Hyperspace engine (Heim's Quantum Theory)

[Blam]

A hyperspace (faster then c) engine is being worked on by the U.S. It would work by going into another dimension based of of Heim's Quantum Theory.
How realistic is this and could we go faster then c with enough energy like in the experiment. Obviously not relevant to us but in parallel? If you are using it linearly with c then it has a limit at c but how could the fabric of spacetime be changed to push slower particles through space faster? They say current rules of thought would have to change like now viewing the universe as one consistant linear stream.

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory

 

[Hdeasy]

Frankly, I don't care so much for the hyperspace aspect and I think that is indeed the most speculative aspect of Droscher & Hauser's work. Much more interesting is if the basic Heim Theory is correct. This can be shown in a number of ways - first there's the spaceship angle - if Heim-Droscher theory is right, there should be particles called gravito-photons transforming electromagnetic energy into gravitational. If an effect is seen at 25 Teslas in the coils as described in their experimential setup, this would be one prediciton of the theory - without the need for that extra hyperspace effect.

The next is the particle masses - in that case either we measure neutrino masses more accurately to see if Heim's mass values are correct or we check the formidable maths background to the mass formula which has already reproduced the known masses to great accuracy using only G, h and c as input.

 

[hellfire]

Much more interesting is if the basic Heim Theory is correct.

I have read a little bit about the theory and my impression is that the theory relies on an initial postulate: that the connection coefficients of general relativity obey a Schrödinger-like equation in the quantum realm. Is this correct? Could you or anybody elaborate on this?

 

[Hdeasy]

I have read a little bit about the theory and my impression is that the theory relies on an initial postulate: that the connection coefficients of general relativity obey a Schrödinger-like equation in the quantum realm. Is this correct? Could you or anybody elaborate on this?

More or less. To translate a bit from Heim-theory.com:
It's the field equations that Heim postulated must be brought into a quantized form, which then lead to eigenvalue equations, which resemble the time-independent Schroedinger equation.
It has been frequently assumed that the obviously fundamental linear structure of quantum theory is only an approximation of something different, and that the approximate character would show up clearly in the context of quantum gravitation (Isham 1998). An eigenvalue equation, which refers not to the wave Psi, but to the particle, must express its material character - similar to general relativity - by curved geometry. In place of the linear operator in the Schroedinger equation therefore a nonlinear operator, as it arises in Riemannian geometry, is needed. Heim (1979/89) proceeds from the following consideration: In Riemann geometry the curvature tensor Ri/kmp can be defined by an operator Cp, that acts on the Christoffel symbols GAMMAi/km
Ri/kmp = Cp GAMMAi/km. (1.2)
The curvature tensor is thus described by the effect of a nonlinear operator on a field GAMMAi/km. During the transition of the macro realm to the micro realm the Christoffel symbols become 'particle fields' PHIi/km, which, in contrast to the pseudo tensors GAMMAi/km, may be understood as 3rd order tensors, since PHIi/km in the observed final micro realm, in which they are exposed to no external field, except affine ones, are subjected to no curvilinear coordinate transformations. Because of the correspondence between macro and micro realm the operator Cp within both ranges has the same shape:

Cp GAMMAi/km --> Cp PHIi/km


For more details see http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads_pw/D_Zur_Herleitung_Der_Heimschen_Massenformel.pdf (in German).

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Apologies this is a reply to a locked thread. Alkatran generaly a theory is an idea or suposition, scientifically it has to have at least some corroborating evidence. Consequently although String and Heim theory are called theories, scientificaly they should be relabled hypothesis, those who practice science though know this so there's really only any confusion amongst laymen. Evolution is a theory because it has a wide variety of corrobarative evidence, it happens to be a very good theory as well because it has several gaping holes in it that need to be filled, such as the question of homochirality, why proteins appear to form in only one handed left amino acids chains, when in nature these amino acids are found in 50/50 ratio, amongst several others.

