Mike001:
Also I understand like on Wikipedia for example people should only post the important stuff and not like bomb information. Totally understandable.
By the way, I think, at that level, it would just create a black hole like a singularity effect they might call it. I have heard of moving black holes through space and what damage they would cause to earth for example. It could actually go entirely through the planet causing extensive damage like downed trees etc.
Also thanks hdeasy for taking the initiative.
It's my understanding that a string or a brane is actually "something" and not just spacetime. A point particle was just not complicated enough so it was expanded to a string. And likewise a string was just not complicated enough so it becomes the intersection of two branes llike a line is an intersection of two planes. But the planes are actually something.
In general relativity, matter deforms spacetime, then matter follows the geodesics of spacetime. But matter is not spacetime. It is some thing else. It is OTHER. So also in quantum mechanics. Particles may pop in and out of vacuum but they are still something. they are not space time. Only in Heim theory and maybe loop quantum theory are spacetime and matter-energy merged. That's my little understanding of the subject.
As far as the particle mass equation. it's in the pdf files on the web. Let me see if i can pull it up. It might even be in the wikipedia article. It is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory#The_mass_formulae
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/F_Hei...ormula_1989.pdf
On second thought. I don't know how much insight the code would give you more that reading the article.
Take Care!
In general relativity, matter deforms spacetime, then matter follows the geodesics of spacetime. But matter is not spacetime. It is some thing else. It is OTHER. So also in quantum mechanics. Particles may pop in and out of vacuum but they are still something. they are not space time. Only in Heim theory and maybe loop quantum theory are spacetime and matter-energy merged. That's my little understanding of the subject.
As far as the particle mass equation. it's in the pdf files on the web. Let me see if i can pull it up. It might even be in the wikipedia article. It is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory#The_mass_formulae
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/F_Hei...ormula_1989.pdf
On second thought. I don't know how much insight the code would give you more that reading the article.
Take Care!
Thanks a lot. I just read (more exactly, I just saw) these documents some days ago, but the mass formula is expanding again and again and I don't know exactly wich are the mathematical or physical reasons for these expansions.
I "think" strings or branes are spacetime, at least in concept, other thing is the mathematical treatement of them. In the equation of a vibrating string you only writes a distortion (phi) of "something", this something is the media (a wave in water is water) and you know what media is through ist permitivity constant.
I "think" strings or branes are spacetime, at least in concept, other thing is the mathematical treatement of them. In the equation of a vibrating string you only writes a distortion (phi) of "something", this something is the media (a wave in water is water) and you know what media is through ist permitivity constant.
" I "think" strings or branes are spacetime, at least in concept, other thing is the mathematical treatement of them. In the equation of a vibrating string you only writes a distortion (phi) of "something", this something is the media (a wave in water is water) and you know what media is through ist permitivity constant. "
At one time people used to believe light waves "waved" in an aether. The Michelson-Morley experiment destroyed that belief. Since then, people just said that light was an electromagnetic wave in vacuum. An energy wave. An alternating electric magnetic field that propgagted." They also said light was made up of photon particles.
When quantum mechanics came along, they started talking about matter waves. The waves then becam probability waves. The wave meant nothing but its square meant a probability density. There was still a point particle behind it subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The more you knew about its position, the less certain was its momentum.
But when Heim quantized space to a metron which is a square of Planck dimensions. It seems now that space has become, well "something" concrete. Nothing has become something. Nothing has never been nothing anyway, not since Dirac and electrons and positrons, negative enery and positive energy.
At one time people used to believe light waves "waved" in an aether. The Michelson-Morley experiment destroyed that belief. Since then, people just said that light was an electromagnetic wave in vacuum. An energy wave. An alternating electric magnetic field that propgagted." They also said light was made up of photon particles.
When quantum mechanics came along, they started talking about matter waves. The waves then becam probability waves. The wave meant nothing but its square meant a probability density. There was still a point particle behind it subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The more you knew about its position, the less certain was its momentum.
But when Heim quantized space to a metron which is a square of Planck dimensions. It seems now that space has become, well "something" concrete. Nothing has become something. Nothing has never been nothing anyway, not since Dirac and electrons and positrons, negative enery and positive energy.
This may be a little off topic, but it does concern Heim theory, so here goes:
The galaxies don't rotate right, assuming Newton/Einstein's gravity theories are right, unless they have a lot more mass than is visible. This is, of course, the missing mass problem:
Wikipedia, galactic rotation
(The bottom curve illustrates predicted rotation, the top curve is a generalized illustration of typical spiral galaxy rotation curves found experimentally)
Galaxies, I guess, are generally something like 10^5 light years in diameter. The main problem is that the rotation curves of galaxies are too flat- the velocity should fall off with increase in radius, but instead remains roughly constant as radius increases. It seems to me that instead of assuming extra mass, one could assume that gravity acts differently over very large scales than it should.
Heim's theory supposedly predicts that gravitation consists of several parts, and because of this gravitational attraction falls to zero at scales of approximately 10^8 light years, if I am reading the numbers right, and there is no translation error. I don't know quantitatively what the curve looks like, though.
If Heim was right qualitatively, but off quantitatively by a factor of 10-100 or so, it seems to me that his theory might partially explain the flat rotation curves. Using the sun as an example, masses further away from us in the Milky Way galaxy should exert less gravitational attraction on us than predicted by Newton/Einstein. I think that this might lead to a flatter rotation curve, but could be wrong.
Perhaps finding new particles is the hard way to test Heim's theories. Maybe it would be quicker to look at astronomy, particularly at galactic rotation, to see if Heim's theories reduce the amount of missing mass. On the other hand, if Heim's stuff makes the missing mass/galactic rotation problem worse, maybe that argues against that specific predition of Heim theory.
I guess that there are a few astrophysicists who have been thinking in similar directions:
Modified Newtonian Dynamics
(The bottom curve illustrates predicted rotation, the top curve is a generalized illustration of typical spiral galaxy rotation curves found experimentally)
Galaxies, I guess, are generally something like 10^5 light years in diameter. The main problem is that the rotation curves of galaxies are too flat- the velocity should fall off with increase in radius, but instead remains roughly constant as radius increases. It seems to me that instead of assuming extra mass, one could assume that gravity acts differently over very large scales than it should.
Heim's theory supposedly predicts that gravitation consists of several parts, and because of this gravitational attraction falls to zero at scales of approximately 10^8 light years, if I am reading the numbers right, and there is no translation error. I don't know quantitatively what the curve looks like, though.
If Heim was right qualitatively, but off quantitatively by a factor of 10-100 or so, it seems to me that his theory might partially explain the flat rotation curves. Using the sun as an example, masses further away from us in the Milky Way galaxy should exert less gravitational attraction on us than predicted by Newton/Einstein. I think that this might lead to a flatter rotation curve, but could be wrong.
Perhaps finding new particles is the hard way to test Heim's theories. Maybe it would be quicker to look at astronomy, particularly at galactic rotation, to see if Heim's theories reduce the amount of missing mass. On the other hand, if Heim's stuff makes the missing mass/galactic rotation problem worse, maybe that argues against that specific predition of Heim theory.
I guess that there are a few astrophysicists who have been thinking in similar directions:
Modified Newtonian Dynamics
In physics, the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) is a burgeoning theory that attempts to explain the galaxy rotation problem by modifying Newton's second law of motion. (The most widely accepted approach to explaining this problem postulates the existence of dark matter.) MOND was proposed in 1983 by Mordehai Milgrom. The central pillar of MOND is the assumption that Newton's Second Law (F = ma) is a high-acceleration approximation of a more accurate law that describes all accelerations. The proposed modification would only become relevant when the total acceleration of a body falls significantly below the constant a0. Consequently, observations of this behavior could never be made on Earth.
Both MOND and the Heim theory seem to predict similar things: acceleration experienced from gravitational sources that are very far away is less than newtonian dynamics says it should be. MOND is claimed to be experimentally consistent with most or all current observational data- without assuming massive amounts of dark "missing mass" distributed in massive halos around most or all spiral galaxies.
Please excuse, I am following this trail of information, and this is not Spam. But what does this mean good elf?
http://www.barbelith.com/topic/23410
Hello
I've done just that. At this point i've basicaly coded all of the equations necissary to calculate the mass of particals in their basic state. I am however having problems with the so called "self coupling function" which I can't seem to get to return meaningfull values (it returns values in the order of E^88 dwarfing the other parts of the equation). Without the 'self coupling' function The results of the mass equation are 'pretty close' to the values referenced in G_Selected_Results.pdf.
What is strange about the self coupling function is that parts of the function which are relatively small don't seem to return the same intermediate value as those referenced in G_Selected_Results.pdf. Particularialy I'm having problems with A on Table VI (equation B23 in
F_Heims_Mass_Formula_1989.pdf).
Also i'm not getting entirerly the same values for a1, a2 and a3 as those listed in tabel VIII. Finaly it seems the W_N=0 function is completely off resulting in the E^88 values.
This is the result of a weekends worth of work so far and since the equations are very hairy i'm sure there are error's in my code.
Also Being a computer science student with no particular background in physics it took me some time understanding the input values for the particals and the physics constants. Here i would like to note that the value for Newtons Gravitation Constant given in E_Heims_Mass_Formula_1982.pdf is wrong since the value should be in 10^-11 and not 10^11. Besides this it seems a number of the other constants have been refined since the 1982 note was writen, I've used these newer values instead. I've also managed to discover that the result of the mass equation is given in kg since the derived so called 'mass constant' is in kg. Thus i convert this value to MeV.
The code is writen in java. If anyone is interested in taking a look at it I will make it availible (Perhaps someone with fresh eyes can discover mistakes i have made). My plan was to create an applet such that a heims mass calculator could be displayed on a website.
Regards Martin
Oops in my previous post i meant to quote Blam:
I got this off of Wikipedia and looks like a good place to start if I want to have an equation base for a program. Heims 1989 Mass forumula.
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/F_Hei...ormula_1989.pdf
Regards Martin
Those are good numbers!
Your numbers themselves are far better than any other theory, it seems.
So, would you say that the formula basically works?
I was actualy quite suprised at the accuracy of the partical masses (albeit not at all to 6 significant figures yet) because they all became that accurate at once. Meaning that in the first few runs of the mass equation i was getting terrible results at which point i discovered Newtons Gravitational Constant was incorrect in the 1982 paper. After the value was corrected all the partical masses were suddenly accurate.
