To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

DataPacRat
I'm coming into this thread, from a link at the Java calculator for the Heim mass equation at http://www.daimi.au.dk/~spony/HeimMassFormula/ .

One thing I'm curious about, is that, since the formula (well, three formulas) can be calculated using various numbers for the value of the gravitational constant, has anyone run through the formula many times, inputting various values of G each time, in order to find which value for G results in the lowest total percentage difference between all the predicted masses and all the observed masses? That is, what value of G is the 'best fit'?

I am also wondering why, if Heim's formulas are, in fact, correct, there would be any significant difference between the observed and experimental masses at all. Is it possible that, say, the observed masses include the effects not just of gravity, but the other gravity-like forces predicted by Heim theory? Or was this already taken into account in the experimental formula?


(Just for reference - according to that Java calculator, considering only the charged electron, the value of G that gives the best fit is 6.673366 for the HeimGroup formula, 6.36265 for the 1989 formula, and 6.8132822 for the 1982 formula. But for the proton, the values are 6.632969 for the HeimGroup formula, 6.6493453 for the 1989 formula, and 6.67401 for the 1982 formula.)


Thank you for your time.
elarne
QUOTE (gdaigle+Oct 4 2007, 03:29 PM)
I didn't realize that the article by Hauser and Dröscher was written on the request of the chairman of the Committee of Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion (NPFF) of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).  What is the tie-in with HPCC-Space GmbH? 

I ask because if you "get information" on the pdf version of the article it has reference to AerospaceAmerica, which is a currently undeveloped .org site registered by AIAA.  The technical contact for that site is www.fry.com, a corporate Web design firm with a decidedly consumer-oriented clientele (Spiegel, Godiva, Whirlpool, etc.) and no noticeable prior nonprofit work on their client list. 

So is the AIAA going to launch a consumer-friendlly Aerospaceamerica.org site that has some tie-in to H & D's work?  It's puzzling.

There are some news at HPCC-Space site. Another piece of the puzzle... wink.gif
gdaigle
QUOTE (elarne+Oct 5 2007, 01:51 PM)
There are some news at HPCC-Space site. Another piece of the puzzle...  wink.gif

Elarne, that October 2 news release said, in part, "Recently US aerospace industry has decided to conduct a study to explore the technical possibilities of gravity-like fields." But with the www.americanaerospace.org site it seems that the US aerospace industry may be launching more than just a study!

Perhaps another, hopefully less antagonistic, AGF space-race starting just after the fiftieth aniversary of Sputnik? If so, I wonder how long before it becomes an X-Prize?
Jossarian
QUOTE
This article was also written on the request of the chairman of the Committee of Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion (NPFF) of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), and was sent to committee members on 31 August 2007.


HOLY S**T !! ohmy.gif
It looks like something really LARGE is going to happen !

Maybe finally modified Tajmar experiment will be performed according to Hausner&Droscher advices!
What a exciting times!

/Joss
Jossarian
Here is web-page of AIAA Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion Technical Committee.
elarne
QUOTE (gdaigle+Oct 5 2007, 02:15 PM)
Elarne, that October 2 news release said, in part, "Recently US aerospace industry has decided to conduct a study to explore the technical possibilities of gravity-like fields."  But with the www.americanaerospace.org site it seems that the US aerospace industry may be launching more than just a study! 

Perhaps another, hopefully less antagonistic, AGF space-race starting just after the fiftieth aniversary of Sputnik?  If so, I wonder how long before it becomes an X-Prize?

So I missed what you have observed already. And I also think something is going on and it's just the beginning... cool.gif
PNeilson
Hi All

Congratulations to all on resolving the Matrix problem. I have not posted since JReed distanced himself from Heim Theory due to the Matrix problem. I agreed with him that the problem was too large to continue with Heim.

However, I did not abandon Heim Theory as it seemed to have some valid points so I started searching for Heim like Theories. I was quite surprised to find a lot of them. None were as all embracing or as broad as Heim. They usually explored a small portion of Heim Theory while being unaware of Heim's work.

One common thread was the use of extra time like dimensions. By sorting through all of the work of others and using Heim as a guide I came up with a simple thought experiment.

Imagine 2 spaceships flying in formation towards a common point at high speed relative to the common point. They are sharing a common time dilation so they can communicate easily with each other but not with their common objective. Suddenly a nearly stationary object is sensed that will cross their path. Evasive action must be taken. One ship slows and veers left. The other speeds up and veers right Since these are advanced ships the acceleration is advanced as well so the time dilation is no longer common. How do you calculate the time dilation between the 4 bodies?

I can only see one answer. You have to use the 3 space dimensions with their corresponding 3 time dimensions to compute the time dilation between each of the bodies. After all there are 6 different dilation's to compute, but only 4 bodies. Using a single time dimension will create a situation where time is moving at 2 different rates for a single body. This cannot be so! Using 3 time dimensions to sum up to time eliminates this paradox.

After all if it takes 3 space dimensions to compute relative velocities then it must take 3 time dimensions to compute relative time dilation.

This leads to the conclusion that Heim's time like dimensions are not "time like" rather they are "time". Our human perception of time in one dimension is really a summation of the 3 time dimensions.

JReed - what do you make of this thought experiment?

It might be fun to rework Maxwell with Tx, Ty and Tz!

Paul


makuabob
QUOTE (Jossarian+Oct 5 2007, 10:50 AM)
Here is web-page of AIAA Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion Technical Committee.

Just came back from reading this page. Very interesting and yet,... I had one of those Luke-Skywalker-disturbance-in-the-Force feelings as I read the list of 'hopefuls.'

Considering that funding is the main need for all of these 'methods,' how closely will these folks-of-different-stripes really want work with one another. I mean, each group very likely has truly dedicated proponents who will (short-sightedly) see all others as competitors and, after all, the easiest way to get (or, put) a knife in the back is to be within arm's reach of an unsuspected/unsuspecting adversary. unsure.gif

Yeah, yeah,... I know that all sounds paranoid but,... recall that Heim and his ideas were so sought after in the late fifties that plans were made to "render" him to an advantageous locale (to use the modern word for "kidnapping"). Maybe those were just tales, but I think the Heim group will continue to play their hand close to the chest.

I guess this is where and why it take "guts" to be a researcher. dry.gif
freethis
A very simple nuclear batter will do the trick!

The use of radio active waste will create a potential, and a half life, of 10,000 years.

the only thing that will come of this, is all who participate will loose all there rights, and claims..


and the free world will be further suppressed into the stone age! sad.gif

Lets all have the pleasure of creating greatness, and allowing a selected few from leaving the planet, to escape there deaths.

Are they better than you, should they be allowed to survive, wile you die along with hundreds of millions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrBir1SLz9Y...ing%20dna%20lsd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPaubLDe9bE...ing%20dna%20lsd


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AcunusOjFw...ing%20dna%20lsd


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryqCdS8frl8...ing%20dna%20lsd


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwOebN1ZIqs...ing%20dna%20lsd


Buy stock in Lockheed martin, and Boeing now, although you wont get a chance to spend it... Do not leave out general electric, and raytheon.

A calculated low risk high reward.

Although you wont get a chance to spend it! A stipulation should be included in any such contract for devise, for civilian use, and all who pays for this technology, the tax payers.
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (freethis+Oct 7 2007, 07:59 PM)
A very simple nuclear batter will do the trick!

The use of radio active waste will create a potential, and a half life, of 10,000 years.

the only thing that will come of this, is all who participate will loose all there rights, and claims..


and the free world will be further suppressed into the stone age! sad.gif

Lets all have the pleasure of creating greatness, and allowing a selected few from leaving the planet, to escape there deaths.

Are they better than you, should they be allowed to survive, wile you die along with hundreds of millions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrBir1SLz9Y...ing%20dna%20lsd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPaubLDe9bE...ing%20dna%20lsd


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AcunusOjFw...ing%20dna%20lsd


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryqCdS8frl8...ing%20dna%20lsd


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwOebN1ZIqs...ing%20dna%20lsd


Buy stock in Lockheed martin, and Boeing now, although you wont get a chance to spend it... Do not leave out general electric, and raytheon.

A calculated low risk high reward.

Although you wont get a chance to spend it! A stipulation should be included in any such contract for devise, for civilian use, and all who pays for this technology, the tax payers.

Very abnormal post.
TRoc
Hi all,



Welcome back P.Neilson: " I have not posted since JReed distanced himself from Heim Theory due to the Matrix problem. "


I also was reminded of the thread that you started, and "revived" it :
"metron as cellular automa" thread


It would be nice to continue that one.


regards,

T.Roc

Laidback
QUOTE (PNeilson+Oct 7 2007, 01:00 AM)
Hi All

Congratulations to all on resolving the Matrix problem. I have not posted since JReed distanced himself from Heim Theory due to the Matrix problem. I agreed with him that the problem was too large to continue with Heim.

However, I did not abandon Heim Theory as it seemed to have some valid points so I started searching for Heim like Theories. I was quite surprised to find a lot of them. None were as all embracing or as broad as Heim. They usually explored a small portion of Heim Theory while being unaware of Heim's work.

One common thread was the use of extra time like dimensions. By sorting through all of the work of others and using Heim as a guide I came up with a simple thought experiment.