 

[selfAdjoint]

More or less. To translate a bit from Heim-theory.com:
It's the field equations that Heim postulated must be brought into a quantized form, which then lead to eigenvalue equations, which resemble the time-independent Schroedinger equation.
It has been frequently assumed that the obviously fundamental linear structure of quantum theory is only an approximation of something different, and that the approximate character would show up clearly in the context of quantum gravitation (Isham 1998). An eigenvalue equation, which refers not to the wave Psi, but to the particle, must express its material character - similar to general relativity - by curved geometry. In place of the linear operator in the Schroedinger equation therefore a nonlinear operator, as it arises in Riemannian geometry, is needed. Heim (1979/89) proceeds from the following consideration: In Riemann geometry the curvature tensor Ri/kmp can be defined by an operator C_p, that acts on the Christoffel symbols R^i_{kmp} = C_p \Gamma^i_{km}. (1.2)
The curvature tensor is thus described by the effect of a nonlinear operator on a field \Gamma^i_{km}. During the transition of the macro realm to the micro realm the Christoffel symbols become 'particle fields' \Phi^i_{km}, which, in contrast to the pseudo tensors \Gamma^i_{km}, may be understood as 3rd order tensors, since Phi^i_{km} in the observed final micro realm, in which they are exposed to no external field, except affine ones, are subjected to no curvilinear coordinate transformations. Because of the correspondence between macro and micro realm the operator C_p within both ranges has the same shape:
C_p \Gamma^i_{km} \righttarrow C_p \Phi^i_{km}
For more details see http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads_pw/D_Zur_Herleitung_Der_Heimschen_Massenformel.pdf (in German).

I have taken the liberty of changing your notation to Latex for clarity in the quote. If I have made any mistakes, just let me know and I'll fix them.

Could you go into a little more detail on the field \Gamma^i_{km}? Evidently Heim acknowledges that these are not tensors, hence coordinate dependent. How then can they be a feature of the underlying manifold?

 

[Blam]

Also Iwill change the name of the topic because that hyperspace engine is research in the 'no original research' category.
Wikipedia has a similar rule so I will continue to post links from there unless strongly discouraged by PF.

 

[SmithWillSuffice]

I wonder why this topic got bumped into "Strings, Branes, & LQG"? I guess the geometrical background-free aspect of Heim theory bears a vague relation to LQG?
For my 2cw, I agree with Hdeasy's earlier posts: that the fundamental physics of Heim theory is far more important than the hyperdrive application. You have to be dreaming if you think that concept will be tested any time soon. NASA have enough problems getting conventional propulsion systems tested like NEP systems. If someone can indirectly validate Heim's ideas by demonstrating a working gravitophotonic propulsion system then all fine and good, but I doubt that will be the first test of the theory.
My money is on some brave physicists reworking Heim's mass formula and particle lifetimes using concepts that are more familiar to most physicists than those used by Heim and the Innsbruck group.
Another interesting piece of speculation was the report (unconfirmed) that I read in either the NewScientist piece or at the heim-group website or elsewhere, that claimed that discretization of spacetime is required, but it was unclear whether this is something that follows from the assumptions of Heim's structure theory or whether it is itself one of the assumptions, if the former then that'd be really interesting.
A further puzzle was that the NS article mentioned that Heim originally proposed 8 spacetime dimensions but then settled for 6D. Later on it is reported that Walter Droscher revived the gravitophoton propulsion idea using 8D. Then I see there's a report by a guy named Gary Stephenson (apparently a gravity-wave theorist writing for a consultancy called Seculine) that refers to a 12D theory, where there are 4 "non-metric" dimensions, whatever that means(?).
What someone really should do is write a better plain English description of Heim's structure theory. For instance, what exactly are the "particles" in his theory? If they are elements of geometry and not just abstract wave-functions or fields on a background spacetime then it should be possible to explain what the heck they are. Are they like 3D knots of flux tubes embedded in 6D or 8D spacetime, or are they more general topological structures? How does charge arise? If electric fields are simply attached to Heim's spacetime as extra fields as in the old geometrodynamics a la Misner-Wheeler then that would be extremely ugly don't you think? If not, then what's the difference between Heim's ideas and Kaluza-Klein models? Surely if Heim is saying that all physics is just higher dimensional geometry then a reformulation of his work using modern Kaluza-Klein pictures should be possible I would imagine. If not then there's got to be a point of departure that can be used to start attacking the problem of clarifying Heim's ideas.