So yes the formula basicaly works, however i really would like to get the 'self coupling' part included as well. It would be interesting to verify that the mass equation is more accurate with refined constants anno 2006. Also it's possible the program might be more precise as i am using 32 bit decimal precision (I am not aware of the precision calculated by the original program).
By the way these equations are nothing for a modern personal computer. The mass results of all particals are spit out in a matter of miliseconds.
Regards Martin
Looking over the early equations i remembered that i couldn't find what was meant by the symbol 'u' in the equation labeled B8 (middle of page 12) in:
F_Heims_Mass_Formula_1989.pdf
Does anyone else know what is meant by 'u'? I've simply substituted 1 when i coded the equation. Which resulted in the following deviation compared to the values listed in tabel VII of:
G_Selected_Results.pdf
=====> N3(1,1) GOOD
result: 1.9573176662909728
=====> N3(1,0) INCORRECT!!!
result: 1.957185562715119
table: 2.0
diff: 0.0428144372848811
=====> N3(2,1) INCORRECT!!!
result: 2.598827744726007
table: 2.59881924
diff: 8.504726006997032E-6
=====> N3(2,0) INCORRECT!!!
result: 2.6600909750254496
table: 2.71828183
diff: 0.058190854974550454
=====> N3(2,2) INCORRECT!!!
result: 2.059355623140513
table: 2.12190443
diff: 0.06254880685948683
This probably accounts for a great deal of the inaccuracy. Alternatively i could hard code these values but that wouldn't be very elegant.
Regards Martin
I've done just that. At this point i've basicaly coded all of the equations necissary to calculate the mass of particals in their basic state.
Wow! Not bad for a weekend's work. In the meantime, Dr. Anton Mueller, who did the coding for the Heim-Theory group, had this to say about claims that the formula was a ' fudge' ( which I also contradicted in a recent posting by indicating that no fudge would have improved estimates from the 1982 values by using a more accurate, modern estimate for G):
thank you for your comments on "forum.physorg.com" . Unfortunately there are
yet some guys unwilling to read details but nevertheless intentionally
complaining that the mass formulas were faked . So in addition to the source
code which I sent you in August 2005 the following should be brought to
attention :
The four extra quantum numbers used in this code ( integers below 31 )
describe different states of the four configuration zones of the particles .
There exist formulas whereby these numbers can be determined in a straight
ahead manner which is described in a typewritten report by B.Heim which seems
to be dated later than his first book (1980) but earlier than his third one
(1996) in which also computational results for the lifetimes are provided .
What Poessel calls deliberately truncated infinit series is in fact a
misperception of an algorithm described in the report which leads you
successively to a set of integers which can not be choosen at will .The
values of the resulting four quantum numbers are used as input to the code
you have obtained. Since these numbers have been already computed and
tabulated by Heim there was no need in programming that stuff again. This
also means that the formulas for determining the 6x6 constants used within
the former DESY code are no more needed.
Of course the code might be ported to any other computer language since it
is really simple structured ( besides some awful parenthethis stacking)
However , one had to take care of the rounding convention for floating to
integer conversion and it is necessary to use double precision.
By the way , the three diameters appearing in Heims theory at the origin of
time are of concern only for his cosmology , as is his modified gravitational
law at great distances . I am not supporting those features.
As von Ludwiger and Gruener have shown in their article , most of Heims
theory can also be handled using conventional differential calculus , only
when it comes to avoid singularities, metric quantizaton is essential .
Hello folks,
Don't have time now since i'm going to work.
I'll post the code sometime this evening.
Regards Martin
Vilvi -
I think the "u" value could be indicated in equation B50 and also could be used in equation B49. The "u" value is not calculated in the tables of document "G_Selected_Results", but for example, the value "y" is calculated in Table IX (corresponding to equation B48) but in one document is in capital letters and in the other no. Perhaps with "u" value occurs the same. (May be, may be not).
Thanks for the input. However i don't think that's the case because as i understand it the function N3 (equation B8) only relies on the parameters k and q (this is apparent from table VII) and U is a function over the parameters k, q, P, Q and kappa.
hdeasy -
Thanks for the input. However i don't think that's the case because as i understand it the function N3 (equation B8) only relies on the parameters k and q (this is apparent from table VII) and U is a function over the parameters k, q, P, Q and kappa.
hdeasy -
So in addition to the source code which I sent you in August 2005 the following should be brought to attention :
Since you have the original source code perhaps you have an answer to what the symbol 'u' is? Also at some point I'd really like to see the origional source code if this is possible.
I'm going to clean my code up a bit, add some comments and throw it on a website over the next few hours. I'll post a link here when i'm done.
Regards Martin
OK, here you go:
Heim Mass Formula Program
I'd greatly appreciate comments from people that find errors in the code (which i'm certain there are many of). Anyways enjoy.
Regards Martin
Since you have the original source code perhaps you have an answer to what the symbol 'u' is? Also at some point I'd really like to see the origional source code if this is possible.
Hi Spony!
Congratulations again on your achievement. Now, looking through the code I found what looked like equation B.8 - and one of the terms with a constant u
! u , c.f. compini.for --> /const/
Looking in compini.for,
u = 2.D0*pi*ebn ! # const
where
ebn = Dexp(1.D0)
Seems to imply it's just 2 Pi x e .
I could be wrong - so I'll dig a bit more and see if that fits.
One other poiint - in your formula web page, you again spell it ' partical' where it should be ' particle' . Just
to give a better impression
1. Is this process of "condensation" & modification, and subsequent reestablishment of original configuration represented elsewhere in Science?
2. What is the size of the 4 concentric zones?
3. What is the length of time involved for this reestablishment?
4. Why would the 3 structural zones be IMPOSSIBLE to penetrate for the electron, and create the illusion of 3 interior "quark" particles for the proton/neutron?
Any comments would be appreciated.
TRoc
I. Von Ludwiger finally found some time away from the transcription of 40 tapes of Heim talking onto a set of 3 x 60 pages to answer a bit more fully Troc's queiries:
1. The first question refers probably to the structure fluxes. In these, maxima and minima of condensations of the Metrons interchange cyclically. Such a geometro-dynamic description has not been given in science so far!
2. The size of the 4 internal zones of differently high density was not indicated by Heim.
3. With "Reestablishment" is meant the setting up of an initial condition of the structure fluxes. Heim can indicate the lengths of time for this from the possible circulation speeds of the partial fluxes and derives from this the lifetimes. But I can not explain that so fast now first I would have to read over it again.
4. The 4 structure zones have only a very small extent and differently high densities. The three zones differ in their densities by the powers 4, 3 and 2. The zone, in which the number of Metrons with the 4th Power is densely occupied, is impenetrable by electrons. In addition, the other two zones are so small that electrons are only scattered by them.
The fact that the quarks cannot be torn apart goes back to the fact that all 3 (in baryons) and/or 2 (in mesons) are only projections of a 6-dimensionalen flux system, which forms a structural unit. Perhaps this answer is sufficient for a start..
The galaxies don't rotate right, assuming Newton/Einstein's gravity theories are right, unless they have a lot more mass than is visible. This is, of course, the missing mass problem:
Wikipedia, galactic rotation
QUOTE
In astrophysics, the rotation curve of a galaxy is a graph that plots the orbital velocity of the stars or gas in the galaxy on the y-axis against the distance from the center of the galaxy on the x-axis.
Stars rotate around the center of galaxies at a constant velocity over a large range of distances from the center of the galaxy. Thus they rotate much faster than would be expected if they were in a free Newtonian potential φ = 1 / r and much slower than than if the galaxy was a solid body. Stars rotate as if they are in a logarithmic potential. Despite many suggestions the reason for this is not known. It is not only stars, also gas rotates as if it is in a logarithmic potential, and this has been verified in both optical and radio wavelengths for all sorts of galaxies.
By far the most popular explanation is that there is large amounts of dark matter residing in contrived places in exactly the right quantities to make the overall potential logarithmic every time. The main alternative to dark matter is to suggest that the field equations governing galactic dynamics are not the same as the field equations governing the dynamics of the solar system. Relativistic field equations equate geometrical objects such as the Einstein tensor, to matter objects such as the stress energy momentum tensor of a perfect fluid. Some objects such as the cosmological constant can have an interpretation on either side. There are many variants on the choice of the left-hand-side of the field equations to the Einstein tensor, one would typically choose one of these and see if it allows for solutions with a logarithmic potential. Another approach is that in relativity theory the paths of particles are geodesics. If one associates the stars in a galaxy with geodesics it provides a constraint on the types of spacetime that can model a galaxy.
Stars rotate around the center of galaxies at a constant velocity over a large range of distances from the center of the galaxy. Thus they rotate much faster than would be expected if they were in a free Newtonian potential φ = 1 / r and much slower than than if the galaxy was a solid body. Stars rotate as if they are in a logarithmic potential. Despite many suggestions the reason for this is not known. It is not only stars, also gas rotates as if it is in a logarithmic potential, and this has been verified in both optical and radio wavelengths for all sorts of galaxies.
By far the most popular explanation is that there is large amounts of dark matter residing in contrived places in exactly the right quantities to make the overall potential logarithmic every time. The main alternative to dark matter is to suggest that the field equations governing galactic dynamics are not the same as the field equations governing the dynamics of the solar system. Relativistic field equations equate geometrical objects such as the Einstein tensor, to matter objects such as the stress energy momentum tensor of a perfect fluid. Some objects such as the cosmological constant can have an interpretation on either side. There are many variants on the choice of the left-hand-side of the field equations to the Einstein tensor, one would typically choose one of these and see if it allows for solutions with a logarithmic potential. Another approach is that in relativity theory the paths of particles are geodesics. If one associates the stars in a galaxy with geodesics it provides a constraint on the types of spacetime that can model a galaxy.
(The bottom curve illustrates predicted rotation, the top curve is a generalized illustration of typical spiral galaxy rotation curves found experimentally)
Galaxies, I guess, are generally something like 10^5 light years in diameter. The main problem is that the rotation curves of galaxies are too flat- the velocity should fall off with increase in radius, but instead remains roughly constant as radius increases. It seems to me that instead of assuming extra mass, one could assume that gravity acts differently over very large scales than it should.
Heim's theory supposedly predicts that gravitation consists of several parts, and because of this gravitational attraction falls to zero at scales of approximately 10^8 light years, if I am reading the numbers right, and there is no translation error. I don't know quantitatively what the curve looks like, though.