Imagine 2 spaceships flying in formation towards a common point at high speed relative to the common point. They are sharing a common time dilation so they can communicate easily with each other but not with their common objective. Suddenly a nearly stationary object is sensed that will cross their path. Evasive action must be taken. One ship slows and veers left. The other speeds up and veers right Since these are advanced ships the acceleration is advanced as well so the time dilation is no longer common. How do you calculate the time dilation between the 4 bodies?

I can only see one answer. You have to use the 3 space dimensions with their corresponding 3 time dimensions to compute the time dilation between each of the bodies. After all there are 6 different dilation's to compute, but only 4 bodies. Using a single time dimension will create a situation where time is moving at 2 different rates for a single body. This cannot be so! Using 3 time dimensions to sum up to time eliminates this paradox.

After all if it takes 3 space dimensions to compute relative velocities then it must take 3 time dimensions to compute relative time dilation.

This leads to the conclusion that Heim's time like dimensions are not "time like" rather they are "time". Our human perception of time in one dimension is really a summation of the 3 time dimensions.

JReed - what do you make of this thought experiment?

It might be fun to rework Maxwell with Tx, Ty and Tz!

Paul

The solution is easier if we consider a three dimensional area that has all respective mass within it, then we divide the area for a time dimension..

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
Tim
QUOTE (TRoc+Oct 12 2007, 10:46 PM)
I also was reminded of the thread that you started, and "revived" it :
"metron as cellular automa" thread

I remember that thread! I was always intrigued by the idea that of the metron as a cellular automa acting in multiple dimensions.
liebek
Hello all,

I've just picked up New Scientist (13th Oct 2007, pg36) and there is an article on the possibility of a 2nd time dimension. The intriguing part is that the findings are remarkably similar to the ideas of Heim theory.

Scientist Itzhak Bars tried to enforce gauge symmetry upon the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and found that it only worked if there was an extra space and time dimension, giving 6D (although this appears to be a lower limit)

Then it talks about the analogy of a 3D object casting a 2D shadow, and that this may be what is happening from 6D into our seemingly 4D world. He looks at the case of a particle moving in a straight line without any forces acting in a 6D world and the implications in 4D. He finds that:

"...the system has at least 2 more complex shadows in four dimensions. One corresponds to an electron orbiting in an atom; the other is a particle in an expanding universe."

Sounds very intriguing to me, how seemingly unrelated events in our 4D world can be linked in a 6D one. Again, this sounds like a similar way of interpreting the universe as Heim. Good exposure to the ideas even if it doesnt mention Heim!

Any views on this?

jreed
QUOTE (liebek+Oct 15 2007, 01:37 PM)

Scientist Itzhak Bars tried to enforce gauge symmetry upon the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and found that it only worked if there was an extra space and time dimension, giving 6D (although this appears to be a lower limit)


Any views on this?

This isn't exactly like Heim theory. In Heim theory there are two extra dimensions, but they are both timelike.

This is an interesting reference, however.

jreed
Laidback
QUOTE (liebek+Oct 15 2007, 11:37 PM)
Hello all,

I've just picked up New Scientist (13th Oct 2007, pg36) and there is an article on the possibility of a 2nd time dimension.  The intriguing part is that the findings are remarkably similar to the ideas of Heim theory.

Scientist Itzhak Bars tried to enforce gauge symmetry upon the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and found that it only worked if there was an extra space and time dimension, giving 6D (although this appears to be a lower limit)

Then it talks about the analogy of a 3D object casting a 2D shadow, and that this may be what is happening from 6D into our seemingly 4D world.  He looks at the case of a particle moving in a straight line without any forces acting in a 6D world and the implications in 4D. He finds that:

"...the system has at least 2 more complex shadows in four dimensions.  One corresponds to an electron orbiting in an atom; the other is a particle in an expanding universe."

Sounds very intriguing to me, how seemingly unrelated events in our 4D world can be linked in a 6D one.  Again, this sounds like a similar way of interpreting the universe as Heim.  Good exposure to the ideas even if it doesn't mention Heim!

Any views on this?

Just be mindful mathematics and Physics are tied together as is Potential energy and Kinetic energy, Force and Motion, and while I mention Force and motion everything that exists or is possible MUST consist with a Force, Potential or Quanta or a relative reference if we are attempting to express a Physical expression mathematically and or theoretically..

In attempting to express changes in Physical attributes such as the likes for changes in Force, Potential by a quanta can be tricky if one is not aware of what each variable and or dimension represents, working with Energy is relatively easy where at most we are working with only two dimensions "potential" "Kinetic" the kinetic in this case implies change and with change to express change we need to refer to a time reference.

When we refer to an area - More than likely we are referring to a three dimensional expression, that's three variables and or dimensions, and with out change to this area time is uncalled for.... Lets be mindful we can express or equate a three dimensional area as a two variable dimensional area or even a single dimensional area where if the single dimension represents a closed system the dimension is not a Variable...

Now when and if changes occur within a three dimensional area, we need to assign some of its Potential Energy as kinetic energy and or a time fraction, note the inference to "fraction" as in a division or portion of our closed system, of course if our system or area was open to change from beyond it we need to first work out all Energy input and energy outputs - Energy being a single variable dimension is easier to work with, anyway lets keep it simple and have the changes as internal (closed system)..

Now if we have an area and its total Potential energy equated to a quanta and a change was observed then where the change occurred must have been an exchange from Potential energy to Kinetic energy, and kinetic energy implies "change", "velocity", "inertia", "momentum" and or "A Time reference or quanta" which if all dimensions are calculated they must equate to our unchanging single dimension..

OK before I move on to applying actual physical structure to Particles and or open systems via force and the forces respective momentum in its exertions via kinetic energy, may I be so bold and query if I have over looked anything thus far?

*** String Theories possible Dead End ***
single variable dimension = Open system.
single unchanging dimension = Closed system.

Yeah I know it seems this has nothing to do with Burkhard and Heims Particles structure, but if we consider M theory with respects to converting it to three dimensions and or variables, take note of the quanta's..

Dont jump the gun! Now consider the model in four dimensions... blink.gif

Until then Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
UncleMatt
oy gevalt
Laidback
QUOTE (UncleMatt+Oct 16 2007, 09:12 AM)
oy gevalt

OK,

so was your reaction to the deliberate contridiction in getting one to expand on why the statement? unsure.gif or ?


Until then Cheers,

Peter J Schoen...
liebek
QUOTE (jreed+Oct 15 2007, 05:42 PM)
This isn't exactly like Heim theory. In Heim theory there are two extra dimensions, but they are both timelike.

jreed

Apologies for my limited knowledge of Heim theory - I'm still reading through the literature.

I thought that 8 dimensions are hypothesized (I know Heim decided 2 were unnecessary but I thought that D&H thought they may be real after all?).

Are all of these time-like or do they have properties different to time and space dimensions?
PNeilson
Hi John and All

Is it too much of an extrapolation to take Heim's 2 extra time like dimensions and convert that into 3 time dimensions? It has a certain pleasing symmetry, 3 space and 3 time dimensions.

If you take 2 dimensional Metrons and start dividing them does that not sort of fit the definition of Time. Then extrapolate to 3D space, something that hardly defined in Heim's writings as far as I can tell. So the Metrons are dividing on the X plane, the Y plane and the Z plane. How would we ever see these time dimensions. The Metron is way too small for us to see anything with today's technology. So we would just lump the whole thing into Time.

It certainly can explain how QM would have trouble linking up with GR. Any thoughts?

Cheers

Paul
jreed
QUOTE (PNeilson+Oct 16 2007, 11:48 PM)

Is it too much of an extrapolation to take Heim's 2 extra time like dimensions and convert that into 3 time dimensions? It has a certain pleasing symmetry, 3 space and 3 time dimensions.


In "Zur Herleitung der Heimschen Massenformel" by von Ludwiger and Gruener, which is a German paper from the Heim Theory Group, the statement is made:

"Differing from Kaluza-Klein's theory the coordinates X5 and X6 are not compact, and have physical meaning. They cannot be two additional times, as Penrose has assumed in his 6 dimensional theory."

(my translation).

jreed
PNeilson
Hi John

Thanks for the quick response.

If the extra dimensions are non compact and not time, yet are time like, is there any hint in the literature as to what these dimensions might be?

Since we are still many orders of magnitude from the bottom could these extra dimensions some how be related to the condensation zones where space becomes matter? Or is that too compact?

Getting to the force or forces responsible for the condensation of space, never mind where the zones come from, seems to be a very new area of physics to me. Yet these forces must exist else space will never condense into matter.

Does the resolution of the Matrix problem yield any insight?

Sorry for all the questions,

Many thanks

Paul
jreed
QUOTE (PNeilson+Oct 18 2007, 12:26 AM)

If the extra dimensions are non compact and not time, yet are time like, is there any hint in the literature as to what these dimensions might be?



You can find some discussion of the two extra dimensions in a paper by Auerbach and von Ludwiger. Search the internet for "Heim's Theory of Elementary Particle Structures". You will find a pdf document with that name.

jreed
bprager
QUOTE (PNeilson+Oct 18 2007, 12:26 AM)
  If the extra dimensions are non compact and not time, yet are time like, is there any hint in the literature as to what these dimensions might be?

Heim described the coordinations x5 and x6 as "Entelechie" and "Aeon".