 

[Chronos]

I'm wondering why it wasn't moved to the fantasy and science fiction bookshelf.

 

[Hdeasy]

I have taken the liberty of changing your notation to Latex for clarity in the quote. If I have made any mistakes, just let me know and I'll fix them.
Could you go into a little more detail on the field \Gamma^i_{km}? Evidently Heim acknowledges that these are not tensors, hence coordinate dependent. How then can they be a feature of the underlying manifold?

First, the inital equation you correct had a \Gamma^i_{km} too many. it should be: In Riemann geometry the curvature tensor R^i_{kmp} can be defined by an operator C_{p}? , that acts on the Christoffel symbols
R^i_{kmp} = C_{p} \Gamma^i_{km}. (1.2)

 

[Hdeasy]

I wonder why this topic got bumped into "Strings, Branes, & LQG"? I guess the geometrical background-free aspect of Heim theory bears a vague relation to LQG?
For my 2cw, I agree with Hdeasy's earlier posts: that the fundamental physics of Heim theory is far more important than the hyperdrive application. You have to be dreaming if you think that concept will be tested any time soon. NASA have enough problems getting conventional propulsion systems tested like NEP systems. If someone can indirectly validate Heim's ideas by demonstrating a working gravitophotonic propulsion system then all fine and good, but I doubt that will be the first test of the theory.
My money is on some brave physicists reworking Heim's mass formula and particle lifetimes using concepts that are more familiar to most physicists than those used by Heim and the Innsbruck group.
Another interesting piece of speculation was the report (unconfirmed) that I read in either the NewScientist piece or at the heim-group website or elsewhere, that claimed that discretization of spacetime is required, but it was unclear whether this is something that follows from the assumptions of Heim's structure theory or whether it is itself one of the assumptions, if the former then that'd be really interesting.
A further puzzle was that the NS article mentioned that Heim originally proposed 8 spacetime dimensions but then settled for 6D. Later on it is reported that Walter Droscher revived the gravitophoton propulsion idea using 8D. Then I see there's a report by a guy named Gary Stephenson (apparently a gravity-wave theorist writing for a consultancy called Seculine) that refers to a 12D theory, where there are 4 "non-metric" dimensions, whatever that means(?).
What someone really should do is write a better plain English description of Heim's structure theory. For instance, what exactly are the "particles" in his theory? If they are elements of geometry and not just abstract wave-functions or fields on a background spacetime then it should be possible to explain what the heck they are. Are they like 3D knots of flux tubes embedded in 6D or 8D spacetime, or are they more general topological structures? How does charge arise? If electric fields are simply attached to Heim's spacetime as extra fields as in the old geometrodynamics a la Misner-Wheeler then that would be extremely ugly don't you think? If not, then what's the difference between Heim's ideas and Kaluza-Klein models? Surely if Heim is saying that all physics is just higher dimensional geometry then a reformulation of his work using modern Kaluza-Klein pictures should be possible I would imagine. If not then there's got to be a point of departure that can be used to start attacking the problem of clarifying Heim's ideas.