If Heim was right qualitatively, but off quantitatively by a factor of 10-100 or so, it seems to me that his theory might partially explain the flat rotation curves. Using the sun as an example, masses further away from us in the Milky Way galaxy should exert less gravitational attraction on us than predicted by Newton/Einstein. I think that this might lead to a flatter rotation curve, but could be wrong.
Perhaps finding new particles is the hard way to test Heim's theories. Maybe it would be quicker to look at astronomy, particularly at galactic rotation, to see if Heim's theories reduce the amount of missing mass. On the other hand, if Heim's stuff makes the missing mass/galactic rotation problem worse, maybe that argues against that specific predition of Heim theory.
I guess that there are a few astrophysicists who have been thinking in similar directions:
Modified Newtonian Dynamics
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In astrophysics, the rotation curve of a galaxy is a graph that plots the orbital velocity of the stars or gas in the galaxy on the y-axis against the distance from the center of the galaxy on the x-axis. Stars rotate around the center of galaxies at a constant velocity over a large range of distances from the center of the galaxy. Thus they rotate much faster than would be expected if they were in a free Newtonian potential φ = 1 / r and much slower than than if the galaxy was a solid body. Stars rotate as if they are in a logarithmic potential. Despite many suggestions the reason for this is not known. It is not only stars, also gas rotates as if it is in a logarithmic potential, and this has been verified in both optical and radio wavelengths for all sorts of galaxies. By far the most popular explanation is that there is large amounts of dark matter residing in contrived places in exactly the right quantities to make the overall potential logarithmic every time. The main alternative to dark matter is to suggest that the field equations governing galactic dynamics are not the same as the field equations governing the dynamics of the solar system. Relativistic field equations equate geometrical objects such as the Einstein tensor, to matter objects such as the stress energy momentum tensor of a perfect fluid. Some objects such as the cosmological constant can have an interpretation on either side. There are many variants on the choice of the left-hand-side of the field equations to the Einstein tensor, one would typically choose one of these and see if it allows for solutions with a logarithmic potential. Another approach is that in relativity theory the paths of particles are geodesics. If one associates the stars in a galaxy with geodesics it provides a constraint on the types of spacetime that can model a galaxy. |
(The bottom curve illustrates predicted rotation, the top curve is a generalized illustration of typical spiral galaxy rotation curves found experimentally)
Galaxies, I guess, are generally something like 10^5 light years in diameter. The main problem is that the rotation curves of galaxies are too flat- the velocity should fall off with increase in radius, but instead remains roughly constant as radius increases. It seems to me that instead of assuming extra mass, one could assume that gravity acts differently over very large scales than it should.
Heim's theory supposedly predicts that gravitation consists of several parts, and because of this gravitational attraction falls to zero at scales of approximately 10^8 light years, if I am reading the numbers right, and there is no translation error. I don't know quantitatively what the curve looks like, though.
If Heim was right qualitatively, but off quantitatively by a factor of 10-100 or so, it seems to me that his theory might partially explain the flat rotation curves. Using the sun as an example, masses further away from us in the Milky Way galaxy should exert less gravitational attraction on us than predicted by Newton/Einstein. I think that this might lead to a flatter rotation curve, but could be wrong.
Perhaps finding new particles is the hard way to test Heim's theories. Maybe it would be quicker to look at astronomy, particularly at galactic rotation, to see if Heim's theories reduce the amount of missing mass. On the other hand, if Heim's stuff makes the missing mass/galactic rotation problem worse, maybe that argues against that specific predition of Heim theory.
I guess that there are a few astrophysicists who have been thinking in similar directions:
Modified Newtonian Dynamics
In physics, the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) is a burgeoning theory that attempts to explain the galaxy rotation problem by modifying Newton's second law of motion. (The most widely accepted approach to explaining this problem postulates the existence of dark matter.) MOND was proposed in 1983 by Mordehai Milgrom. The central pillar of MOND is the assumption that Newton's Second Law (F = ma) is a high-acceleration approximation of a more accurate law that describes all accelerations. The proposed modification would only become relevant when the total acceleration of a body falls significantly below the constant a0. Consequently, observations of this behavior could never be made on Earth.
Both MOND and the Heim theory seem to predict similar things: acceleration experienced from gravitational sources that are very far away is less than newtonian dynamics says it should be. MOND is claimed to be experimentally consistent with most or all current observational data- without assuming massive amounts of dark "missing mass" distributed in massive halos around most or all spiral galaxies.
Very Good Tutorial on String Theory
http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/tutor.htm
Witten String Theory Slide Show Lecture with Real Audio
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/witten/
In slide 24 Ed Witten says "that in QM h=10**-32 erg*sec which is the basic scale of quantum uncertainty
and in string theory , there's a new constant
a'=(10**-32 cm)**2 that plays an analogous role "
That looks a lot like a METRON to me!
http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/tutor.htm
Witten String Theory Slide Show Lecture with Real Audio
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/witten/
In slide 24 Ed Witten says "that in QM h=10**-32 erg*sec which is the basic scale of quantum uncertainty
and in string theory , there's a new constant
a'=(10**-32 cm)**2 that plays an analogous role "
That looks a lot like a METRON to me!
QUOTE (will314159+Jan 19 2006, 09:37 AM)
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 people use now) or do they just use an excel spreadsheet?. Anyway this thing will build up slowly. Then the demand will build. The spacefllight and warp speed is gravy. The real excitement should be the TOE.
Listening to HEIM? Depends what he sounds like? Marketing? Depends on the cost. If too high. It"ll be on Kazaa Resurrection in MP3 form in no time at all.
What would be really nice is some interactive tutorials starting out with vectors to tensors to field theory. There's some really neat physics animations on the net. I don't know if there are any at that level.
In any case. You have probably done more than anyone to introduce people to this difficult subject. I deeply appreciate your time.
Hi will314159 ,
Yes, when I was at Trinity College Dublin, Schroedinger's anecdotes were always being related. I loved his equation and wave function - even his cat. Later for postgrad I was in DIAS, set up by DeValera in the 40's for refugee scientists fleeing Hitler - Shcroedinger was one of his first customers. Later I gained renewed admiration for him because of his book ' what is Life'?' , which not only was fascinating for biology - Lynn Marulis quotes it here and there - but also for it's almost heretical closing remarks on consciousness - bolder that any of the behaviourists ruling the roost in those days.
PAM Dirac was one of my heroes too, though I never met him - the delta function was very useful in different areas, and his antimatter prediction was great. Von Neumann was another of those physicists who developed computing just to model consciousness - like Turing before him. So he also hit the bottle, eh? Like Hamilton - though reports of the latter's drinking are sometimes exaggerated - like Mozart's poverty: the only thing Amadeus was poor in was time, dying at 35.
On Heim - yes, also here in Germany it wasn't on the TV news - though a neighbour told me he thought he saw something on it in Spiegel - that would surprise me a bit: must have a look later. Good work on the googling. I'm glad my Wikei article was of use - did you see that it made Wikinews anyway on Jan 8th (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:2006/January/8 ), which cited the ('my') Heim-theory article in Wikipedia. On the program - I was given a copy only for private use. It might be an idea for the Heim-theory group to put it on general release, as it's thrilling to plug in the quantum numbers, turn the handle and out pop the masses, in a second or so on SunBlade 100 workstation - about same power as a Pentium IV, I suppose. The head of the Breakthrough Propulsion Project of NASA, Miilis, also emphasised the need for more theoretical ground-work, notably a clean derivation of the mass formula (http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=504 ) before investing too heavily in the 25 Tesla magnet setup. But in a way it's sometimes easier to throw mega-dollars at a project than get some top-notch theorists to devote a year of their life to checking out someone else's theory. We'll soon see.
You're right about the need for more tutorial approaches to the topic - even the 'simplified' mass formula derivation on www.heim-theory.com starts talking about things which only a graduate student in relativity / quantum mechanics would be expected to know. Maybe the translated (I don't suppose Systran works on Mp3 yet) conversations with Heim have some more accessible bits - though Von Ludwiger, who is busy transcribing them into German at the moment says, he will have to insert many explanatory notes, which will be tricky.
Thanks again for the compliments on my attempts to disseminate info on Heim. I would be delighted if it should have the desired effect in getting the theory 'off the ground'.
Oh and about Witten's h*h dimensioned constant - Loop Quantum Gravity have it too - it's their quantum of area.
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 people use now) or do they just use an excel spreadsheet?. Anyway this thing will build up slowly. Then the demand will build. The spacefllight and warp speed is gravy. The real excitement should be the TOE.
Listening to HEIM? Depends what he sounds like? Marketing? Depends on the cost. If too high. It"ll be on Kazaa Resurrection in MP3 form in no time at all.
What would be really nice is some interactive tutorials starting out with vectors to tensors to field theory. There's some really neat physics animations on the net. I don't know if there are any at that level.
In any case. You have probably done more than anyone to introduce people to this difficult subject. I deeply appreciate your time.
Hi will314159 ,
Yes, when I was at Trinity College Dublin, Schroedinger's anecdotes were always being related. I loved his equation and wave function - even his cat. Later for postgrad I was in DIAS, set up by DeValera in the 40's for refugee scientists fleeing Hitler - Shcroedinger was one of his first customers. Later I gained renewed admiration for him because of his book ' what is Life'?' , which not only was fascinating for biology - Lynn Marulis quotes it here and there - but also for it's almost heretical closing remarks on consciousness - bolder that any of the behaviourists ruling the roost in those days.
PAM Dirac was one of my heroes too, though I never met him - the delta function was very useful in different areas, and his antimatter prediction was great. Von Neumann was another of those physicists who developed computing just to model consciousness - like Turing before him. So he also hit the bottle, eh? Like Hamilton - though reports of the latter's drinking are sometimes exaggerated - like Mozart's poverty: the only thing Amadeus was poor in was time, dying at 35.