Entelechie (x5) values the organizational structure of matter in time ("opposit to entropy"). While not an unknown concept I think that Heim's remarkable step was to realize this as an entire dimension. This becomes important to understand x6.

Aeon (x6) is described as organizational direction (time differential of x5?) and determines the possibilities of matter organizations. In other words the soul of everything.

Apparently the potential of this dimension was one of the main reasons that Heim hesitated to publish more of his work.

People might think he found God.
Savage
.hpcc-space.de/
.public.fh-wolfenbuettel.de/~haeuser/
.engon.de/protosimplex/index_e.htm
.heim-theory.com/
makuabob
QUOTE (Savage+Oct 20 2007, 06:02 PM)
.public.fh-wolfenbuettel.de/~haeuser/

Well, February of this year was the last post at this site. Nothing new to see there. (BTW, anyone's else's German good enough to figure out "wolfenbuettel"?)

A more pressing concern, after two days of searching the web, is that there is NO further news about that "huge void" in our universe, a.k.a., "cold spot in the CMB." Seems like the Astronomy world is holding its breath; nobody expected ANYTHING that big to be found.

I assume, since there are at least a couple (dozen?,... thousand?) of astronomers smarter than I am, that it's been noted that matter ISN'T rushing away from, or into, the void. So it's not a question of a (cough,..) "Big Bang," or a "Big Slurp," that's made this hole.

So, we ask the hard question here, "EHT explains that the universe expanded smoothly for hundreds of billions of years (~10^17 years, IIRC) BEFORE matter formed. What does the EHT group have to say about such an expansive 'anamoly' in its multi-dimensional space-time structure?" unsure.gif

This hole is a big mystery, all the way 'round. Just what we needed...
Laidback
QUOTE (makuabob+Oct 22 2007, 12:46 AM)
Well, February of this year was the last post at this site. Nothing new to see there. (BTW, anyone Eelse's German good enough to figure out "wolfenbuettel"?)

A more pressing concern, after two days of searching the web, is that there is NO further news about that "huge void" in our universe, a.k.a., "cold spot in the CMB." Seems like the Astronomy world is holding its breath; nobody expected ANYTHING that big to be found.

I assume, since there are at least a couple (dozen?,... thousand?) of astronomers smarter than I am, that it's been noted that matter ISN'T rushing away from, or into, the void. So it's not a question of a (cough,..) "Big Bang," or a "Big Slurp," that's made this hole.

So, we ask the hard question here, "EHT explains that the universe expanded smoothly for hundreds of billions of years (~10^17 years, IIRC) BEFORE matter formed. What does the EHT group have to say about such an expansive 'anomaly' in its multi-dimensional space-time structure?" unsure.gif

This hole is a big mystery, all the way 'round. Just what we needed...

User posted imageUser posted image

If we strictly adhere to Conservation Laws, The Big-Bang would not be a viable Model for our Universes History.. (Energy can not be destroyed Nor created, but rather exchanged from potential to kinetic and or Vice Vs)

Therefore by treating "Background Radiation as Potential Kinetic Energy (Mass), and Red-Shift measurements and Blue-Shift measurements along with relativity's Theories for our perception of an expanding Universe may be the best way to go!

So why did I post the above images of the Klein Bottles?

My reasoning has the Universe as a Multi-Necked Klein Bottle, where each neck is a Galaxy, Where the portion of the Universe that is perceived as an accelerating expansion is compressing each Galaxies mass through the Blue-Shifted Core, the core being the Black-Hole of its respective galaxy..

The total result is as our mass is compressed so is our inertia, which shortens our measurements, which slows our time rate relative to the rest of the Universe..

And the fact that electromagnetic waves are propagated through the massive void recently discovered, The void really should not be referred to as a void, as Electromagnetic waves function via Potential Kinetic Energy (Mass)..

So if we take a look at the above images and consider any of the dimensional areas and or necks which converge and cross another neck and or area, the results may be what is puzzling Err~mainstream..

I guess if this is discovered as being the case then my Multi-Necked Klein Bottle model of the Universe can chalk up yet another point in favour of it..

Until next time Cheers,

Peter J Schoen...
Jossarian
QUOTE (makuabob+Oct 21 2007, 02:46 PM)
A more pressing concern, after two days of searching the web, is that there is NO further news about that "huge void" in our universe, a.k.a., "cold spot in the CMB." Seems like the Astronomy world is holding its breath; nobody expected ANYTHING that big to be found.

So, we ask the hard question here, "EHT explains that the universe expanded smoothly for hundreds of billions of years (~10^17 years, IIRC) BEFORE matter formed. What does the EHT group have to say about such an expansive 'anamoly' in its multi-dimensional space-time structure?" unsure.gif

I've wrote something about that issue, see: My comments - regarding CMB cold spot.
I couldn't say anything about how this huge hole appeared but apperently EHT is succesful in explaining why this void appears as COLD SPOT (thanks to Heim modified gravitational law).
Notice that classic physic approach can't provide anything more here than mumbling about mysterious Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

If we use Ockham's Razor principle here then the EHT is winner clearly.
  • EHT says: It's huge empty space, light looses it's energy due to modified gravitational law
  • Classic theory says: It's huge hole void of matter but filled with Dark Matter/Dark Energy which somehow sucks light out of energy
Common, ``keep it simple'' !!

/Joss
Jossarian
Did you ever run Wikiscaner for "Heim Theory" wikipedia article?
Wikiscaner on Heim Theory
Mine employer is a winner, guess why?? cool.gif

/Joss
makuabob
QUOTE (Jossarian+Oct 22 2007, 05:48 AM)
I've wrote something about that issue, see: My comments - regarding CMB cold spot.
I couldn't say anything about how this huge hole appeared but apperently EHT is succesful in explaining why this void appears as COLD SPOT (thanks to Heim modified gravitational law).
Notice that classic physic approach can't provide anything more here than mumbling about mysterious Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

If we use Ockham's Razor principle here then the EHT is winner clearly.

  • EHT says: It's huge empty space, light looses it's energy due to modified gravitational law
  • Classic theory says: It's huge hole void of matter but filled with Dark Matter/Dark Energy which somehow sucks light out of energy
Common, ``keep it simple'' !!

/Joss

Well, first off, I agree that Heim Theory has the 'cold spot' covered. I, too, was nodding approvingly as I read the explanation about the "CMB" radiation not getting a 'boost' from expanding matter/dark matter.

What I failed to relate, when I said "void," was 'void' of matter. My concern here is whether or not Heim Theory can reasonably explain how (once the universe had expanded to the point that matter formed due to the 'folding' of the multi-dimentional matrix) such an LARGE area can be left void of matter.

Since, as we're told, light can indeed propogate through this 'void,' it IS there, it is part of our universe, thus part of Heim Theory's domain. The distinct image given by Heim Theory about the 'expansion' of the multi-verse is that it proceeded 'smoothly.' So, why the big void after matter had formed? Push? Pull? Blow? Suck? Heaven? Valhalla?... What??? blink.gif
Laidback
Its a shame, no one here is considering Potential Kinetic Energy correctly!

and what I find amazing is how conservation laws of Energy are simply glazed over!

I guess the romance with a magical Increasing energy source will persist a few more decades and or as long as we have individuals willing to ignore Basic Physical laws for the love of an magical increasing Energy source...

Gone are the days when Physics had to conform and comply to strict Laws rather than to magic...

Until then,

Peter J Schoen...
blacklabelsk8er
So after reading TRoc's original link and a *few* pages into the replies...(I know, I know, I should read it all before posting...) I was hoping a question would save some time.

Has there been any progress on the values of the three metronic sphere's predicted at the beginning of time?

The derived values seemed to me to be possible ratios(exponentially related?)between neutrons, protons and electrons. Although this is slightly backward, going from a lower number being the heaviest through to the largest number being the electron mass.

Heim was a brilliant man. His circumstances in life were difficult no doubt, but in his solitude he seems to have derived a truly amazing theory.
hdeasy
I don't have too much time these days to post here. Pity, as there are some interesting discussions.

I just heard that tomorrow on German/Swiss/Austrian TV station 3-Sat there will be a special on Tajmar and his gravito-magnetic experiments on the technology program ' Nano' :

" Wednesday 24 October 2007: Our topics in the nano-world of tomorrow

An experiment perplexed physicists

In experiments with rotating superconductors, Martin Tajmer, head of the department of space propulsion systems at the Austrian Research Center in Seibersdorf, measured "an artificial gravitational force field" which in principle should not have been possible . With today's laws of physics it was not possible to explain the observed effect. Tajmar thinks of the rotating superconductor as a kind of gravitational - generator, that drags the four dimensional space-time in its vicinity, whereby a local gravity field is created. Now physicists are working out the results of this discovery to design a theory. that might explain it. "

Anyone who can get 3-Sat should have a look - he might even make a reference to Droscher and Hauser's EHT.
Jossarian
Isn't that xkcd webcomic strip related to Tajmar experiments??:
XKCD strip biggrin.gif

/Joss
hdeasy
Sorry to all who rushed to their TVs yesterday hoping to see Martin Tajmar talking about his effect. The TV people changed the topic of the show at the last moment and scrapped the Tajmar spot. Sad, sad, sad. Let's hope it was just a postponement and that it will appear at a later juncture.
It would be great if he mentioned something new and/or the EHT explanation of the effect,
hdeasy
Here's the 3-sat TV team's answer to my complaint;

Sehr geehrter Herr Deasy,

vielen Dank für Ihre Mail von heute Mittag.