Similarity to LQG: not only the geometrical background-free aspect, but also Heim's metron lattice is very like the spin lattice of LQG.
All the physicists working on Heim theory now are trying to re-formulate it in concepts more familiar to most physicists. E.g. instead of his 'selector calculus', which is form of
integer differencing as opposed to the usual calculus, the latter is being substituted for the former almost everywhere - only down around the Planck scale is the differencing method needed to avoid singularities. On the discretisation of space: Quoting Heim-theory.com:
"From Heim's computation of two extremum principles on the gravitational field quantum of a smallest mass, the product of two lengths resulted as a natural constant. This smallest surface is the square of the Planck length, which was also determined by Treder (1974) (Treder, H. J. 1974: Philosophische Probleme des physikalischen Raumes, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag) , and which is referred to by Heim as the Metron. Heim was the first to draw the conclusion from the discovery of this natural constant that this two dimensional element makes calculation with area differences necessary and thereby justifies 'Metron calculus' ". For details of the reasoning that Heim used, further reading would be needed - or maybe ask Dröscher himself!

As for the number of dimensions - the full exposition does require 12 dimensions it seems. Roughly speaking, the number should be a multiple of 4 as tensors with 2 or 3 indices over Einstein's 4-D space are involved. So 8 or 12 are prime candidates. In the 8-D version, the energy density tensor has only 36 non-zero elements and so Heim justifies restriction to a 6 x 6 space. 6 x 6 is enough for the mass formula derivation. Quoting Hauser & Droscher "The dimensional law derived by Heim requires a 12-dimensional space, but the additional four coordinates are needed only in the explanation of the steering of probability amplitudes (information)."

Particles are stable distortions in the metron lattice - the 'condensation' that results in a particle involves projection from 6 dimensional structures on 4-D. I confess that the details of this are hard to understand and I haven't got that far yet. Charge is associated with a partial-metric: the full metric is a 'poly-metric', with the normal g(i,j) of gravity and others for the other forces. That part is rather elegant and not at all 'ugly'. Heim acknowledged Kaluza-Klein theory as having the right idea. Only for Heim the extra dimensions are not compacted - there are 3 normal space dimensions, 3 time-like dimensions (including normal time) and the rest of an 'organisational' nature, having to do with quantum probabilities etc.
Von Ludwiger is working on transcribing tapes of Heim speaking on all this (in German admittedly) and wants to then have it translated into English and published as an
introduction. Apparently when he talks about it, it's much easier to understand where he's coming from.

Apropos: does anyone have an idea about publishers might be interested in that?

 

[vanesch]

I wonder why this topic got bumped into "Strings, Branes, & LQG"?

For clarification, Heim's stuff showed up on different forums in different threads, and the mentors here had a discussion about what to do with it. Although the spacedrive stuff is probably a bit far-fetched, it occurred to us that the THEORY could be discussed here, so there was a consensus to have the thread here.

 

[Hdeasy]

I agree with Hdeasy's earlier posts: that the fundamental physics of Heim theory is far more important than the hyperdrive application. <snip> Surely if Heim is saying that all physics is just higher dimensional geometry then a reformulation of his work using modern Kaluza-Klein pictures should be possible I would imagine. If not then there's got to be a point of departure that can be used to start attacking the problem of clarifying Heim's ideas.

Answer relayed from Von Ludwiger:
If the Heim books are translated into English, some clarifications and conversions must be added to the text. That is difficult work. If one were to hear (or to read in English) how Heim expressed things in his own words, then one would receive a very good overview of what Heim actually did. Then one could maybe understand even the German text with the mathematical formulation. I find it good that the Heim theory is considered more important than the proposed experiments of Häuser and Dröscher. The dimensions in Heim theory are indeed somewhat confusing. Because of the existence of surface quanta only a few space-times are permitted for possible geometrical structures. Those are the regions R4, R6, R8 and R12. However in R6 the geometrical structure of matter can be described. According to Dröscher and Heim, the particle interactions can be indicated in R8, and the cause of quantum theory is in the dynamics of the 4 imaginary dimensions x9 to x12. However in his first two books Heim used only R6.

 

[garrett]

I'm wondering why it wasn't moved to the fantasy and science fiction bookshelf.

Because it's a tragedy?

 

[Paracelsus]

Here's my question about HQT, since it will be a while yet before I can really dive into it -

How does it fare in the context of Bell's inequalities?