On Heim - yes, also here in Germany it wasn't on the TV news - though a neighbour told me he thought he saw something on it in Spiegel - that would surprise me a bit: must have a look later. Good work on the googling. I'm glad my Wikei article was of use - did you see that it made Wikinews anyway on Jan 8th (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:2006/January/8 ), which cited the ('my') Heim-theory article in Wikipedia. On the program - I was given a copy only for private use. It might be an idea for the Heim-theory group to put it on general release, as it's thrilling to plug in the quantum numbers, turn the handle and out pop the masses, in a second or so on SunBlade 100 workstation - about same power as a Pentium IV, I suppose. The head of the Breakthrough Propulsion Project of NASA, Miilis, also emphasised the need for more theoretical ground-work, notably a clean derivation of the mass formula (http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=504 ) before investing too heavily in the 25 Tesla magnet setup. But in a way it's sometimes easier to throw mega-dollars at a project than get some top-notch theorists to devote a year of their life to checking out someone else's theory. We'll soon see.
You're right about the need for more tutorial approaches to the topic - even the 'simplified' mass formula derivation on www.heim-theory.com starts talking about things which only a graduate student in relativity / quantum mechanics would be expected to know. Maybe the translated (I don't suppose Systran works on Mp3 yet) conversations with Heim have some more accessible bits - though Von Ludwiger, who is busy transcribing them into German at the moment says, he will have to insert many explanatory notes, which will be tricky.
Thanks again for the compliments on my attempts to disseminate info on Heim. I would be delighted if it should have the desired effect in getting the theory 'off the ground'.
Oh and about Witten's h*h dimensioned constant - Loop Quantum Gravity have it too - it's their quantum of area.
Thanks for the Post HDeasy
Persistence of Consciousness is Big in Law. You get sentenced now for what you did yesterday. But are you the same person. The defense attorney's job is to show the judge to show the improvement and a difference. I saw where you had in interest in it. Most crimes are comitted by Juveniles who are ADHD and live in the Present. There are a lot of theories that it is Society that gives us persistence of Cosnsciousness.
I've seen where Schrodinger had enorumous influence on Watson & Crick of DNA fame with the book you mentioned. About von Neumann. He was actually of Jewish Hungarian stock and converted to Cathocklism, his Dad had purchased the "von." He perferred to hang around with Admirals instead of Generals because they drank more.
Back to Machine Translation, I've got a $30 program TextAloud that's got an AT&T voice engine CRYSTAL that does MP3 that's professional quality. It's also got a male voice but I prefer Crystal. I'd had an eye operation that didn't go well. I was taking a course on abnormal psych. I scanned the whole book to PDF and listened to it. Adobe has a feature where you can listen to a page. For good measure I mp3'd the book and llistened to it while driving. It's in stereo and the quality is amazing. You have to go through and proofread and make corrections but it's worth it. It imports the figures too.
Bath to the Mass forumla. It's hard to higure our what's going on. there's two versions too from different dates. If it's not recursive or iterative. then you don't need a program, all you need is a calculator. Or is it a generator forumla where the iterations produce masses for different particles.
Some of it looks like the n(n-1) stuff for the hydrogen atom. What would be neat is a tutorial for a sample calculation by somebody on the web for a particular calculation for ONE particle say for the rest mass of an electon or a proton.
here are the starting points
G, h, c and the formula is xxxxxxxx
and the mass is yyyyyyyyyyyy.
That would make a believer.
Take Care!
Persistence of Consciousness is Big in Law. You get sentenced now for what you did yesterday. But are you the same person. The defense attorney's job is to show the judge to show the improvement and a difference. I saw where you had in interest in it. Most crimes are comitted by Juveniles who are ADHD and live in the Present. There are a lot of theories that it is Society that gives us persistence of Cosnsciousness.
I've seen where Schrodinger had enorumous influence on Watson & Crick of DNA fame with the book you mentioned. About von Neumann. He was actually of Jewish Hungarian stock and converted to Cathocklism, his Dad had purchased the "von." He perferred to hang around with Admirals instead of Generals because they drank more.
Back to Machine Translation, I've got a $30 program TextAloud that's got an AT&T voice engine CRYSTAL that does MP3 that's professional quality. It's also got a male voice but I prefer Crystal. I'd had an eye operation that didn't go well. I was taking a course on abnormal psych. I scanned the whole book to PDF and listened to it. Adobe has a feature where you can listen to a page. For good measure I mp3'd the book and llistened to it while driving. It's in stereo and the quality is amazing. You have to go through and proofread and make corrections but it's worth it. It imports the figures too.
Bath to the Mass forumla. It's hard to higure our what's going on. there's two versions too from different dates. If it's not recursive or iterative. then you don't need a program, all you need is a calculator. Or is it a generator forumla where the iterations produce masses for different particles.
Some of it looks like the n(n-1) stuff for the hydrogen atom. What would be neat is a tutorial for a sample calculation by somebody on the web for a particular calculation for ONE particle say for the rest mass of an electon or a proton.
here are the starting points
G, h, c and the formula is xxxxxxxx
and the mass is yyyyyyyyyyyy.
That would make a believer.
Take Care!
Hi All,
HDEasy has linked to some work that Heim's Theory subsequently led to... a paper of "results" of mass calculations and Heims theory (in German) for the "constructions". I put the link here...
Particles have mass, HOW?, Higgs or ?... HDeasy
Cheers
HDEasy has linked to some work that Heim's Theory subsequently led to... a paper of "results" of mass calculations and Heims theory (in German) for the "constructions". I put the link here...
Particles have mass, HOW?, Higgs or ?... HDeasy
Cheers
Please excuse, I am following this trail of information, and this is not Spam. But what does this mean good elf?
http://www.barbelith.com/topic/23410
please explain
2+confused2^2
http://www.barbelith.com/topic/23410
please explain
2+confused2^2
2c2^2
Do not overlook or leave a rock unturned, hi everyone,
Must hurry, but you guys use this as a source, Good Elf gave his stamp of approval! Eh! I hope I did not overlook this on the thread, but at least it is in English if you need to read his, bio.
Serendipity, has no boundaries, or persons. Hope this helps!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim
ciao_
yquantum
Do not overlook or leave a rock unturned, hi everyone,
Must hurry, but you guys use this as a source, Good Elf gave his stamp of approval! Eh! I hope I did not overlook this on the thread, but at least it is in English if you need to read his, bio.
Serendipity, has no boundaries, or persons. Hope this helps!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim
ciao_
yquantum
Good Elf
We're in possession of all the papers. It's not all that easy or cut and dried.
I just want to see a sample calculation using real numbers for one particle.
No complicated derivation. Here is the forumla. The following constants are needed and have these values. Here they are substitued in the forumla. Here is the result.
For example. In electrical engineering. The current I The Indian sees the Eagle over the Rabbit or I=E/R if E= 10 volts and R=2 ohms then what is I
I=10 volts/2 ohms=5 volt/ohms =5 amperes
We're in possession of all the papers. It's not all that easy or cut and dried.
I just want to see a sample calculation using real numbers for one particle.
No complicated derivation. Here is the forumla. The following constants are needed and have these values. Here they are substitued in the forumla. Here is the result.
For example. In electrical engineering. The current I The Indian sees the Eagle over the Rabbit or I=E/R if E= 10 volts and R=2 ohms then what is I
I=10 volts/2 ohms=5 volt/ohms =5 amperes
Hi yquantum, will314159 et al,
It is not that I am "giving my seal of approval" to this concept of Heim's but like yquantum said... "Leave no stone unturned". Superficially there appears to be something in it as brighter minds than I give it credence. I am not really "happy" with the way his theory sits with my ideas but it is so "different" that I am having a lot of difficulty "getting it". The pure German text's subtleties on his mass paticle construction process are "beyond me" just now and I would like anyone to help out with some kind of "interpretation" here.
Cheers
It is not that I am "giving my seal of approval" to this concept of Heim's but like yquantum said... "Leave no stone unturned". Superficially there appears to be something in it as brighter minds than I give it credence. I am not really "happy" with the way his theory sits with my ideas but it is so "different" that I am having a lot of difficulty "getting it". The pure German text's subtleties on his mass paticle construction process are "beyond me" just now and I would like anyone to help out with some kind of "interpretation" here.
Cheers
QUOTE (will314159+Jan 20 2006, 01:23 PM)
I've seen where Schrodinger had enorumous influence on Watson & Crick of DNA fame with the book you mentioned. About von Neumann. He was actually of Jewish Hungarian stock and converted to Cathocklism, his Dad had purchased the "von." He perferred to hang around with Admirals instead of Generals because they drank more.
Back to Machine Translation...
Bath to the Mass forumla. It's hard to higure our what's going on. there's two versions too from different dates. If it's not recursive or iterative. then you don't need a program, all you need is a calculator. Or is it a generator forumla where the iterations produce masses for different particles.
Some of it looks like the n(n-1) stuff for the hydrogen atom. What would be neat is a tutorial for a sample calculation by somebody on the web for a particular calculation for ONE particle say for the rest mass of an electon or a proton.
Hi Will314159
The persistence of consciousness in law that you cited reminds me of one of the delightful quandaries in modern consciousness studies or philosophy – i.e. how consciousness is sort of smeared out in time. I love Husserl’s example of music – we don’t ever just concentrate on one note – it’s that we have an awareness of what came before and after (usually, as we’ve hard the piece before). There’s lots of interesting stuff like this – e.g. by Whitehead or William James. What personally thrills me is the subjective or ‘ inside’ view of time that breathes fire into the equations of time, to quote Hawking, as without that fire the graph of position vs. time is just an objective curve like any other – see my essays
http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/Deasy1.html and http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/Deasy2.html .
You know probably that Crick, who died recently, considered consciousness as the next big chestnut after DNA and with Koch looked at 40 hz waves in the brain as possible ‘correlates of consciousness’ .
Oh and thanks for the Mp3 tips – must check that out.
Getting back to Heim: for now I just had an idea of a way to show that the mass formula program is not ‘back engineered’ as has been suggested here and there. The point is, when the program was first run in 1982 in the particle research centre DESY, they got good agreement with particle masses. Now the records of that should be verifiable – though it was not published in the standard literature, some of the scientists at DESY are still around and should be able to produce records of those early runs. Then since Von Ludwiger says that with more accurate values of G, the main unknown, they got even better agreement with the masses when they re-ran the code on a new platform in 2003. Which fudged program would behave like that? Indeed, this can be thought of as a prediction of the theory that has already been verified – “ for more accurate input values of (h, c and) G the mass estimates will come into closer agreement with experiment”.
On the structure of the code - it just codes up what's in that derivation given on www.Heim-theory.com - i.e a nested series of definitions. I must look into the code again on Monday. I think there is an iteration in there somewhere.
Back to Machine Translation...