Aus aktuellem Anlass wurde der Ausstrahlungstermin des Beitrages leider verschoben und bisher steht noch kein neuer Termin fest. Wir hoffen auf Ihr Verständnis. Allerdings Sie brauchen nicht auf einen neuen Ausstrahlungstermin warten, sondern können sich den Beitrag bereits jetzt auf unserer Homepage (www.3sat.de/nano) anschauen! Mit dem Stichwort "Antigravitation" können Sie den Beitrag in unserer Mediathek aufrufen.

Ich wünsche Ihnen viel Freude beim Anschauen und hoffe, dass Sie uns auch weiterhin ein treuer nano-Zuschauer bleiben.

Einen schönen Tag und viele Grüße aus Mainz

Anette Lenz-Stamm
nano-Redaktion

I.e. Go to www.3sat.de: then click on A-Z in the left hand bar, goto M and select Mediathek. Enter Antigravitation in search field and Bob's your uncle

1-Curioso
very cool but huh.gif any chance of a version with English subtitles being made available? smile.gif My mastery of German is limited to ordering beer and food at Oktoberfest...
jreed
QUOTE (1-Curioso+Oct 25 2007, 04:53 PM)
very cool but huh.gif any chance of a version with English subtitles being made available? smile.gif My mastery of German is limited to ordering beer and food at Oktoberfest...

Here's a Google translation:

Dear Mr. Deasy,

Thank you for your mail by noon today.

For current events, the broadcast date of the contribution unfortunately been postponed and is yet a new date. We hope for your understanding. But you do not need to create a new broadcast date wait, but can contribute to the already on our homepage (www.3sat.de/nano)! With the key word "anti-gravity" to the contribution of our media call.

I hope you enjoy the show and hope that you continue to remain a loyal nano-Zuschauer.

One fine day, and many greetings from Mainz

Anette stem Lenz
Nano-Redaktion
MichaelB
Just for the ones who can't understand german. In the movie with Tajmar EHT or something similar is not being mentioned in any way. Just that it's not within Einsteins Relativity Theory and that there might be nice applications in cars, spaceships and whatever people could invent with it - being (if for real) as revolutionary as the discovery of electricity.

Michael
hdeasy
An even quicker way (by about 10 sec) to see it is to go to the
mediathek and enter antigrav in the search (suche) field.

My commentary on the clip: Tajmar is interviewed in his lab in Seibersdorf. The video starts with Newton's apple legend and makes comparison with Tajmar's experiment. He tosses an apple and says how he was always interested in anti-grav. He examined Podkletnov's claims but
could rule them out as impossible. Now, though, his new experiments may be the key to new technology. The ring in his rig is in liquid helium with laser gyro detectors physically decoupled

They see effect in gyros though not physically coupled. Thus it must be that space is bent or dragged. Einstein predicts it but his effect is many orders of magnitude lower than T's. T's effect size could only be achieved a la Einstein with a neutron star! Taj says how the anti-clockwise-only effect is unique in macroscopic experiments in showing ‘parity breaking’. NZ mentioned with clockwise: could it be due to Earth rotation or what? T then decribes possible applications - avoiding centrifugal acceleration in a car or jet taking a sharp bend etc..

Describes how sleepless nights until he published the accounts. The whole thing might show that N's apple was much more complex than we thought.
makuabob
The "Big Bang" folks have begun a campaign to save it from the 'Big Void.' Currently, they 'propose' that the void is a "flaw" in the space-time structure caused by,... I'm not sure. The analogy given was phase transitions in water; freeze it too fast and crystallizing areas don't align and cracks appear (no voids, apparently wink.gif ). (As if these folks had another universe to compare this one to, and could point to that one saying, "See,... that's how it SHOULD look.")

It should be curious to observe as never-before-suspected possibilities are dragged from their 'anxiety closets' to explain that this 'void' is perfectly normal. The image that comes to my mind is from Disney's Fantasia; the graceless hippo constantly pulling down her ridiculously tiny tutu in back to... Well, you get the image.

On the other hand, was anyone's cosmology ready for this 'void?' I hope D&H are integrating an answer into their upcoming paper. That old curse, usually attributed to the Chinese, may be upon us.

"May you have an interesting life!"
Jossarian
Is scientific community heading for paradigm-shift?
John Moffat, an astronomer at the University of Waterloo in Canada, and Joel Brownstein, his graduate student, propose a modification of gravitational law which will allow to avoid Dark Matter/Energy stuff.
See: Scientists Say Dark Matter Doesn't Exist
It's different then Heim's modified gravity because MOG gravity appears stronger then Newtonian, since Heim's one contains repulsive gravity for very large distances.

/Joss

DEK46656
QUOTE (Jossarian+Oct 30 2007, 06:20 AM)
Is scientific community heading for paradigm-shift?/Joss

If they are there is a long way to go before the "shift" takes place. As noted in the article:
QUOTE
For him and many other astronomers, conjuring up new particles that might account for dark matter is more palatable than turning a fundamental theory of how the universe works on its head.

Isn't that one in the same?
jreed
QUOTE (Jossarian+Oct 30 2007, 10:20 AM)
It's different then Heim's modified gravity because MOG gravity appears stronger then Newtonian, since Heim's one contains repulsive gravity for very large distances.


Heim's gravity has a repulsive force at great distances. That's exactly what is observed with dark energy. Dark energy is different than dark matter.

jreed
makuabob
QUOTE (makuabob+Oct 27 2007, 05:17 PM)
The "Big Bang" folks have begun a campaign to save it from the 'Big Void.' Currently, they 'propose' that the void is a "flaw" in the space-time structure caused by,... I'm not sure. The analogy given was phase transitions in water; freeze it too fast and crystallizing areas don't align and cracks appear (no voids, apparently  wink.gif ). (As if these folks had another universe to compare this one to, and could point to that one saying, "See,... that's how it SHOULD look.")

It should be curious to observe as never-before-suspected possibilities are dragged from their 'anxiety closets' to explain that this 'void' is perfectly normal. The image that comes to my mind is from Disney's Fantasia; the graceless hippo constantly pulling down her ridiculously tiny tutu in back to... Well, you get the image.

On the other hand, was anyone's cosmology ready for this 'void?' I hope D&H are integrating an answer into their upcoming paper. That old curse, usually attributed to the Chinese, may be upon us.

"May you have an interesting life!"

Is it poor taste to quote my own post? unsure.gif

Anyway, searching about (still), I found the New Scientist article I missed previously.

Colossal void may spell trouble for cosmology

It seems that some scientists did indeed predict this possibility! The fact that they opted for truly HUGE scaling of the universe fits quite well with Heim's cosmology. His explanation was that the universe simply expanded,... and expanded,... and expanded,... without matter forming for a long, long time (I mentioned 10^17 years in an earlier post; I think that's what I read in one of Heim's descriptions). Such a long time that the "CMB" is just the edge of OUR visibility.

This, I'm guessing, gives us a large enough universe to have the size needed for, fractally speaking, a void of the size just discovered. It's good news for the Heim Group unless something in Heim Theory specifically disallows the fractal process in the formation of matter.

So, as I see it, GOOD NEWS! biggrin.gif
rmuldavin
The billion light year void, if dark matter filled, would be or could we observe through it to the other side?

A-void, avoid, a-word, 1/3 to N powers of ten, types of infinity, types keys.

Best, rmuldavin
Laidback
QUOTE (rmuldavin+Oct 31 2007, 07:52 AM)
The billion  light year void, if dark matter filled, would be or could we observe through it to the other side?

A-void, avoid, a-word, 1/3 to N powers of ten, types of infinity, types keys.

Best, rmuldavin

The inference that the incorrectly termed "void" propagates "Light or electromagnetic waves" suggests we can observe through the mass, which means the "void" simply is not a "VOID" for the fact Light can be propagated through it..

Only a pure void and or nothing hinders mass from being propagated..
Besides - As Physicists we should know better in that a void simply can not exist if its surroundings are with a Potential to it.. huh.gif

Until next time Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
Jossarian
How to generate above 25 Tesla magnetic field:
QUOTE
A group of researchers at Florida state have demonstrated a magnet design that could shed new light on nanoscience and semiconductor research. 'The Split Florida Helix magnet can direct and scatter laser light at a sample down the centre of the magnet and from four ports on the sides. Due to become fully operational in 2010, the device can generate fields above 25 Tesla. The highest-field split magnet in the world currently attains 18 Tesla ... The scientists will be able to expand the scope of their experimental approach, learning more about the intrinsic properties of materials by shining light on crystals from angles not previously available in such high magnetic fields.'

See article here:
Supermagnet
Supermagnet presentation (PPT)

/Joss
djolds1
Newbie.

Does Heim's modified gravitational law potentially account for the pioneer anomaly?
gdaigle
I noted that the Stanford Gravity Probe B site states:

We are now proceeding with a detailed incorporation of the new results and a corresponding derivation of improved relativity results for review with our Science Advisory Committee (SAC) and with NASA in preparation for our 17th SAC meeting, which is scheduled here at Stanford on the 2nd of November.

Any word yet on results that might support Heim or Tajmar's results?
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 31 2007, 12:30 AM)
The inference that the incorrectly termed "void" propagates "Light or electromagnetic waves" suggests we can observe through the mass, which means the "void" simply is not a "VOID" for the fact Light can be propagated through it..