 

[Hdeasy]

Here's my question about HQT, since it will be a while yet before I can really dive into it -

How does it fare in the context of Bell's inequalities?

Well, it's a quantum-gravity theory so it has wave functions in it and non-locality. The main difference is that there are 4 dimensions (X9 - X12) responsible for steering the quantum probabilities.

 

[Anome]

A link to Heim Mass Formula in Java:

http://www.daimi.au.dk/~spony/HeimMassFormula/

 

[marcus]

Hi Anome,
welcome to our humble board.
Glad to have you.

 

[Hdeasy]

A link to Heim Mass Formula in Java:

http://www.daimi.au.dk/~spony/HeimMassFormula/

Well, I just provided the Fortran code of the Heim-theory group, courtesy of Dr. Mueller of the group, to Spony who wrote the Java version quoted above. Hopefully it will help him correct the outstanding inaccuaracy.

 

[Hdeasy]

The thread http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=630 is very popular - 43 pages and growing - meantime mass formula in Mathematica, C++, Excel, Pascal etc.

 

[Universe_Man]

It would be really cool if all this is confirmed. Heim Theory is one of my reasons for getting into Physics.

 

[TRodrigues]

(snip) Another interesting piece of speculation was the report (unconfirmed) that I read in either the NewScientist piece or at the heim-group website or elsewhere, that claimed that discretization of spacetime is required, but it was unclear whether this is something that follows from the assumptions of Heim's structure theory or whether it is itself one of the assumptions, if the former then that'd be really interesting. (snip)

According to http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/ExtendedHeimTheory.pdf" paper by Dröscher, the derivation goes something like this:

First, consider a clock of length l and mass m. The Schrödinger relation says that the uncertainty in the measurement of the clock's time is inversely proportional to the measurement of its energy uncertainty, like \Delta t \Delta E &gt; \hbar. Therefore, the time resolution for the clock \delta t &gt; \Delta t &gt; \frac{\hbar}{\Delta E}. However, \Delta E &lt; mc^2, otherwise it would generate additional clocks. Therefore,
\delta t &gt; \hbar \frac{1}{\Delta E} &gt; \hbar \frac{1}{mc^2} (1)

Now, as for the length of the clock, it must be small enough that the timekeeping signal can cross it within the time uncertainty, and larger than its Schwarzschild radius so it doesn't collapse into a black hole. Therefore, c\delta t &gt; l &gt; \frac{Gm}{c^2}; from this, we reach that \frac{c^3\delta t}{G} &gt; m. Replacing this value for m in the equation (1), we get:
\delta t &gt; \frac{\hbar}{c^2} \frac{1}{m} &gt; \frac{\hbar}{c^2} \frac{G}{c^3\delta t}.

Multiplying by \delta t on both sides and then taking square root, we come to the conclusion that the time resolution of any clock is \delta t &gt; \sqrt{\frac{G \hbar}{c^5}}. What a coincidence! The right-hand side is the formula for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_Time" ... It doesn't make physical sense to talk about time intervals which are fractions of the Planck time, because one can't measure fractions of Planck time. This is the same as saying that time is quantized. It follows that space must be quantized also by Planck length, since one cannot measure the distance traveled by a light pulse in less than a Planck time.

Interestingly, there is not one iota of Heim theory in this derivation, but it comes straight from GR and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I was struck by the resemblance between Droescher's algebra and Finkelstein's flex algebra. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0608/0608086.pdf . Especially look at Finkelstein's Appendix 2. Seems to me they may be approaching the same idea from opposite directions.

 

[Hdeasy]

80 pages now on the Heim thread at physorg -
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=960

 

[Hdeasy]

Now it's up to 105 pages - and exciting news:
M.Tajmar has published brand new article "Search for Frame-Dragging in the Vicinity of Spinning Superconductors" two days ago (25 July) - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3806.pdf

What is really good in that? It's the first time when Tajmar references Dröscher/Häuser in his own article. :-)

 

[laurelelizabeth]

A hyperspace (faster then c) engine is being worked on by the U.S. It would work by going into another dimension based of of Heim's Quantum Theory.
How realistic is this and could we go faster then c with enough energy like in the experiment. Obviously not relevant to us but in parallel? If you are using it linearly with c then it has a limit at c but how could the fabric of spacetime be changed to push slower particles through space faster? They say current rules of thought would have to change like now viewing the universe as one consistant linear stream.

