Register to reply

Ftl - Heim QT based propulsion models

by Atomos
Tags: based, heim, models, propulsion
Share this thread:
selfAdjoint
#2
Jan5-06, 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.
Ivan Seeking
#3
Jan5-06, 09:46 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,501
This seems to be the place to find out... I haven't even looked yet...I'm afraid...
http://www.heim-theory.com/

Ivan Seeking
#4
Jan5-06, 10:26 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,501
Ftl - Heim QT based propulsion models

A few other related links:

MAGNET EXPERIMENT TO MEASURING
SPACE PROPULSION HEIM-LORENTZ FORCE
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publication...05-4321-a4.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 20-22, 2001 at the University of Sussex, Brighton, GB
http://www.mufon-ces.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
Ivan Seeking
#5
Jan6-06, 03:18 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,501
This looks like what we want...

Heim Quantum Theory for Space Propulsion Physics
http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim...icsaip2005.pdf
Ivan Seeking
#6
Jan6-06, 05:30 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,501
Well, my first impression is, wow!!!! I hope they're right...
Atomos
#7
Jan6-06, 09:44 PM
Atomos's Avatar
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.
dlgoff
#8
Jan7-06, 10:45 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
dlgoff's Avatar
P: 2,726
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking
Well, my first impression is, wow!!!! I hope they're right...
Me too. I'd like to hear from the experts here.
scott1
#9
Jan7-06, 04:27 PM
P: 459
The US air force has expressed an interest in the idea and scientists working for the American Department of Energy
Why does the Air force have intrest this?Shouldn't NASA or some other govement deptrament be reashing this?
Spin_Network
#10
Jan7-06, 04:40 PM
P: 408
Quote Quote by selfAdjoint
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.
Maybe..but it made it here:http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=83624

quite some time ago !

see posting #9 ?
Ivan Seeking
#11
Jan8-06, 04:42 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,501
The sad part is that should this work, it will probably be classified before you can say gravitophoton.
scott1
#12
Jan8-06, 06:43 PM
P: 459
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking
The sad part is that should this work, it will probably be classified before you can say gravitophoton.
Only if they find Aliens.If it is going to be classified I will join the Air Force
Serpo
#13
Jan9-06, 05:44 AM
P: 44
Quote Quote by scott1
Only if they find Aliens.If it is going to be classified I will join the Air Force
That's true scott... there really would be no other reason to classify this material. You don't see new models of refrigerators being classified :P.
Hdeasy
#14
Jan9-06, 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!
Hdeasy
#15
Jan9-06, 07:47 AM
P: 61
Quote Quote by selfAdjoint
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.
You can see from the papers quoted by IvanSeeking that there is plenty of Math in Heim theory - too much, in fact, for normal mortals. That's the whole point. It takes a professor in Theoretical Physics on average a year of intensive study to tackle the math to the extent that he can appreciate the mass formula and maybe some of the Heim-Droscher stuff. I have Heim's books but haven't had the time to study them intently - dipping into them here and there, though, they are consistent - he plays around with the Ricci tensor and does a double transform involving curvilinear coordinates...
selfAdjoint
#16
Jan9-06, 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.
LeonhardEuler
#17
Jan9-06, 02:22 PM
PF Gold
LeonhardEuler's Avatar
P: 864
I find this a little suspicious:
The probability of this being due to chance is on the order of 1 in 1064 [(10,000)16 = (104)16]
(he's talking about the theory predicting 16 masses with an error of 1 in 10,000)
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:
The 8 dimensions of Heim theory is the result of two mathematical objects

1. a non-linear operator whose matrix representation C consists of 4 submatrices
As far as I know an operaor is linear if and only if it can be represented as a matrix. Perhaps the elements of the matrix are themselves functions, or there is something else going on here, but, as described, that doesn't make much sense.
Hdeasy
#18
Jan10-06, 02:24 AM
P: 61
Quote Quote by selfAdjoint
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.
my attitude is that the accuracy obtained cannot be by tweaking approximations, since the only input real numbers are G, h and c. All the other combinations of Pi and integers are coefficents of the various equations. So either the formula is for real or it's a complete fudge - i.e. the 16 particle masses were back-engineered to pop out of all the Pi's and integer combinations. That would mean massive fraud - but the fact that Von Braun, Heisenburg, Jourdan and others of the Math crowd at Goettingen knew Heim and were convinced he was a genius seems to rule out a Korea-stem-cell type scam.
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 'zero-ing 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 Wikipedia-ist'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.heim-theory.com/downloads...ssenformel.pdf in www.heim-theory.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