Bath to the Mass forumla. It's hard to higure our what's going on. there's two versions too from different dates. If it's not recursive or iterative. then you don't need a program, all you need is a calculator. Or is it a generator forumla where the iterations produce masses for different particles.
Some of it looks like the n(n-1) stuff for the hydrogen atom. What would be neat is a tutorial for a sample calculation by somebody on the web for a particular calculation for ONE particle say for the rest mass of an electon or a proton.
Hi Will314159
The persistence of consciousness in law that you cited reminds me of one of the delightful quandaries in modern consciousness studies or philosophy – i.e. how consciousness is sort of smeared out in time. I love Husserl’s example of music – we don’t ever just concentrate on one note – it’s that we have an awareness of what came before and after (usually, as we’ve hard the piece before). There’s lots of interesting stuff like this – e.g. by Whitehead or William James. What personally thrills me is the subjective or ‘ inside’ view of time that breathes fire into the equations of time, to quote Hawking, as without that fire the graph of position vs. time is just an objective curve like any other – see my essays
http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/Deasy1.html and http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/Deasy2.html .
You know probably that Crick, who died recently, considered consciousness as the next big chestnut after DNA and with Koch looked at 40 hz waves in the brain as possible ‘correlates of consciousness’ .
Oh and thanks for the Mp3 tips – must check that out.
Getting back to Heim: for now I just had an idea of a way to show that the mass formula program is not ‘back engineered’ as has been suggested here and there. The point is, when the program was first run in 1982 in the particle research centre DESY, they got good agreement with particle masses. Now the records of that should be verifiable – though it was not published in the standard literature, some of the scientists at DESY are still around and should be able to produce records of those early runs. Then since Von Ludwiger says that with more accurate values of G, the main unknown, they got even better agreement with the masses when they re-ran the code on a new platform in 2003. Which fudged program would behave like that? Indeed, this can be thought of as a prediction of the theory that has already been verified – “ for more accurate input values of (h, c and) G the mass estimates will come into closer agreement with experiment”.
On the structure of the code - it just codes up what's in that derivation given on www.Heim-theory.com - i.e a nested series of definitions. I must look into the code again on Monday. I think there is an iteration in there somewhere.
thanks for the reply Hdeasy
Are the Heim particle mass equations partial differential equations that have to be solved numerically?
Is that why they need a computer program?
I remeber back in my youth back in the dark ages around 1973 or so I was taking a Physical chemistry course. they made us write a FORTRAN program to solve the orbitals for the Hydrogen Atom.
I wish I still had those results. Even back then Fortan was obsolete. We also had to write the theory part up. I think the problem was exactly solvable. You had to use spherical harmonics, a lot of French sounding functions, Legendere. Lebesgue, I can't remember. BUT it could be solved exactly. Then we compared our numerical number crunching to the theory. And out came the s, p, d, l and so forth.
The Heim equations might me such that they can't be solved exactly and they have to be solved numerically. I don't even know if they are differential or difference equations. or Integral Equations. i can't tell what's going on.
I read your consciousness essays. I saw that Searle was listed iln the referecnes. I've listened to some of his lectures.
Take CAre!
Are the Heim particle mass equations partial differential equations that have to be solved numerically?
Is that why they need a computer program?
I remeber back in my youth back in the dark ages around 1973 or so I was taking a Physical chemistry course. they made us write a FORTRAN program to solve the orbitals for the Hydrogen Atom.
I wish I still had those results. Even back then Fortan was obsolete. We also had to write the theory part up. I think the problem was exactly solvable. You had to use spherical harmonics, a lot of French sounding functions, Legendere. Lebesgue, I can't remember. BUT it could be solved exactly. Then we compared our numerical number crunching to the theory. And out came the s, p, d, l and so forth.
The Heim equations might me such that they can't be solved exactly and they have to be solved numerically. I don't even know if they are differential or difference equations. or Integral Equations. i can't tell what's going on.
I read your consciousness essays. I saw that Searle was listed iln the referecnes. I've listened to some of his lectures.
Take CAre!
hdeasy & will314159,
You seem to be the most familiar with Heim's theory. I would like your opinion of this quote from the T.Auerbach, I. von Ludwiger paper.
"The interior of an elementary particle must be viewed as consisting of a number of metronic condensations in various subspaces. The configuration which is projected into our 3-dimensional physical world consists of 4 concentric zones occupied by structural elements. Maxima and minima of these condensations in the sense of Figs.1 and 2 participate in a rapid sequence of periodic, cyclic exchanges. The internal structures undergo continuous modifications during this process until, after a certain short period of time, the original configuration is reestablished. This period is the shortest lifetime a particle possessing mass and inertia can have. In general, a lifetime consists of several such periods. If the initial configuration is not regained after the last period the particle decays. A particle is stable only if its structure always returns to its original form. The subdivision into 4 zones is a consequence of the original trinity of spheres characteriizing the universe during the first instant of its existence.
The actual mass and inertia are not a property of the 3-dimensional structures themselves, as might be thought. Instead, they are the secondary result of exchange processes between the 4 internal zones described above. These processes are the actual carriers of mass and inertia. For this reason, Heim’s elementary particles definitely are not composed of subconstituents such as quarks. The inner 3 structural zones are difficult to penetrate, the innermost being almost impenetrable. In scattering experiments they might create the illusion of 3 particles being present in the interior. Emperical predictions that have led to the formation of quark theory can be interpreted by Heim in geometrical terms."
1. Is this process of "condensation" & modification, and subsequent reestablishment of original configuration represented elsewhere in Science?
2. What is the size of the 4 concentric zones?
3. What is the length of time involved for this reestablishment?
4. Why would the 3 structural zones be IMPOSSIBLE to penetrate for the electron, and create the illusion of 3 interior "quark" particles for the proton/neutron?
Any comments would be appreciated.
TRoc
You seem to be the most familiar with Heim's theory. I would like your opinion of this quote from the T.Auerbach, I. von Ludwiger paper.
QUOTE
"The interior of an elementary particle must be viewed as consisting of a number of metronic condensations in various subspaces. The configuration which is projected into our 3-dimensional physical world consists of 4 concentric zones occupied by structural elements. Maxima and minima of these condensations in the sense of Figs.1 and 2 participate in a rapid sequence of periodic, cyclic exchanges. The internal structures undergo continuous modifications during this process until, after a certain short period of time, the original configuration is reestablished. This period is the shortest lifetime a particle possessing mass and inertia can have. In general, a lifetime consists of several such periods. If the initial configuration is not regained after the last period the particle decays. A particle is stable only if its structure always returns to its original form. The subdivision into 4 zones is a consequence of the original trinity of spheres characteriizing the universe during the first instant of its existence.
The actual mass and inertia are not a property of the 3-dimensional structures themselves, as might be thought. Instead, they are the secondary result of exchange processes between the 4 internal zones described above. These processes are the actual carriers of mass and inertia. For this reason, Heim’s elementary particles definitely are not composed of subconstituents such as quarks. The inner 3 structural zones are difficult to penetrate, the innermost being almost impenetrable. In scattering experiments they might create the illusion of 3 particles being present in the interior. Emperical predictions that have led to the formation of quark theory can be interpreted by Heim in geometrical terms."
1. Is this process of "condensation" & modification, and subsequent reestablishment of original configuration represented elsewhere in Science?
2. What is the size of the 4 concentric zones?
3. What is the length of time involved for this reestablishment?
4. Why would the 3 structural zones be IMPOSSIBLE to penetrate for the electron, and create the illusion of 3 interior "quark" particles for the proton/neutron?
Any comments would be appreciated.
TRoc
QUOTE (TRoc+Jan 22 2006, 07:26 AM)
hdeasy & will314159,
You seem to be the most familiar with Heim's theory. ..
1. Is this process of "condensation" & modification, and subsequent reestablishment of original configuration represented elsewhere in Science?
2. What is the size of the 4 concentric zones?
3. What is the length of time involved for this reestablishment?
4. Why would the 3 structural zones be IMPOSSIBLE to penetrate for the electron, and create the illusion of 3 interior "quark" particles for the proton/neutron?
Any comments would be appreciated.
TRoc
I'll do my best:
1. As far as I know this is unique to the dynamics of the 6-D metron lattice and distortions and interactions therein. I suppose you can find analogous cyclic processes in nature - trees `withering in winter and flowering each spring anew, the circadian rhythm in human body cells, old Faithful etc.
2. I believe the zone sizes to be of the order of a nucleon across (10**-15 m?). More later…
3. As the lifetime of a particle is a multiple of this cycle time, it will vary from particle to particle. More later…
4. I believe that the metron interactions within a particle have something of the character of the strong force and so are hard to overcome. Again - More later...
Where I say (more later… ) I will expand in a later mail - after consulting the books / experts.
Oh and by the way, the page http://www.datadiwan.de/netzwerk/index_e.h...im/he_002e_.htm also gives an insiight into the principles behind Heim's theory, in his own words.
You seem to be the most familiar with Heim's theory. ..
1. Is this process of "condensation" & modification, and subsequent reestablishment of original configuration represented elsewhere in Science?
2. What is the size of the 4 concentric zones?
3. What is the length of time involved for this reestablishment?
4. Why would the 3 structural zones be IMPOSSIBLE to penetrate for the electron, and create the illusion of 3 interior "quark" particles for the proton/neutron?
Any comments would be appreciated.
TRoc
I'll do my best:
1. As far as I know this is unique to the dynamics of the 6-D metron lattice and distortions and interactions therein. I suppose you can find analogous cyclic processes in nature - trees `withering in winter and flowering each spring anew, the circadian rhythm in human body cells, old Faithful etc.
2. I believe the zone sizes to be of the order of a nucleon across (10**-15 m?). More later…
3. As the lifetime of a particle is a multiple of this cycle time, it will vary from particle to particle. More later…
4. I believe that the metron interactions within a particle have something of the character of the strong force and so are hard to overcome. Again - More later...
Where I say (more later… ) I will expand in a later mail - after consulting the books / experts.
Oh and by the way, the page http://www.datadiwan.de/netzwerk/index_e.h...im/he_002e_.htm also gives an insiight into the principles behind Heim's theory, in his own words.
QUOTE (will314159+Jan 21 2006, 06:54 PM)
... I read your consciousness essays. I saw that Searle was listed iln the referecnes. I've listened to some of his lectures.