You're taking it too literally, if at all correctly. A void is devoid of content. Obviously a smattering of light, gravity and even normal matter exists within it, but relative to other regions of space-time, it is devoid of material.

Noone is claiming it's utterly devoid of everything, that's just your misunderstanding.
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 31 2007, 12:30 AM)
Besides - As Physicists we should know better in that a void simply can not exist if its surroundings are with a Potential to it..
Please don't use the pronoun 'we' when referring to physicists, you aren't a physicist.
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 30 2007, 11:30 PM)
The inference that the incorrectly termed "void" propagates "Light or electromagnetic waves" suggests we can observe through the mass, which means the "void" simply is not a "VOID" for the fact Light can be propagated through it..

Only a pure void and or nothing hinders mass from being propagated..
Besides - As Physicists we should know better in that a void simply can not exist if its surroundings are with a Potential to it.. huh.gif

Until next time Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..

what's new laidback? I've been busy with a suit a i had and other stuff. Working on buckytube material that sticks to human flesh and soft rubber. I'm going to hear from a fortune 500 corporotion that is reviewing my proposal.
Laidback
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Nov 6 2007, 02:25 PM)
what's new laidback?
Hi Neil, Yeah - Not much,
QUOTE
I've been busy with a suit a i had and other stuff. Working on buckytube material that sticks to human flesh and soft rubber. I'm going to hear from a fortune 500 corporotion that is reviewing my proposal.
Well, Good luck with it.. and let me know how it all went..

Until then Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..


Laidback
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 6 2007, 01:50 PM)
You're taking it too literally, if at all correctly. A void is devoid of content. Obviously a smattering of light, gravity and even normal matter exists within it, but relative to other regions of space-time, it is devoid of material.

No-one is claiming it's utterly devoid of everything, that's just your misunderstanding.

QUOTE
Please don't use the pronoun 'we' when referring to physicists, you aren't a physicist.
rolleyes.gif why do you assume I am alone? And why do you assume you are considered by me as a Physicists?

I will have you know I would rather refer to a Layman who may hold a better understanding in physics as a Physicist before I would ever refer to you as one..

Loose the immaturity and this may change, but as long as your hell bent on revenge you will remain a mere childish loser to me..

2~Duh~Loo!

Peter J Schoen..
makuabob
QUOTE (makuabob+Oct 30 2007, 03:47 PM)
...The fact that they opted for truly HUGE scaling of the universe fits quite well with Heim's cosmology. His explanation was that the universe simply expanded,... and expanded,... and expanded,... without matter forming for a long, long time (I mentioned 10^17 years in an earlier post; I think that's what I read in one of Heim's descriptions)....

OK! So my memory betrayed me on that "10^17 years" value! It's bugged me & bugged me until I finally went back and found the quote:

QUOTE
Heim’s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures by T. Auerbach & I. von Ludwiger
(Journal of Scientific Exploration,Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 217-231, 1992)

"Heim’s theory results in a present age of the universe approximately equal to 5.45 x 10^107 years, and a diameter D of about 6.37 x 10^109 light years."


I lost that zero somehow! Phew! How embarrassing! ohmy.gif

This MUCH larger value strengthens the case for Heim Theory to allow (and, possibly, require) a fractal universe which, in turn, allows the 'strange' features of the 'accepted' universe; gaping 'voids,' extensive super-sized galactic structures and filaments, as well as a 'Cosmic Microwave Background.'

Just look at that value D in the above quote: a 10^9 light-year wide 'void' is almost a needle-in-a-haystack event!

I sure hope the Heim group gave some thought to mentioning a fractal universe in their forthcoming paper.
makuabob
QUOTE (djolds1+Nov 5 2007, 07:31 PM)
Newbie.

Does Heim's modified gravitational law potentially account for the pioneer anomaly?

After looking through the Wikipedia article on the Pioneer Effect, it looks like the list of possible explanations there is long enough already. smile.gif

I found this in the translation of Heim's talk in November of 1976 (Basic thoughts on a unified field theory of matter and gravity). It is on page 61 under the heading of "7. The modified gravitation law in Newton's approximation."

QUOTE
It is interesting that this goes back to the mean atomic weight of the field-generating mass sources! Following the Russel Distribution, ρ has to have a value of between 10 and 20 light-years. That is exactly the distance within which we observe these attractive fields, astronomically. Beyond this limit – as Zwicky had also written to me at this time – one can observe that gravitation obviously does not work as an attractive field.


I am not sure but I think Heim was referring to our solar system above. This would mean that somewhere between 10 to 20 light-years out, the sun's gravitational force falls to zero, allowing the repulsive force of most of the galaxy's remaining mass to slow down the Pioneer craft by saying, in effect, "Go away! We don't want you out here!" Thus, maybe, the Pioneer Effect IS a consequence of Heim's modifications of Newtonian gravity.

If any of others here, more familiar with the workings of Heim Theory, can clarify this point, it may be another plus in the theory's column.
makuabob
To quote Rosanne Rosanna Danna, "Oh! Never mind!"

I see, now, that the quote I used in my previous post MUST be a error in the document from which it was quoted. The first mention of "10 to 20" and "light years" is "10 to 20 million light years" and it refers to our GALAXY's ρ. So the second, quoted, reference is missing the "million" qualifier.

Still,... the question should be asked, "Doesn't our solar system have its own ρ?" If the galaxy has a ρ for its mass, the sun should have its own seperate, MUCH lower value.

Quick, what is "the mean atomic weight AT multiplied by the nucleon mass mN" for our solar system?! huh.gif
djolds1
QUOTE (makuabob+Nov 8 2007, 05:03 PM)
After looking through the Wikipedia article on the Pioneer Effect, it looks like the list of possible explanations there is long enough already. smile.gif

I am not sure but I think Heim was referring to our solar system above. This would mean that somewhere between 10 to 20 light-years out, the sun's gravitational force falls to zero, allowing the repulsive force of most of the galaxy's remaining mass to slow down the Pioneer craft by saying, in effect, "Go away! We don't want you out here!" Thus, maybe, the Pioneer Effect IS a consequence of Heim's modifications of Newtonian gravity.

If any of others here, more familiar with the workings of Heim Theory, can clarify this point, it may be another plus in the theory's column.

I thought Heim's gravity model only went to repulsive at distances >46 Megaparsecs?

Duane
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 6 2007, 10:58 PM)
rolleyes.gif why do you assume I am alone? And why do you assume you are considered by me as a Physicists?

I will have you know I would rather refer to a Layman who may hold a better understanding in physics as a Physicist before I would ever refer to you as one..

Loose the immaturity and this may change, but as long as your hell bent on revenge you will remain a mere childish loser to me..

2~Duh~Loo!

Peter J Schoen..

the heat from pioneer's nuclear reactors might have acted as a propulsive force that changed its' orbit a bit. its' A very low power photonic engine.
makuabob
QUOTE (djolds1+Nov 12 2007, 11:57 AM)
I thought Heim's gravity model only went to repulsive at  distances >46 Megaparsecs?

Duane

I don't think that 46 Megaparsec (~150 million light-years) is a minimum value, rather a maximum. Following that value, Heim then comes up with an estimate for the mass of our Milky Way galaxy:

QUOTE (Basic thoughts on a unified field theory of matter and gravity. B. Heim+ at Ottobrunn, 11-25-1976, p. 56)
If we consider the fundamental (Russel) composition of the galaxy, and use that for calculating a mean atomic weight AT, then we can compute ρ. This shows that the appropriate limit ρ for galaxies is between 10 million and 20 million light-years. I will speak on the meaning of this number shortly.

Heim then creates a scalar for the gravity field, differentiates it to get the sign (attractive or repulsive) of the field and shows that it does go to zero at some point.

The thing that interests me is that if AT can be estimated for our galaxy, it can be estimated for our solar system,... and others! So each star (or mass, including planets) has a value ρ for its mass. I visualize this attractive/repulsive field as the freeze-frame image of a drop of water hitting the surface of a pond. There is the depression (gravity well) after the first wave moves out and that wave as the pattern of the repulsive force. (Erase the endless ripples part.) Then, wrap that single ripple pattern around into a spherical shape for a 3-D version.

If the sun were all alone, it would be that simple. However, other stars' ripple patterns (frozen in space-time) would impinge upon our own sun's pattern, creating complex variations within the sun's sphere of influence. Maybe (and you can add this to the laundry list of other possible causes) the Pioneer craft are being influenced ever so slightly by such complex, repulsive "un-gravity" fields from other stars reaching into our sun's gravity well and nudging the spacecraft back. unsure.gif

WTH! It's a thought!
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Nov 12 2007, 06:40 PM)
the heat from pioneer's nuclear reactors might have acted as a propulsive force that changed its' orbit a bit. its' A very low power photonic engine.

Who is hell bent about revenge, about what?
Astepintime
Another eight dimensional theory is out.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626303.900

It looks difficult to tell if any overlap with EHT exists.
makuabob
QUOTE (Astepintime+Nov 15 2007, 11:52 AM)
Another  eight dimensional theory is out.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626303.900

It looks difficult to tell if any overlap with EHT exists.