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory

I read the article and it seems like it's only hypothetical, and they have to prove the physics before working on it.

That would be awesome if they could do that!

 

[Hdeasy]

Now that Tajmar refernces the heim-theory explanation of Droscher/Hauser as one of the likely explanations of the artificial gravity effect, the theory is moving out of the realm of the hypothetical into that of the real.

 

[Hdeasy]

Well, it's been a while: Tajmar testing goes on - Gravity Probe B may have confirmed that effect etc. Now Heim is being mentioned in connection with the LHC e.g. here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/09/anton_wylie_lhc/page2.html

 

[Vanadium 50]

Heim's theory is inconsistent with data:

(1) He predicts five light neutrinos, not three.

(2) The masses of the neutrinos are inconsistent with measurements from neutrino oscillations.

(3) The masses of the proton, neutron and electron lie far (~100 standard deviations) outside Heim's predictions and quoted errors.

Now that I think of it, I can't recall a single prediction that Heim got right.

 

[Hdeasy]

Grossly unfair Vanadium: Heim theory doesn't claim to be complete as yet. Droscher, for instance, found recently that the neutral electron can be interpreted as secondary matter and might actually be what we term Dark Matter.

The neutrino masses were at least in the right ball park and predicted 20 years before most people accepted there were non-zero masses to them. Which other theory has done even that much? As for oscillations: this probably can be shown within Heim theory also, as it is an amalgam of GR & QM and so should have at least the standard model within it if enough research was done into its foundations.

As for proton and Neutron mass predictions wrong - Don"t make me laugh: String theory has nothing to say on these masses and the standard model, with more input parameters, can, via perturbative lattice QCD, now get to within a few percent ( > 2%) of the proton mass! Hah! Pathetic compared to the Heim prediction, which gets to within 0.0007 % of the answer with analytical equations not needeing massive perturbative iterations.

No predictions right, eh? Also, there is the artificial gravity for which its discoverer, Tajmar, acknowledges Heim theory as one of 3 candidate predictions for the effect - the others being dubious extensions of the standard model.

Finally, the 3rd Heim gravity force matches dark energy pretty well... I rest my case.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

It strikes me that a good group of grad students with a sizeable budget could build a scaled down model of a drive unit. It doesn't have to lift any spacecraft into orbit or the next star system. But it could be used to pull a small cart, or possibly a small aircraft. I wonder how hard it would be to convince UNH that it would be a worthwhile endeavor?

 

[Orbb]

Hi Physicsforum, I'm new here ;)

As this is the most recent thread to Heim Theory, i decided to post in here:

I have a question regarding the sometimes assumed connection between Heim Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity: In Heim's theory, at the microscopic level, differential equations become difference equations. Is that also the case in LQG or any other QG approach? (I assume it's not in any String Theory; correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

[Hdeasy]

Hi Orbb - no, only Heim theory uses the differences method explicitly. LQG also avoids infinities due to the quantisation of space in that the finite size of a surface element in its spin networks or spacti-time foam means that quantum fluctuations do not go down to arbitarily small wavelengths. That stops the infinities that plague the stnadard model and string theory, which only avoid them by ugly artificial tricks such as renomalisation or worse.

 

[gendou2]

... compared to the Heim prediction, which gets to within 0.0007 % [of observed proton mass] ...

From what I've read, the surprisingly accurate Heim results you speak of were generated by a computer program which uses the empirical data as an input. In other words, you're using the value of X to solve for the value of X. It doesn't demonstrate anything about the Heim conjecture at all.