Hi Will314159,
Yes, I also did those Legendre polynomial calculations - more the theory of it though. I found it kind of fun, the way the function could be separated out in spherical coordinates. Made sense of the different quantum numbers for SPD orbitals etc.
Again - if you look in http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads_pw/D_...assenformel.pdf you see that it's mostly just linear algebra with a few twists and many equations branching off, which is why it's tedious to do it by hand. Hence the code - in Fortran, which isn't quite dead yet, as for my normal work we are migrating to Fortran ' 95 and there is talk of going to Fortran 2003. There are some differential equations - e.g.
div grad p + ±ß ²/ t ² p = 0 (8.44)
rot (C + g) = v (Á µ0 + Ã ß) = x × y. (8.45)
Thanks for reading over my philosophical essays - yes, Searle was one of the few philosophers mentioned by Penrose in his Emperor's New Mind - which is what set me off on my interest in the philosophy of consciousness. So soon after that book I ready Searle's The Mystery of consciousness. It was a good introduction to the problem - see my comparisons in Amazon.com reviews of those books.
Al the best!
Hi Will314159,
Yes, I also did those Legendre polynomial calculations - more the theory of it though. I found it kind of fun, the way the function could be separated out in spherical coordinates. Made sense of the different quantum numbers for SPD orbitals etc.
Again - if you look in http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads_pw/D_...assenformel.pdf you see that it's mostly just linear algebra with a few twists and many equations branching off, which is why it's tedious to do it by hand. Hence the code - in Fortran, which isn't quite dead yet, as for my normal work we are migrating to Fortran ' 95 and there is talk of going to Fortran 2003. There are some differential equations - e.g.
div grad p + ±ß ²/ t ² p = 0 (8.44)
rot (C + g) = v (Á µ0 + Ã ß) = x × y. (8.45)
Thanks for reading over my philosophical essays - yes, Searle was one of the few philosophers mentioned by Penrose in his Emperor's New Mind - which is what set me off on my interest in the philosophy of consciousness. So soon after that book I ready Searle's The Mystery of consciousness. It was a good introduction to the problem - see my comparisons in Amazon.com reviews of those books.
Al the best!
I got this off of Wikipedia and looks like a good place to start if I want to have an equation base for a program. Heims 1989 Mass forumula.
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/F_Hei...ormula_1989.pdf
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/F_Hei...ormula_1989.pdf
QUOTE
Please excuse, I am following this trail of information, and this is not Spam. But what does this mean good elf?
http://www.barbelith.com/topic/23410
Hello
I've done just that. At this point i've basicaly coded all of the equations necissary to calculate the mass of particals in their basic state. I am however having problems with the so called "self coupling function" which I can't seem to get to return meaningfull values (it returns values in the order of E^88 dwarfing the other parts of the equation). Without the 'self coupling' function The results of the mass equation are 'pretty close' to the values referenced in G_Selected_Results.pdf.
What is strange about the self coupling function is that parts of the function which are relatively small don't seem to return the same intermediate value as those referenced in G_Selected_Results.pdf. Particularialy I'm having problems with A on Table VI (equation B23 in
F_Heims_Mass_Formula_1989.pdf).
Also i'm not getting entirerly the same values for a1, a2 and a3 as those listed in tabel VIII. Finaly it seems the W_N=0 function is completely off resulting in the E^88 values.
This is the result of a weekends worth of work so far and since the equations are very hairy i'm sure there are error's in my code.
Also Being a computer science student with no particular background in physics it took me some time understanding the input values for the particals and the physics constants. Here i would like to note that the value for Newtons Gravitation Constant given in E_Heims_Mass_Formula_1982.pdf is wrong since the value should be in 10^-11 and not 10^11. Besides this it seems a number of the other constants have been refined since the 1982 note was writen, I've used these newer values instead. I've also managed to discover that the result of the mass equation is given in kg since the derived so called 'mass constant' is in kg. Thus i convert this value to MeV.
The code is writen in java. If anyone is interested in taking a look at it I will make it availible (Perhaps someone with fresh eyes can discover mistakes i have made). My plan was to create an applet such that a heims mass calculator could be displayed on a website.
Regards Martin
Oops in my previous post i meant to quote Blam:
QUOTE
I got this off of Wikipedia and looks like a good place to start if I want to have an equation base for a program. Heims 1989 Mass forumula.
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/F_Hei...ormula_1989.pdf
Regards Martin
Well, it seems, no Higss boson/lattice is necessary to compute the particle mass to 6 significant figures ..
These are the partical values I've managed to obtain using my program (without the self coupling function):
=====> Mass Lepton e_+- INCORRECT!!!
result: 0.5069377397395908
table: 0.51099891844
diff: 0.004061178700409229
=====> Mass Lepton e_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 0.5155526375233344
table: 0.51617049
diff: 6.178524766656812E-4
=====> Mass Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: 105.83719451704327
table: 105.658389
diff: 0.17880551704327274
=====> Mass Messon pi_+- INCORRECT!!!
result: 139.80375026133382
table: 139.57018
diff: 0.2335702613338242
=====> Mass Messon pi_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 134.9591687831346
table: 134.9766
diff: 0.017431216865389842
=====> Mass Messon eta INCORRECT!!!
result: 548.7276985493778
table: 547.3
diff: 1.4276985493778511
=====> Mass Messon K_+- INCORRECT!!!
result: 494.3826260914371
table: 493.677
diff: 0.7056260914370682
=====> Mass Messon K_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 497.72632787839746
table: 497.672
diff: 0.05432787839743014
=====> Mass Baryon p INCORRECT!!!
result: 938.2150581188378
table: 938.27231
diff: 0.0572518811621876
=====> Mass Baryon n INCORRECT!!!
result: 939.3657427431276
table: 939.56563
diff: 0.19988725687244369
=====> Mass Baryon lambda INCORRECT!!!
result: 1115.3926896340517
table: 1115.683
diff: 0.290310365948244
=====> Mass Baryon sigma_+ INCORRECT!!!
result: 1190.4818897376188
table: 1189.37
diff: 1.111889737618867
=====> Mass Baryon sigma_- INCORRECT!!!
result: 1198.4026177431758
table: 1197.449
diff: 0.9536177431757551
=====> Mass Baryon sigma_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 1192.3443290081143
table: 1192.642
diff: 0.2976709918857523
=====> Mass Baryon xi_- INCORRECT!!!
result: 1322.3271920420418
table: 1321.32
diff: 1.0071920420418792
=====> Mass Baryon xi_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 1314.4858819204244
table: 1314.9
diff: 0.4141180795757009
=====> Mass Baryon omega_- INCORRECT!!!
result: 1675.0030969674524
table: 1672.45
diff: 2.5530969674523476
=====> Mass Baryon delta_++ INCORRECT!!!
result: 1248.348231461604
table: 1232.0
diff: 16.348231461603973
=====> Mass Baryon delta_+ INCORRECT!!!
result: 1237.0852910450758
table: 1232.0
diff: 5.085291045075792
=====> Mass Baryon delta_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 1235.8567639235657
table: 1232.0
diff: 3.8567639235657225
=====> Mass Baryon delta_- INCORRECT!!!
result: 1232.295432334892
table: 1232.0
diff: 0.2954323348919843
The values are being compared to the experimental values of particals given in Tabel III of:
G_Selected_Results.pdf
If they differ by more then 6 significant figures they are reported as incorrect.
=====> Mass Lepton e_+- INCORRECT!!!
result: 0.5069377397395908
table: 0.51099891844
diff: 0.004061178700409229
=====> Mass Lepton e_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 0.5155526375233344
table: 0.51617049
diff: 6.178524766656812E-4
=====> Mass Lepton mu INCORRECT!!!
result: 105.83719451704327
table: 105.658389
diff: 0.17880551704327274
=====> Mass Messon pi_+- INCORRECT!!!
result: 139.80375026133382
table: 139.57018
diff: 0.2335702613338242
=====> Mass Messon pi_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 134.9591687831346
table: 134.9766
diff: 0.017431216865389842
=====> Mass Messon eta INCORRECT!!!
result: 548.7276985493778
table: 547.3
diff: 1.4276985493778511
=====> Mass Messon K_+- INCORRECT!!!
result: 494.3826260914371
table: 493.677
diff: 0.7056260914370682
=====> Mass Messon K_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 497.72632787839746
table: 497.672
diff: 0.05432787839743014
=====> Mass Baryon p INCORRECT!!!
result: 938.2150581188378
table: 938.27231
diff: 0.0572518811621876
=====> Mass Baryon n INCORRECT!!!
result: 939.3657427431276
table: 939.56563
diff: 0.19988725687244369
=====> Mass Baryon lambda INCORRECT!!!
result: 1115.3926896340517
table: 1115.683
diff: 0.290310365948244
=====> Mass Baryon sigma_+ INCORRECT!!!
result: 1190.4818897376188
table: 1189.37
diff: 1.111889737618867
=====> Mass Baryon sigma_- INCORRECT!!!
result: 1198.4026177431758
table: 1197.449
diff: 0.9536177431757551
=====> Mass Baryon sigma_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 1192.3443290081143
table: 1192.642
diff: 0.2976709918857523
=====> Mass Baryon xi_- INCORRECT!!!
result: 1322.3271920420418
table: 1321.32
diff: 1.0071920420418792
=====> Mass Baryon xi_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 1314.4858819204244
table: 1314.9
diff: 0.4141180795757009
=====> Mass Baryon omega_- INCORRECT!!!
result: 1675.0030969674524
table: 1672.45
diff: 2.5530969674523476
=====> Mass Baryon delta_++ INCORRECT!!!
result: 1248.348231461604
table: 1232.0
diff: 16.348231461603973
=====> Mass Baryon delta_+ INCORRECT!!!
result: 1237.0852910450758
table: 1232.0
diff: 5.085291045075792
=====> Mass Baryon delta_0 INCORRECT!!!
result: 1235.8567639235657
table: 1232.0
diff: 3.8567639235657225
=====> Mass Baryon delta_- INCORRECT!!!
result: 1232.295432334892
table: 1232.0
diff: 0.2954323348919843
The values are being compared to the experimental values of particals given in Tabel III of:
G_Selected_Results.pdf
If they differ by more then 6 significant figures they are reported as incorrect.
QUOTE (spony+Jan 23 2006, 11:03 PM)
These are the partical values I've managed to obtain using my program (without the self coupling function):
Well, your values differs slightly to the values reported by [1].