Gosh! Some of us (no longer) have access privileges at New Scientist. Could someone who does give us a somewhat more insightful sysopsis of this article?
Olaf
QUOTE (Astepintime+Nov 15 2007, 04:52 PM)
Another  eight dimensional theory is out.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626303.900

The New Scientist article points to the source where you can download the original article (PDF, 31 pages):
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770

You also should take a look at the trackbacks linked to that article at the same place, such as this discussion: An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything!
inQZtive
Astepintime, makuabob, Olaf...


thanks for posting the link


is he referring to HT when he says "It is conceivable that there is a more complicated way of assigning three generations of fermions to the E8 roots to get standard model quantum numbers for all three generations without triality equivalence. There is such an assignment known to the author that gives the correct hypercharges for all three generations, but it is not a triality rotation and it produces unusual spins. A correct description of the relationship between triality and generations, if it exists, awaits a better understanding." ?


and this, "In any case, the dynamics depends on the action, and the action depends on the the connection.", seems similar (from my limited knowledge) to the metron radius, and their initial connection. any comments?

or

"The Riemannian geometry of general relativity has been subsumed by principal bundle geometry - a significant mathematical unification. Devotees of geometry should not despair at this development, as principal bundle geometry is even more natural than Riemannian geometry. A principal bundle with connection can be described purely in terms of a mapping between tangent vector fields (diffeomorphisms) on a manifold, without the ab initio introduction of a metric."

smile.gif


J-

hdeasy
I also noticed the New scientist alert. The similarities with hHeim theroy are indeed striking. Those similarities were already great with LQT and this E8 theory involves spinors etc. in a similar way to LQT: after all, Smolin approves of what he's doing. But unlike LQT there are 8 dimensions (or 248 in a looser sense!). Like EHT, it gets the Standard Model and gravity by purely geometric means. Hoever, there is no mention in what I saw so far of metronic quantisation. I haven't had much time to root around, but I presume he does have qauntisation of space - the fact that he's working from discrete groups may imply that.
hdeasy
Just to add: like EHT, the 4 extra dimensions are not spatial. One thing I saw, though that is NOT like EHT is that the E8-Lisi theory come out fine without use of metrics. Now EHT's results rest on hermetry forms, which come from the polymetric, a generalisation of the GR metric.
hdeasy
Wow! I just realised another ' coincidence' between E8 theory and Heim theory:

In e.g. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn...g=NSF&from=news :

"In that context, E8 strains the imagination. The symmetries represent a 57-dimensional solid (it would take 57 coordinates to define a location), and the group of symmetries has a whopping 248 dimensions."

But the number 57 dimensions plays a role in Heim theory too, as I found out myself by playing with Heim's dimension law for n dim embedded in higher dimensional space of N dim::

N = 1 + Sqrt(1+ n.(n-1).(n-2))

Heim's solutions to this were
n = 4, N = 6 (basic HT for mass formula etc.)
n = 6, N = 12 (EHT with 8 dimensions as the main ones, but 4 additional time like ones that are involved in determining the QM probabilities - and I think something of this sort was mentioned for Lisi's theory too... or am I imagining it?)

Heim and Droscher & co. had thought there were no higher solutions with integers.
But I ran a simple program to check up to n = 1000 and more. The next solution after the ones listed by Heim was:

n = 57, N = 420

So, 57 would be a solution of Heim's dimension law... wow! I think it was Droscher who replied to my query saying that it would be impractical to work with a 57 dim theory. Not surprising, as the 8 or 12 dim theory is difficult enough, and you get masses, gravito-photons and the Standard Model from it.

I don't know if maybe Heim was working on someting connected with E8 without knowing it or maybe he did know, as the maths has been round since 1889 or so.
PNeilson
Hi All

I have spent the last few days looking through Lisi's paper. E8 has promise but it is early days. In the backreaction blog there is a long series of posts with a lot of Questions answered by Dr. Lisi.

The point in the blog that was made by D. R. Lunsford about the E8 theory not having anything to say about how matter arises and that says a lot about E8 vs Heim theory. However, G. Lisi says he will be trying to calculate particle mass using E8 theory so it will be interesting to see if he can do it!

E8 theory has gotten quite a bit of attention, popular and professional. So I think we will be hearing about it for some time.

So E8 theory got me thinking about Metrons and Zones and Cyclical process again. This led to a crazy idea that I can't get out of my head so here it is. In Heim theory Metrons are 2 dimensional geometric objects in 3 dimensional space. But I can't quite get past the thought that even a 2 D object must have some thickness if it is in a 3 D space. So what if the Metron thickness is the Planck Length? And the Metron objects in 2 D have lengths and widths many times the Planck Length. This reduces quantum uncertainty to a simple issue of the structure of a multiplicity of Metrons and the randomness of how the ends overlap. This is a pretty shocking idea, so it must be crazy.

Regards

Paul

hdeasy
Well, I suppose you could say same about 1-d strings - why not consider width and all that? But the point about the metron or the spin networks of LQG is that directional spin only comes off a surface quantum etc. You could indeed work with volume quanta, but they don't pop out of the theories as obviously as surface quanta.

Oh and the 2-d metrons are not only floating in 3-d but in 6-d or 8-d or whatever.
Laidback
QUOTE (hdeasy+Nov 18 2007, 07:49 PM)
Well, I suppose you could say same about 1-d strings - why not consider width and all that? But the point about the metron or the spin networks of LQG is  that directional spin only comes off a surface quantum etc.

You are right - Working with a single or less than four dimensions for that matter is only good when working within the boundaries of theory and or calculus..
QUOTE
You could indeed work with volume quanta, but  they don't pop out of the theories as obviously as surface quanta.


If you are implying when one works with models we need to consider beyond our models detected structure or even the internal dynamics, again you are correct.. One of the best examples of such flawed theory is some of "The Standard Models" Particles to which: I quote
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You could indeed work with volume quanta, but  they don't pop out of the theories as obviously as surface quanta.


If you are implying when one works with models we need to consider beyond our models detected structure or even the internal dynamics, again you are correct.. One of the best examples of such flawed theory is some of "The Standard Models" Particles to which: I quoteOh and the 2-d metrons are not only floating in 3-d but in 6-d or 8-d or whatever.
if one should google metrons - metrons don't get a mention in any credible publication? huh.gif unsure.gif Link to Theoretical Particles
So could any one here please explain to me the "Metrons" detected structural forces or how its functions were postulated?

Until next time Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
Astepintime
HI

A bit of a wild idea but perhaps it is of value to try to make a connection between EHT and the new E8 theory. Apparently, Lisi has 8 quantum numbers used to produce 240 elementary particles of which most are the standard ones but some are new. Effort is now being made to estimate their masses and it is hoped that the new particles will be seen at the LHC.

Is it possible to make a mapping between Heim's quantum numbers and Lisi's?
If so then a Heim Mass/lifetime estimate for a E8 predicated particle could be made.
hdeasy
Hi Astepintime:

Good idea: I was wondering something of the sort myself. I will ask around.
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (solidspin+Jan 10 2006, 07:04 PM)
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!

Hello Good elf, TRoc, Zephir etc. I found out I may have to contend with a frivolous lawsuit against my company soon. Anyone have any suggestions?
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (hdeasy+Nov 19 2007, 10:39 AM)
Hi Astepintime:

Good idea: I was wondering something of the sort myself. I will ask around.

Do you know of a way to deter a collection agency from a frivolous lawsuit? They wont go to where the money is and collect it from the real party that owes the money.
inQZtive
hdeasy,

"there is no mention in what I saw so far of metronic quantisation."


what I mean is the connection between the "triality", and the 3 initial values in HT.


from the paper.. "A correct description of the relationship between triality and generations, if it exists, awaits a better understanding." ? "

and of course the same problem in understanding of the standard model.



any luck on a finding mapping between Heim's quantum numbers and Lisi's?


J-
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (inQZtive+Nov 23 2007, 01:20 AM)
hdeasy,

"there is no mention in what I saw so far of metronic quantisation."


what I mean is the connection between the "triality", and the 3 initial values in HT.


from the paper.. "A correct description of the relationship between triality and generations, if it exists, awaits a better understanding." ? "

and of course the same problem in understanding of the standard model.



any luck on a finding mapping between Heim's quantum numbers and Lisi's?


J-

What is triality? Who is Lisl? I've been too busy to get involved in the discussion.
Jossarian
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Nov 23 2007, 01:43 AM)
What is triality? Who is Lisl? I've been too busy to get involved in the discussion.

Here is the "New Scientists" article:
Lisi Theory
and paper:
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/0711.0770Arxiv
and the webcomic's strip as a bonus:
User Friendly

/Joss
MMC
QUOTE
What is triality? Who is Lisl? I've been too busy to get involved in the discussion.


I wouldn't worry about it. A GUT that does not account for anything below the Planck level is a waste of time. Since, there are no known points of reference below the Planck level, humans are unable to rationalize the structure.

It often escapes people's attention that something below the Planck level must give rise to quantization. Afterall, Planck did say the constant was "a purely formal assumption".

There is more to the universe than quantum mechanics and the standard model. cool.gif

hdeasy
QUOTE (inQZtive+Nov 23 2007, 01:20 AM)
hdeasy,

"there is no mention in what I saw so far of metronic quantisation."


what I mean is the connection between the "triality", and the 3 initial values in HT.


from the paper.. "A correct description of the relationship between triality and generations, if it exists, awaits a better understanding." ? "

and of course the same problem in understanding of the standard model.



any luck on a finding mapping between Heim's quantum numbers and Lisi's?