Source: http://www.geoffreylandis.com/Heim_theory.html

Also, there is the artificial gravity for which its discoverer, Tajmar, acknowledges Heim theory...

Tajmar's 2006 experimental results have not yet been reproduced, and seems not to be very widely accepted.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity#Tajmar_et_al_.282006_.26_2007_.26_2008.29

 

[gabbagabbahey]

From what I've read, the surprisingly accurate Heim results you speak of were generated by a computer program which uses the empirical data as an input. In other words, you're using the value of X to solve for the value of X. It doesn't demonstrate anything about the Heim conjecture at all.

Source: http://www.geoffreylandis.com/Heim_theory.html

Perhaps you missed this line:

in 2007, however, Reed changed his opinion. Working with Fortran code that Heim helped develop later that was not published, he says that he can derive particle masses without the use of that A matrix.

And Reed's quoted analysis that followed.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm going to make the same complaint - previously called "unfair" - that Heim's theory does not agree with the data:

1. He predicts five light neutrinos, not three.
2. The masses of the neutrinos are inconsistent with measurements from neutrino oscillations.
3. The masses of the proton, neutron and electron lie far (~100 standard deviations) outside Heim's predictions and quoted errors.

Now, it may well be that a future, Heim-like theory might agree with the data. But all we can discuss today is what exists today. And what we have today is a theory that is grossly discrepant with the data.

 

[Hdeasy]

yes, gabbagabbahey is right. I acted as intermediary between Anton Mueller, who did the first excellent coding of the Heim mass formula in fortran and John Reed. Eventually John was brave enough to admit his error - the A matrix (semi-empirical) was indeed used by Heim, but only in his 1982 mass formula version - in that case his interest was to see how well he could derive resonance states, given the ground states. So he just plugged in the data via the A matrix, never claiming it predicted the ground states. That part came later, in the 1989 formula, which dispenses with A and concentrates on the ground state derivation. John confirmed that Anton's 1989 code had no longer the infamous A.

When the gravity thing has been dealt with, D&H & co. will return to other aspects of the theory, including the mass formula. It will still take some work to retrieve some of the missing steps that Heim omitted in his delineation. He was working from memory and though he had all the steps in his head, didn't write them all down. Let's hope that gap is filled soon.

 

[gabbagabbahey]

I'm going to make the same complaint - previously called "unfair" - that Heim's theory does not agree with the data:

1. He predicts five light neutrinos, not three.
2. The masses of the neutrinos are inconsistent with measurements from neutrino oscillations.
3. The masses of the proton, neutron and electron lie far (~100 standard deviations) outside Heim's predictions and quoted errors.

Now, it may well be that a future, Heim-like theory might agree with the data. But all we can discuss today is what exists today. And what we have today is a theory that is grossly discrepant with the data.

The first two points I agree are legitimate problems with the theory and need to be resolved before I buy into Heim theory. However, as HDeasy mentioned, it is a work in progress (hampered significantly by the death of its founder no doubt!) and these problems might be easily resolvable.

Your third claim, is completely contrary to the predicted and accepted values that I have seen and I would like to see your source for this info.

 

[gendou2]

I've glanced at the code. It's got constant's galore.
For example, in b0.07_HeimMassFormula/formula/AbstractParticle.java:

    // Since no one can seem to figure out W atm. this simply returns
    // values given in Selected Results
    protected double W() throws Exception {

	if (index == AbstractFormula.E_MINUS) return 38.7;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.E_ZERO) return 38.51;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.MU) return 2830.26;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.PI_CHARGE) return 3514.46;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.PI_ZERO) return 3419.16;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.ETA) return 9905.01;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.K_CHARGE) return 8857.96;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.K_ZERO) return 9332.36;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.P) return 14792.56;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.N) return 14828.61;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.LAMBDA) return 16827.98;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.SIGMA_PLUS) return 18124.03;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.SIGMA_MINUS) return 18183.3;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.SIGMA_ZERO) return 18179.6;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.XI_CHARGE) return 18998.73;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.XI_ZERO) return 18990.09;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.OMEGA_CHARGE) return 23157.61;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.DELTA_PLUSPLUS) return 18115.38;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.DELTA_PLUS) return 18467.56;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.DELTA_MINUS) return 18448.52;
	else if (index == AbstractFormula.DELTA_ZERO) return 18508.94; 
	
	throw new Exception("Unknown Particle");
    }

It wouldn't take more than David Blaine trickery to derive one set of constants from another set, if you chose the later set carefully.