Nevertheless, the agreement is quite good in lot of cases, anyway. Is some other theory able to compute the mass with electron - just using the vacuum constants?
For example the M-theory? Why we're looking for the Higgs boson to "explain" the particle mass, after than?
Well, your values differs slightly to the values reported by [1].
Nevertheless, the agreement is quite good in lot of cases, anyway. Is some other theory able to compute the mass with electron - just using the vacuum constants?
For example the M-theory? Why we're looking for the Higgs boson to "explain" the particle mass, after than?
Hi spony-
Good for you! Great work!
Those are good numbers!
Your numbers themselves are far better than any other theory, it seems.
So, would you say that the formula basically works?
The clincher, of course, would be if the formula predicts new particles that are subsequently confirmed.
Good for you! Great work!
Those are good numbers!
Your numbers themselves are far better than any other theory, it seems.
So, would you say that the formula basically works?
The clincher, of course, would be if the formula predicts new particles that are subsequently confirmed.
QUOTE
Those are good numbers!
Your numbers themselves are far better than any other theory, it seems.
So, would you say that the formula basically works?
I was actualy quite suprised at the accuracy of the partical masses (albeit not at all to 6 significant figures yet) because they all became that accurate at once. Meaning that in the first few runs of the mass equation i was getting terrible results at which point i discovered Newtons Gravitational Constant was incorrect in the 1982 paper. After the value was corrected all the partical masses were suddenly accurate.
So yes the formula basicaly works, however i really would like to get the 'self coupling' part included as well. It would be interesting to verify that the mass equation is more accurate with refined constants anno 2006. Also it's possible the program might be more precise as i am using 32 bit decimal precision (I am not aware of the precision calculated by the original program).
By the way these equations are nothing for a modern personal computer. The mass results of all particals are spit out in a matter of miliseconds.
Regards Martin
Looking over the early equations i remembered that i couldn't find what was meant by the symbol 'u' in the equation labeled B8 (middle of page 12) in:
F_Heims_Mass_Formula_1989.pdf
Does anyone else know what is meant by 'u'? I've simply substituted 1 when i coded the equation. Which resulted in the following deviation compared to the values listed in tabel VII of:
G_Selected_Results.pdf
=====> N3(1,1) GOOD
result: 1.9573176662909728
=====> N3(1,0) INCORRECT!!!
result: 1.957185562715119
table: 2.0
diff: 0.0428144372848811
=====> N3(2,1) INCORRECT!!!
result: 2.598827744726007
table: 2.59881924
diff: 8.504726006997032E-6
=====> N3(2,0) INCORRECT!!!
result: 2.6600909750254496
table: 2.71828183
diff: 0.058190854974550454
=====> N3(2,2) INCORRECT!!!
result: 2.059355623140513
table: 2.12190443
diff: 0.06254880685948683
This probably accounts for a great deal of the inaccuracy. Alternatively i could hard code these values but that wouldn't be very elegant.
Regards Martin
I hate to keep playing devil's advocate, especially since I am very excited too.
But in order for the theory to be widely accepted it has do a few more things, I think:
It must predict something not known yet (to eliminate the possibility of deliberate or subconscious mathematical trickery).
It has to be reproducible by more people.
The mass formula must follow from the theoretical framework, in a consistent and ultimately transparent way. It doesn't have to be easy, but it does have to be consistent.
If the Heim advocates can accomplish these things, ultimately the wider physics community will have to accept Heim theory, IMO, as at least leading to a correct mass formula.
spony- would you please post your code? It doesn't matter what the computer language is, the math should show through, and it would help the rest of us figure out how to use the mass formula.
Great work, spony!
But in order for the theory to be widely accepted it has do a few more things, I think:
It must predict something not known yet (to eliminate the possibility of deliberate or subconscious mathematical trickery).
It has to be reproducible by more people.
The mass formula must follow from the theoretical framework, in a consistent and ultimately transparent way. It doesn't have to be easy, but it does have to be consistent.
If the Heim advocates can accomplish these things, ultimately the wider physics community will have to accept Heim theory, IMO, as at least leading to a correct mass formula.
spony- would you please post your code? It doesn't matter what the computer language is, the math should show through, and it would help the rest of us figure out how to use the mass formula.
Great work, spony!
QUOTE (metronhead+Jan 24 2006, 05:04 AM)
...It must predict something not known yet...
It can predict some explanation of the well known facts/postulates, which we don't know yet, for example the mass of electron...
It's not supposed to predict something very new.
It can predict some explanation of the well known facts/postulates, which we don't know yet, for example the mass of electron...
It's not supposed to predict something very new.
Good work spony.
That's all of us were waiting. Even you first aproximation is good.
We are expectant.
That's all of us were waiting. Even you first aproximation is good.
We are expectant.
QUOTE (spony+Jan 23 2006, 07:27 PM)
I've done just that. At this point i've basicaly coded all of the equations necissary to calculate the mass of particals in their basic state.
Wow! Not bad for a weekend's work. In the meantime, Dr. Anton Mueller, who did the coding for the Heim-Theory group, had this to say about claims that the formula was a ' fudge' ( which I also contradicted in a recent posting by indicating that no fudge would have improved estimates from the 1982 values by using a more accurate, modern estimate for G):
thank you for your comments on "forum.physorg.com" . Unfortunately there are
yet some guys unwilling to read details but nevertheless intentionally
complaining that the mass formulas were faked . So in addition to the source
code which I sent you in August 2005 the following should be brought to
attention :
The four extra quantum numbers used in this code ( integers below 31 )
describe different states of the four configuration zones of the particles .
There exist formulas whereby these numbers can be determined in a straight
ahead manner which is described in a typewritten report by B.Heim which seems
to be dated later than his first book (1980) but earlier than his third one
(1996) in which also computational results for the lifetimes are provided .
What Poessel calls deliberately truncated infinit series is in fact a
misperception of an algorithm described in the report which leads you
successively to a set of integers which can not be choosen at will .The
values of the resulting four quantum numbers are used as input to the code
you have obtained. Since these numbers have been already computed and
tabulated by Heim there was no need in programming that stuff again. This
also means that the formulas for determining the 6x6 constants used within
the former DESY code are no more needed.
Of course the code might be ported to any other computer language since it
is really simple structured ( besides some awful parenthethis stacking)
However , one had to take care of the rounding convention for floating to
integer conversion and it is necessary to use double precision.
By the way , the three diameters appearing in Heims theory at the origin of
time are of concern only for his cosmology , as is his modified gravitational
law at great distances . I am not supporting those features.
As von Ludwiger and Gruener have shown in their article , most of Heims
theory can also be handled using conventional differential calculus , only
when it comes to avoid singularities, metric quantizaton is essential .
Hello folks,
Don't have time now since i'm going to work.
I'll post the code sometime this evening.
Regards Martin
QUOTE (spony+Jan 24 2006, 12:56 AM)
Looking over the early equations i remembered that i couldn't find what was meant by the symbol 'u' in the equation labeled B8 (middle of page 12) in:
F_Heims_Mass_Formula_1989.pdf
Does anyone else know what is meant by 'u'? I've simply substituted 1 when i coded the equation.
I think the "u" value could be the indicated
F_Heims_Mass_Formula_1989.pdf
Does anyone else know what is meant by 'u'? I've simply substituted 1 when i coded the equation.
I think the "u" value could be the indicated
QUOTE (spony+Jan 24 2006, 12:56 AM)
Looking over the early equations i remembered that i couldn't find what was meant by the symbol 'u' in the equation labeled B8 (middle of page 12) in:
F_Heims_Mass_Formula_1989.pdf
Does anyone else know what is meant by 'u'? I've simply substituted 1 when i coded the equation.
Sorry for the previous. Again:
I think the "u" value could be indicated in equation B50 and also could be used in equation B49. The "u" value is not calculated in the tables of document "G_Selected_Results", but for example, the value "y" is calculated in Table IX (corresponding to equation B48) but in one document is in capital letters and in the other no. Perhaps with "u" value occurs the same. (May be, may be not).
F_Heims_Mass_Formula_1989.pdf
Does anyone else know what is meant by 'u'? I've simply substituted 1 when i coded the equation.
Sorry for the previous. Again:
I think the "u" value could be indicated in equation B50 and also could be used in equation B49. The "u" value is not calculated in the tables of document "G_Selected_Results", but for example, the value "y" is calculated in Table IX (corresponding to equation B48) but in one document is in capital letters and in the other no. Perhaps with "u" value occurs the same. (May be, may be not).
Thanks spony, I was avoiding the simple UI creation for myself for a more a graphical UI in c/OpenGL. Java is pretty nice, just getting into it and it runs in a webpage pretty well too.
Mark
Mark
Vilvi -
QUOTE
I think the "u" value could be indicated in equation B50 and also could be used in equation B49. The "u" value is not calculated in the tables of document "G_Selected_Results", but for example, the value "y" is calculated in Table IX (corresponding to equation B48) but in one document is in capital letters and in the other no. Perhaps with "u" value occurs the same. (May be, may be not).
Thanks for the input. However i don't think that's the case because as i understand it the function N3 (equation B8) only relies on the parameters k and q (this is apparent from table VII) and U is a function over the parameters k, q, P, Q and kappa.
hdeasy -
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I think the "u" value could be indicated in equation B50 and also could be used in equation B49. The "u" value is not calculated in the tables of document "G_Selected_Results", but for example, the value "y" is calculated in Table IX (corresponding to equation B48) but in one document is in capital letters and in the other no. Perhaps with "u" value occurs the same. (May be, may be not). |
Thanks for the input. However i don't think that's the case because as i understand it the function N3 (equation B8) only relies on the parameters k and q (this is apparent from table VII) and U is a function over the parameters k, q, P, Q and kappa.
hdeasy -
So in addition to the source code which I sent you in August 2005 the following should be brought to attention :
Since you have the original source code perhaps you have an answer to what the symbol 'u' is? Also at some point I'd really like to see the origional source code if this is possible.
I'm going to clean my code up a bit, add some comments and throw it on a website over the next few hours. I'll post a link here when i'm done.
Regards Martin
OK, here you go:
Heim Mass Formula Program
I'd greatly appreciate comments from people that find errors in the code (which i'm certain there are many of). Anyways enjoy.
Regards Martin
Hi spony-
I don't see a "u" defined anywhere. But the 1982 paper "On the description of Elementary Particles" does define a "mu" - easily confused with "u". Mu is defined in equation VI on page 4 of the 1982 paper, and since its definition consists apparently of constants of nature and pure numbers, equation B8 would still only be a function of k and q.