J-

I doubt that the triality, as described in Lisi's E8 paper and its connection with families of Fermions has anything to do with the cosmological origins in the 3 primordial metronic spheres. At least from what I've seen of the way the particles emerge in HT so far, I don't see a connection. Maybe there is one somewhere, though, deeply hidden.

No one has come back on the quantum numbers yet.
makuabob
QUOTE (makuabob+Nov 8 2007, 07:46 PM)
... the question should be asked, "Doesn't our solar system have its own ρ?" If the galaxy has a ρ for its mass, the sun should have its own separate, MUCH lower value.

Quick, what is "the mean atomic weight AT multiplied by the nucleon mass mN" for our solar system?! huh.gif


So, after searching around for a while, I was able to find values for all of the variables in Heim's formula for calculating ρ, the radius at which the 'attractive' force of gravity diminishes to zero before becoming slightly replusive, EXCEPT for 'm' (which is approximately equal to "the mean atomic weight AT multiplied by the nucleon mass mN").

The formula is: ρ = h^2 / γ m^3

h is Planck's quantum of action and γ is the cosmological constant.

Solving for 'm' gave the value 2.34 x 10^-9,... I think. unsure.gif Reducing this value by 1/200,000,000,000 (our Sun vs. the number of stars estimated in our Milky Way galaxy) and re-running the formula as stated gave a solar system ρ of ~1.87 x 10^21 Light Years.

This answer, if anywhere near correct, means Heim's version of modified Newtonian gravity probably has nothing whatever to do with the Pioneer Anomoly mentioned earlier since Poineer 10 is not yet 100 AU out (63,240 AU = 1 LY). However,...

It seems to point out that the smaller the mass, the farther its 'attractive' gravitational reach. An atom on one side of out universe very likely attracts another atom on the other side of our universe. But the inverse cubic function of 'm' seems to suggest that the gravitational 'pull' of a super-massive black hole has a much shorter 'reach' than our Sun,... albeit, great enough to pull our Sun in to it, given the time and conditions!

If someone else wants to 'crunch' the numbers to find what the gravitational 'reach' of Saggitarius A*, the values can be found in Wikipedia except for 'm' which I gave above.
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Nov 23 2007, 01:43 AM)
What is triality? Who is Lisl? I've been too busy to get involved in the discussion.

I'll ask again what's triality?
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Nov 24 2007, 12:49 AM)
I'll ask again what's triality?

They say the asymmetric emission of infrared photons from the pioneer's nuclear reactor has imparted a momentum to the spacecraft that has pushed it off course a little.
But what caused the uneven distribution? Are there infrared reflective materials on the pioneer? Maybe the reactor is closer to one side than the other.
hdeasy
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein @ Nov 24 2007, 12:49 AM)
I'll ask again what's triality?

Well, as it says in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triality ,

"The symmetry group of the diagram is the symmetric group S3 which acts by permuting the three legs. "

In particle physics, e.g. in Lisi's paper, each of the legs seems to correspond to a Fermion generation.


Oh and hey Neil - thanks for prompting me to look at Wiki's def, as this tidbit also fell out:

"For Spin(8), one finds a curious phenomenon involving 1, 2, and 4 dimensional subspaces of 8-dimensional space, historically known as "geometric triality"."

That might be another lead on the geometrical aspects of EHT's 4-d sub-space of the main 8-d space.
makuabob
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Nov 23 2007, 07:54 PM)
They say the asymmetric emission of infrared photons from the pioneer's nuclear reactor has imparted a momentum to the spacecraft that has pushed it off course a little.
But what caused the uneven distribution? Are there infrared reflective materials on the pioneer? Maybe the reactor is closer to one side than the other.


Actually, the Pioneer craft have their RPGs way out on a boom. The NASA launch notes specifically state that the final booster stage spun the craft up to 60 RPM. The design was intended to keep the dish antenna always pointed at Earth by spin-stabilization.

If the Radioactive Power Generator was the cause of a very, very slight thrust, it would have to have been EXACTLY in the opposite direction of the Earth. If not, a slow precession of the craft's axis would have ensued, bringing about an earlier end to communications. Since the anomaly was the same for each spacecraft, and they went in very different directions, it leaves one wondering if a design parameter was the cause,... or the physics of the universe was the cause. As I mentioned earlier, it seems that Heim Theory doesn't come into play in this instance.
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (makuabob+Nov 24 2007, 11:05 AM)

Actually, the Pioneer craft have their RPGs way out on a boom. The NASA launch notes specifically state that the final booster stage spun the craft up to 60 RPM. The design was intended to keep the dish antenna always pointed at Earth by spin-stabilization.

If the Radioactive Power Generator was the cause of a very, very slight thrust, it would have to have been EXACTLY in the opposite direction of the Earth. If not, a slow precession of the craft's axis would have ensued, bringing about an earlier end to communications. Since the anomaly was the same for each spacecraft, and they went in very different directions, it leaves one wondering if a design parameter was the cause,... or the physics of the universe was the cause. As I mentioned earlier, it seems that Heim Theory doesn't come into play in this instance.

maybe its the physics of the universe.
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Nov 24 2007, 04:12 PM)
maybe its the physics of the universe.

What directions are they going in?
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Nov 24 2007, 04:12 PM)
maybe its the physics of the universe.

There might be peace in the Mideast there's a summit coming up. They are including the Palestinians and the Israelis and the nations at peace with them.
makuabob
QUOTE (makuabob+Nov 23 2007, 06:23 PM)

...
The formula is: ρ = h^2 / γ m^3

h is Planck's quantum of action and γ is the cosmological constant.

Solving for 'm' gave the value 2.34 x 10^-9,... I think.  unsure.gif Reducing this value by 1/200,000,000,000 (our Sun vs. the number of stars estimated in our Milky Way galaxy) and re-running the formula as stated gave a solar system ρ of ~1.87 x 10^21 Light Years...

...
If someone else wants to 'crunch' the numbers to find what the gravitational 'reach' of Sagittarius A*, the values can be found in Wikipedia except for 'm' which I gave above.


Let me correct those values above! I put the known quantities into a simple program and eliminated the entry errors which obviously plagued my earlier attempt.

First, Heim gave a galactic ρ of ~2 x 10^7 LY. The solar ρ that I gave above is waaaaay low. Try a value of ρ = ~4 x 10^42 LY for our Sun and tack on a ρ of ~2 x 10^21 for Sagittarius A*.

Clearly, both the solar and Sagittarius A* values of ρ extend their 'attractive' gravitational forces beyond the limits of our visible universe, which is no problem for Heim Theory. Heim himself said that if one could get to the edge of our visible universe, there would be no "fence," just more universe to see.

The curious point, though, is to contrast these two values of ρ with that of our galaxy. How is it that the objects within our galaxy have gravitational reaches far beyond the edge of the Cosmic Microwave Background but the galaxy's gravitational 'pull' is only about a hundred times its own diameter?

Does the Heim group have an explanation of how this can be? (The obvious answer is that I am like that Captain on the Simpsons,... "Yar! I don't know what I'm doin' !") blink.gif
Jossarian
QUOTE (makuabob+Oct 22 2007, 01:15 PM)
Well, first off, I agree that Heim Theory has the 'cold spot' covered. I, too, was nodding approvingly as I read the explanation about the "CMB" radiation not getting a 'boost' from expanding matter/dark matter.
...
Since, as we're told, light can indeed propogate through this 'void,' it IS there, it is part of our universe, thus part of Heim Theory's domain. The distinct image given by Heim Theory about the 'expansion' of the multi-verse is that it proceeded 'smoothly.' So, why the big void after matter had formed? Push? Pull? Blow? Suck? Heaven? Valhalla?... What??? blink.gif

Maybe this answer will be satisfactory for you: New Scientist: "The void. Imprint of another universe?"
QUOTE (NS Article+)
What could cause such a gaping hole? One team of physicists has a breathtaking explanation: "It is the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own," says Laura Mersini-Houghton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

It is a staggering claim. If Mersini-Houghton's team is right, the giant void is the first experimental evidence for another universe. It would also vindicate string theory, our most promising understanding of how the universe works at its most fundamental level.


Heim Theory already proclaims existence of different universes bordering with our own and influencing it with they own gravity (don't remember in which paper I've been reading about that).

/Joss
hdeasy
QUOTE (inQZtive+Nov 23 2007, 01:20 AM)
any luck on a finding mapping between Heim's quantum numbers and Lisi's?

While ther is nothing new on the Q.nr issue, there is a bit of a downer on the prediction of new particles by Heim: I. V. Ludwiger has now now told me that he is almost certain that Heim actually could not, before he died, specify a proper selection rule for the resonances of the particles .

Although resonances could already be calculated with the same program as that used at DESY, back then there were still too many (thousands). But Heim always wrote and explained to the HT group that a selection principle for determining the resonances was still missing. So one should not judge the mass formula by the fact that it does not correctly predict the resonances. The theory can NOT , in its current state, predict them! Heim wanted to work on deriving the proper selection rule, but no longer succeeded because just then his health deteriorated drastically. Heim told I.V.L that to determine the resonances properly, a time-dependent mass function must be solved, which would be very difficult.

