Register to reply 
Ftl  Heim QT based propulsion models 
Share this thread: 
#1
Jan506, 08:43 PM

P: 159




#2
Jan506, 08:56 PM

Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 8,147

This story has been all over the net today. Slashdot had it. What I want to know is who was Burton Heim and what was his theory? One scientist was quoted as saying he'd like to see some math, which makes it sound like Heim's wonderful theory never would have made it on our IR forum here.



#3
Jan506, 09:46 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 12,498

This seems to be the place to find out... I haven't even looked yet...I'm afraid...
http://www.heimtheory.com/ 


#4
Jan506, 10:26 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 12,498

Ftl  Heim QT based propulsion models
A few other related links:
MAGNET EXPERIMENT TO MEASURING SPACE PROPULSION HEIMLORENTZ FORCE http://www.hpccspace.de/publication...054321a4.pdf 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 2022, 2001 at the University of Sussex, Brighton, GB http://www.mufonces.org/docs/heimphysics.abstract.pdf note that Mufon is the Mutual UFO Network Elementary Structures of Matter by Dipl. Phys. Burkhard Heim http://www.twesten.net/Gespraechskre...m/auerbach.pdf 


#5
Jan606, 03:18 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 12,498

This looks like what we want...
Heim Quantum Theory for Space Propulsion Physics http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim...icsaip2005.pdf 


#6
Jan606, 05:30 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 12,498

Well, my first impression is, wow!!!! I hope they're right...



#7
Jan606, 09:44 PM

P: 159

This saddens me immensely. Here there may be some very interesting developments that could change the nature of human existence, and I am too young and ignorant to be understand it, and certainly too young and ignorant to be involved.



#9
Jan706, 04:27 PM

P: 459




#10
Jan706, 04:40 PM

P: 408

quite some time ago ! see posting #9 ? 


#11
Jan806, 04:42 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 12,498

The sad part is that should this work, it will probably be classified before you can say gravitophoton.



#12
Jan806, 06:43 PM

P: 459




#13
Jan906, 05:44 AM

P: 44




#14
Jan906, 07:37 AM

P: 61

I was the one who started the English wikipedia pages on BURKHARD Heim  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Theory .
The latest rush was started since New Scientist ran a feature on him on Jan 7th 2006  http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...25331.200.html  I know the journalist and checked his English and some of the science. Yes, I was initially sceptical, but the more I read about Heim the more I realised that he was serious in his extension of Einstein to higher dimensions. I even have a copy of the fortran program (courtesy of Heim Theory group not for dissemination) that churns out the masses of elementary particles  only input is G, c, h and a set of a few quantum numbers from part I of Heim's mass theorem. This stuff is dynamite and will probably blow string theory shy high! 


#15
Jan906, 07:47 AM

P: 61




#16
Jan906, 11:38 AM

Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 8,147

What do you think of that mass formula Hdeasy? I am suspicious of it. Every constant seems to be defined in terms of three or four other constants. With that much leeway it only takes a teeny adjustment here, or a plausible assumption there to nudge the results in the right directions. I'd be surprised if he couldn't "predict" the proton, neutron, and electron masses to some nice accuracy under those conditions.



#17
Jan906, 02:22 PM

PF Gold
P: 864

I find this a little suspicious:
First of all, it seems that he is assuming that the probability of guessing one mass with an error of one in 10,000 is 1/10,000. That isn't true. If I told you to guess random number, and then I compared it to some arbitrary number, the probability that you are within 10% of the given number is not 10%it's more like 0. This is because, if we confine ourselves to integers, then there are only finitely many numbers within 10% of the given number, while infinitely many are outside of that range. Now, in the case of the theory we are not talking about integers, but real numbers. However, in practice, the experimental values are only given to so many decimal places, so we might as well truncate the theoretical values at the same number of decimal places. Then the same analysis applies since there will only be finitely many numbers within a given error bar of the experimental values having the given number of decimal places. He speaks of the "mass spectrum" which indicates that there are many allowed masses. He also says that the theory predicts undiscovered particles. I think the question is what is the density of the allowed masses. This would allow one to find the probability of all of the elementry particle masses falling so close to the theoretical ones. Another part I found strange: 


#18
Jan1006, 02:24 AM

P: 61

Oh and mea culpa  'twas I who introduced that probability argument into the Wikipedia page on Heim  what I meant was that given estimates already near the correct masses, what's the chance of 'zeroing in' on the experimental value? E.g. for the electron, if your estimate is initially of the order of 1 MeV/c**2, then the probability of getting the additonal decimal places to get 0.5110 MeV/c**2 is about 1 in 10,000. Crude argument, it's true, but it was introduced to counter another Wikipediaist's contention that the masses were 'random'  as pointed out above, of course, the prob. of a completely random guess getting so near is much smaller. If you follow the condensed derivation of the mass formula in http://www.heimtheory.com/downloads...ssenformel.pdf in www.heimtheory.com then you get an idea of the maths involved. Apparently Droescher and co. want to derive the equation rigourously, but ran into a problem  if more physicists were to join in that research a proper derivation might be achieved and the validity of the mass formula could be settled once and for all. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Why are lectures topic based rather than problem based?  Academic Guidance  26  
Algebra based > calculus based physics  Academic Guidance  13  
Credibility of Heim's theory?  General Physics  0  
Heim and this GR article  Beyond the Standard Model  1  
Credibility of Heim's theory?  General Physics  0 