I really haven't done all the hard work that you have, so I don't want to mess you up with stuff that is probably wrong, but you might try plugging in "mu" from equation VI of the 1982 paper, and see what happens.
I don't see a "u" defined anywhere. But the 1982 paper "On the description of Elementary Particles" does define a "mu" - easily confused with "u". Mu is defined in equation VI on page 4 of the 1982 paper, and since its definition consists apparently of constants of nature and pure numbers, equation B8 would still only be a function of k and q.
I really haven't done all the hard work that you have, so I don't want to mess you up with stuff that is probably wrong, but you might try plugging in "mu" from equation VI of the 1982 paper, and see what happens.
QUOTE (spony+Jan 24 2006, 04:54 PM)
Since you have the original source code perhaps you have an answer to what the symbol 'u' is? Also at some point I'd really like to see the origional source code if this is possible.
Hi Spony!
Congratulations again on your achievement. Now, looking through the code I found what looked like equation B.8 - and one of the terms with a constant u
! u , c.f. compini.for --> /const/
Looking in compini.for,
u = 2.D0*pi*ebn ! # const
where
ebn = Dexp(1.D0)
Seems to imply it's just 2 Pi x e .
I could be wrong - so I'll dig a bit more and see if that fits.
One other poiint - in your formula web page, you again spell it ' partical' where it should be ' particle' . Just
to give a better impression
Hi spony,
I am amazed that you have achieved so much. Brilliant so far...
http://www.daimi.au.dk/~spony/HeimMassFormula/
What an effort. I have not checked it. If anything will help the theory this will. It shows that a particular methodology can produce the right answers (near enough). The next question is "what does it really mean?"
That will be the crux of the matter.
Cheers and congratulations
PS: Had a quick look and it generated quite a few "good" results and so this must be on the right track... There are a few "big" errors... but to have any correct at all is a "tour de force" since nobody else has been able to do this...
I am amazed that you have achieved so much. Brilliant so far...http://www.daimi.au.dk/~spony/HeimMassFormula/
What an effort. I have not checked it. If anything will help the theory this will. It shows that a particular methodology can produce the right answers (near enough). The next question is "what does it really mean?"
That will be the crux of the matter.
Cheers and congratulations
PS: Had a quick look and it generated quite a few "good" results and so this must be on the right track... There are a few "big" errors... but to have any correct at all is a "tour de force" since nobody else has been able to do this...
QUOTE (TRoc+Jan 22 2006, 07:26 AM)
1. Is this process of "condensation" & modification, and subsequent reestablishment of original configuration represented elsewhere in Science?
2. What is the size of the 4 concentric zones?
3. What is the length of time involved for this reestablishment?
4. Why would the 3 structural zones be IMPOSSIBLE to penetrate for the electron, and create the illusion of 3 interior "quark" particles for the proton/neutron?
Any comments would be appreciated.
TRoc
I. Von Ludwiger finally found some time away from the transcription of 40 tapes of Heim talking onto a set of 3 x 60 pages to answer a bit more fully Troc's queiries:
1. The first question refers probably to the structure fluxes. In these, maxima and minima of condensations of the Metrons interchange cyclically. Such a geometro-dynamic description has not been given in science so far!
2. The size of the 4 internal zones of differently high density was not indicated by Heim.
3. With "Reestablishment" is meant the setting up of an initial condition of the structure fluxes. Heim can indicate the lengths of time for this from the possible circulation speeds of the partial fluxes and derives from this the lifetimes. But I can not explain that so fast now first I would have to read over it again.
4. The 4 structure zones have only a very small extent and differently high densities. The three zones differ in their densities by the powers 4, 3 and 2. The zone, in which the number of Metrons with the 4th Power is densely occupied, is impenetrable by electrons. In addition, the other two zones are so small that electrons are only scattered by them.
The fact that the quarks cannot be torn apart goes back to the fact that all 3 (in baryons) and/or 2 (in mesons) are only projections of a 6-dimensionalen flux system, which forms a structural unit. Perhaps this answer is sufficient for a start..
Hi hdeasy and TRoc,
hdeasy... Thank you for your reply... I am certain TRoc will be equally interested.
In "String Theory" terminology it would appear these are D6 branes (in a six dimensional hyperspace)? These are in a higher dimensional plane than 3D + T "space-time"... is that correct?
The computer calculation of spony has some errors... is this due to imprecision and rounding errors in Java or is there a more fundamental problem here? Some errors are very significant, while others are very good approximations. Have you a comment?
Yes, the metrons are surface elements in a 6 dimensional space, for the purposes of the mass formula. So they do resemble branes a bit. The 6-D space is the normal 4-D (R3 & time) space of Einstein plus the 'trans-coordinates' x5 and x6. The latter 2 coordinates occur in all the subspace combinations used to describe the various forces, and are referred to by Heim occasionally as ordering coordinates.
On the errors in Spony's code - well, it's not surprising to have one or two bugs after such a short development time (not to mention system requirements, detailed design, architectural design etc. ). I will need to find time later to compare his code with the fortran of Dr. Mueller. That might show me where the problem lies. I know that the Heim-theory group had some problems with parentheses - that might be the case here as well.
Well thanks for the compliments, but I really think that the largest volume of work is in ensuring that the code correctly represents the equations.
The computer calculation of spony has some errors... is this due to imprecision and rounding errors in Java or is there a more fundamental problem here? Some errors are very significant, while others are very good approximations. Have you a comment?
There are errors at this point simply because there are so many complex equations (many of the intermediate calculations give incorrect answers). Some of the errors in the code can also be attributed to ambiguitys in equations from the notes (for example there is a parenthesis in a3 which seems to never end).
There are errors at this point simply because there are so many complex equations (many of the intermediate calculations give incorrect answers). Some of the errors in the code can also be attributed to ambiguitys in equations from the notes (for example there is a parenthesis in a3 which seems to never end).
! u , c.f. compini.for --> /const/
Looking in compini.for,
u = 2.D0*pi*ebn ! # const
where
ebn = Dexp(1.D0)
Seems to imply it's just 2 Pi x e .
So if i understand correctly it's simply: (2 * Pi * e)
One other poiint - in your formula web page, you again spell it ' partical' where it should be ' particle' . Just to give a better impression
Ok, I've spell checked the site now
hdeasy... Thank you for your reply... I am certain TRoc will be equally interested.
QUOTE (hdeasy Posted on Jan 25 2006+ 10:00 AM)
The fact that the quarks cannot be torn apart goes back to the fact that all 3 (in baryons) and/or 2 (in mesons) are only projections of a 6-dimensionalen flux system, which forms a structural unit. Perhaps this answer is sufficient for a start..
In "String Theory" terminology it would appear these are D6 branes (in a six dimensional hyperspace)? These are in a higher dimensional plane than 3D + T "space-time"... is that correct?
The computer calculation of spony has some errors... is this due to imprecision and rounding errors in Java or is there a more fundamental problem here? Some errors are very significant, while others are very good approximations. Have you a comment?
Cheers
In "String Theory" terminology it would appear these are D6 branes (in a six dimensional hyperspace)? These are in a higher dimensional plane than 3D + T "space-time"... is that correct?
The computer calculation of spony has some errors... is this due to imprecision and rounding errors in Java or is there a more fundamental problem here? Some errors are very significant, while others are very good approximations. Have you a comment?
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 25 2006, 10:19 AM)
In "String Theory" terminology it would appear these are D6 branes (in a six dimensional hyperspace)? These are in a higher dimensional plane than 3D + T "space-time"... is that correct?
The computer calculation of spony has some errors... is this due to imprecision and rounding errors in Java or is there a more fundamental problem here? Some errors are very significant, while others are very good approximations. Have you a comment?
Yes, the metrons are surface elements in a 6 dimensional space, for the purposes of the mass formula. So they do resemble branes a bit. The 6-D space is the normal 4-D (R3 & time) space of Einstein plus the 'trans-coordinates' x5 and x6. The latter 2 coordinates occur in all the subspace combinations used to describe the various forces, and are referred to by Heim occasionally as ordering coordinates.
On the errors in Spony's code - well, it's not surprising to have one or two bugs after such a short development time (not to mention system requirements, detailed design, architectural design etc. ). I will need to find time later to compare his code with the fortran of Dr. Mueller. That might show me where the problem lies. I know that the Heim-theory group had some problems with parentheses - that might be the case here as well.
Well thanks for the compliments, but I really think that the largest volume of work is in ensuring that the code correctly represents the equations.
QUOTE
The computer calculation of spony has some errors... is this due to imprecision and rounding errors in Java or is there a more fundamental problem here? Some errors are very significant, while others are very good approximations. Have you a comment?
There are errors at this point simply because there are so many complex equations (many of the intermediate calculations give incorrect answers). Some of the errors in the code can also be attributed to ambiguitys in equations from the notes (for example there is a parenthesis in a3 which seems to never end).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The computer calculation of spony has some errors... is this due to imprecision and rounding errors in Java or is there a more fundamental problem here? Some errors are very significant, while others are very good approximations. Have you a comment? |
There are errors at this point simply because there are so many complex equations (many of the intermediate calculations give incorrect answers). Some of the errors in the code can also be attributed to ambiguitys in equations from the notes (for example there is a parenthesis in a3 which seems to never end).
! u , c.f. compini.for --> /const/
Looking in compini.for,
u = 2.D0*pi*ebn ! # const
where
ebn = Dexp(1.D0)
Seems to imply it's just 2 Pi x e .
So if i understand correctly it's simply: (2 * Pi * e)
QUOTE
One other poiint - in your formula web page, you again spell it ' partical' where it should be ' particle' . Just to give a better impression
Ok, I've spell checked the site now
Yes, congrat's spoony. Perhaps I can be of some help as well.
I am a java programmer myself, and would be happy to help in any future project. I think we all stand to gain in this whether we can disprove it or reaffirm it.
Spoony, are you using the 64-bit doubles in Java?
One thing we could do is modify the code to calulate the error inherent in the calulation.
What do you think?
I am a java programmer myself, and would be happy to help in any future project. I think we all stand to gain in this whether we can disprove it or reaffirm it.
Spoony, are you using the 64-bit doubles in Java?
One thing we could do is modify the code to calulate the error inherent in the calulation.
What do you think?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.