So, although'other physicists may ultimately solve those equations to give the selection rule, it would be too much to expect them to do that before the LHC comes on-stream. Or would it?
makuabob
QUOTE (Jossarian+Nov 26 2007, 06:18 PM)
Maybe this answer will be satisfactory for you: New Scientist: "The void. Imprint of another universe?"
QUOTE (NS Article+)
What could cause such a gaping hole? One team of physicists has a breathtaking explanation: "It is the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own," says Laura Mersini-Houghton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

It is a staggering claim. If Mersini-Houghton's team is right, the giant void is the first experimental evidence for another universe. It would also vindicate string theory, our most promising understanding of how the universe works at its most fundamental level.


Heim Theory already proclaims existence of different universes bordering with our own and influencing it with they own gravity (don't remember in which paper I've been reading about that).

/Joss

I am no longer a paying New Scientist subscriber, thus the teaser isn't much for me to go on.

In Heim's talk at Ottobrunn, he mentions that once the multi-dimensional continuum had stretched (or spread or expanded) for a couple of years (ummm,... around 10^108 years was the estimate), matter formed chaotically.

From what I've seen recently, chaos and fractals are closely related, and the various proposers of fractal universes have no difficulty whatever with a large void such as this since a fractal universe is far more immense than what we can see from our li'l patch of the woods. The vastness of Heim's multi-dimensional space-time certainly seems to allow 'room' for a fractal universe.

There are numerous items concerning this if one searches the phrase "3D fractal universe."
inQZtive
hdeasy..

"So one should not judge the mass formula by the fact that it does not correctly predict the resonances. The theory can NOT , in its current state, predict them! "

do you mean that it "predicts" the values (in kg?) for the masses of standard particles, but not <resonances = excited states> or.. interactions between particles, ie collisions and the decaying bits, which recombine back to stable?


thanks for your help


J-
hdeasy
It can predict the 'ground state' masses or the normal particle masses. But the same equations for the resonances give many solutions, for which a selection rule is needed. It's a bit like the 'excited states' of atoms - only those which are stable for more than a nano-second or whatever could be said to be stable solutions.

Similarly, solving the time-dependent mass equations should show which resonances are stable - that would be the selection rule.
Olaf
QUOTE (hdeasy+Nov 28 2007, 09:18 AM)
But the same equations for the resonances give many solutions, for which a selection rule is needed. It's a bit like the  'excited states' of atoms - only those which are stable for more than a nano-second or whatever could be said to be stable solutions.

When I visited Burkhard Heim in 1997 I asked him how the existence periods of stable particles may be calculated. His anser might also point out how a calculus for durations of existance of excited states may be found.

Mr. Heim, you have told me that Mr. Dröscher had an idea how to calculate durations of existance?

Also ich würde ihm empfehlen, so jetzt nicht vorzugehen, rein mengentheoretisch.
Ich würde empfehlen, nicht direkt auf die Zeiten zu zielen, sondern auf die Bandbreiten! Nach der Unschärferelation ist die Bandbreite eine energetische Größe. Da komme ich dimensionsmäßig besser ran. Und wenn ich die wiedergeben kann als ein Spektrum von Bandbreiten, dann brauchen Sie bloß diese Bandbreiten multiplizieren mit dem Wirkungsgrad – und schon hat man die Existenzzeit, wie lange das Band halten kann. Die Bandbreite ist ein energetisches Band.
Nach der Quantentheorie entsteht diese Unschärfe. Mit dem unteren Wert der Bandbreite fängt die Bildung der Partikel-Paare an im Hochenergiebeschleuniger, erreicht das Maximum in der Mitte, und hört dann auf.
Also das ist ungefähr so wie ein Wechsel: Man leiht sich von der Natur die Energie. Zum Beispiel hat ein Partikel – nehmen wir einmal an – die Bandbreite 200 MeV (eine gigantische Energie!). Das heißt Masse minus 200 MeV – da fängt die Bildung der Partikel an. Jetzt ist aber nicht genug Energie da. Wie kommt es, dass sich trotzdem die Partikel bilden?
Die haben sich praktisch Energie geliehen! Bloß der Wechsel darf nicht platzen. Wenn der platzt, dann haut er alles weg.
Das ist eigenartig. Das hängt mit dem Wahrscheinlichkeitscharakter dieser ganzen Prozesse zusammen. Da ist es Herr Dröscher und mir gelungen – das hat gigantischen viel Staub aufgewirbelt bei diesen Leuten, die gerne alles reduzieren möchten auf bloße Materie, die man eben kausal beherrschen kann. Das ist ein Schlag ins Gesicht. Wir arbeiten ja in einem 12-dimensionen Raum.

Sorry for quoting in German language. Perhaps someone can translate the section above into correct English.
jreed
QUOTE (Olaf+Nov 28 2007, 01:20 PM)
When I visited Burkhard Heim in 1997 I asked him how the existence periods of stable particles may be calculated. His anser might also point out how a calculus for durations of existance of excited states may be found.

Mr. Heim, you have told me that Mr. Dröscher had an idea how to calculate durations of existance?

Sorry for quoting in German language. Perhaps someone can translate the section above into correct English.

[COLOR=green]Here is my translation of this. Heim is referring to using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle involving time and energy to determine the particle lifetimes.

jreed

So I would recommend that it should now not be purely a theoretical mixture. I would recommend that you not try to find the lifetime, but instead work to find the bandwidths! Following the uncertainty relation the bandwidth is related to the uncertainty in energy. This dimensional measurement represents a better bargain. And if I can examine a range of bandwidths, then I just multiply these bandwidths with the effect and already the existence in time, how long the band can exist, is determined. The bandwidth is that of the energy. According to the quantum theory this is a blur. With the lower values of bandwidth we see the formation of pairs of particles in high-energy accelerators, which reach the maximum in the middle, and then decrease.
So this is about change: It lends itself of the power of nature. For instance, a particle - we assume - the range 200 MeV (a gigantic energy!). That means at mass-minus 200 MeV starts the formation of the particles. However there is not enough energy there. How is it that, despite this we have the particles? They have virtual borrowed energy! But the change should not explode. If it explodes, then everything goes away.

That is strange. That has to do with the probability nature of this whole process. Because Mr. Dröscher and I succeeded-the giant has raised a lot of dust in those people who want to reduce everything to mere matter, which causality can dominate. This is a slap in the face. Yes, we are working in a 12-dimensional space.
hdeasy
Fascinating - thanks Olaf for that and to John for translating. So now the big question is how do we estimate the 'bandwidths'?

Since Heim also said that a time-dependent mass equation is involved, then the two must be related. Hopefully somewhere in Heim's notes there might a clue to that.

I wonder if equation solvers such as the Mathematica one or more powerful tools could speed up the process of getting a solution. Or failing that, numerical techniques might be of some use - as long as some values can be arrived at before the LHC 'sings' as Garrett says.
Majkl
Dont get me wrong but when i read thoughts here i get a feeling like we are living in some kind of virtual reality allready. I wont say we couldnt in the future. Randomness couldnt care less what it does.
Mathematicians built some quite impressive grids to live in. And electrical power to realize those worlds is all around us. We will have to build them if we want to actually experience them. Well thats about it.
Olaf
John and me just discussed the 1989 mass equation.

John:
I have also computed the resonant masses given in Chapter F. They match those given in Chapter G, but not those computed by the 1982 program. The 1989 program seems to generate many more, even when I apply the selection rule used in the 1982 version.

Of course the calculus generating the masses could not have changed between the 1982 and 1998 version because the theory of the inner dynamics of fluxes in R6 behind is the same.
I think Heim only has looked for a mathematical description of how much the different kinds of complex spins contribute to the total mass of a particle to avoid those A matrix coefficients. (Infact each of theses condension spins in a particle leads to a resistance against moves which is inertia. One can imagine a set of complex gyroscopes to feel what this means.)
In the mass formula these different kinds of spins are summed up at the end.
jreed
QUOTE (jreed+Nov 28 2007, 02:48 PM)
Here is my translation of this. Heim is referring to using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle involving time and energy to determine the particle lifetimes.


With Olaf's help I have changed some of the previous translation. It now reads more correctly and the physics is easier to understand:


So I would recommend that it should now not be purely a set theory approach. I would recommend that you not try to find the lifetime, but instead work to find the bandwidth! Following the uncertainty relation the bandwidth is related to the uncertainty in energy. A dimensional measurement of bandwidth is easier to obtain. And if I can examine the spectrum of a bandwidth, then I just multiply this bandwidth with the effect and then the existence in time, how long the band can exist, is determined. The bandwidth is that of the energy. The bandwidth originates in the uncertainty principle of quantum theory. With the lower values of bandwidth we see the formation of particle pairs in high-energy accelerators, which reach the maximum in the middle, and then decrease.

So this is about change: It lends itself of the power of nature. For instance, we assume there is a particle which has a bandwidth of 200 MeV (a gigantic energy!). That means at mass-minus 200 MeV the formation of the particles start. However there is not enough energy there. How is it that, despite this we have the particles? They have virtual borrowed energy! But the change should not explode. If it explodes, then everything goes away.

That is strange. That has to do with the probability nature of this whole process. Because Mr. Dröscher and I succeeded this has raised a giant cloud of dust for those people who want to reduce everything to mere matter, which is dominated by causality. This is a slap in the face. Yes, we are working in a 12-dimensional space.

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.