I'd like to see a strait forward presentation of Heim's mass formula, but the best I've been able to get is this:

(Taken from page 5 of http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/F_Heims_Mass_Formula_1989.pdf )
This looks a lot more like numerology than physics.

But, what do I know, I'm only an unconvinced amateur.

 

[Orbb]

http://chsunier.ch/Books/Themata/beitraege/RESCH/D_Zur_Herleitung_Der_Heimschen_Massenformel.pdf provides the derivation of the mass formula. However, this is a version that, according to heim-theory.com, still needs to be revised. Also so far, it is available in german only. But maybe it is of use to someone -the matter is yet too complex for me.

 

[Hdeasy]

I don't know what those constants are about. For the 1989 fortran code, apart from c, G, h, Pi , some values of the masses from other grpups are fed in from a table for comparison (e.g. the CODATA 1998 data): the output table then lists the program values alongside the CODATA values or also differences if that option is used.) E.g. searching for 4 in all the code gave:

grep 4 *.f
Hprog.f:C (Powerstation 4.0 under NT4.0 SP6 using an AMD K7 processor)
Hprog.f:C character*20 t1,t2,t3,t4,t5,t6,t7,t8
Hprog.f: integer*4 NN1,NN2 ! limits for NN
Hprog.f: integer*4 iL
Hprog.f: real*4 fma,GG4,SS4,FF4,FI4,sum14,sum24! result
Hprog.f: iprint = 0 ! no output of parts in eq.4
Hprog.f: Rg = 376.730313461 D0 ! CODATA'98 # const
Hprog.f: beta = 1.D0/1.00001411D0 ! #const
Hprog.f: call fmass(fma,GG4,SS4,FF4,FI4,WN0,sum14,sum24 )
Hprog.f:301 format(1x, a, 1pE14.7 , 11I4 )
Hprog.f: write(6,*) ' sum1=',sum14,' sum2=',sum24
Hprog.f: write(6,*)' G =',GG4, ' S=',SS4,' F=',FF4
Hprog.f: write(6,*)' FIFI =',FI4
Ibin.f: integer*4 Function Ibin(n,k)
Ibin.f: integer*4 N,K, ibi, ilo, ih ,iden ,ibinom ,i
Ibin.f:3 write(6,*) ' n over k is restricted to n <= 17 using integer*4'
WN0fu.f: integer*4 IBIN
WN0fu.f: integer*4 B,H,ieq, Lex
WN0fu.f: real*8 z3,z4,z5,z6,z7,z8,z9,z10,z11,z12,z13
WN0fu.f: real*8 teil1,teil2,teil3,teil4
WN0fu.f: + -dfloat((3*q-1)*(k-1)) + 0.5d0*dfloat((PP-QQ)*(4+(B+1)*(1-q))
WN0fu.f: z4 = dfloat(PP)*( 0.5d0*dfloat(B)+2.d0 + dfloat(q) )*dfloat(2-k)
WN0fu.f: z5=-dfloat(QQ)*(0.5d0*dfloat(B)+dfloat(1-4*(1+4*q)))*dfloat(2-k)
WN0fu.f: teil2 = z4 + z5
WN0fu.f: teil4 = ! # KLAMMER ergaenzt
WN0fu.f: + -0.25d0* dfloat(q)*dfloat((1-q)*(B-4))-0.25d0*dfloat(B-2)
WN0fu.f: a2 = teil1 -(1-r)*( teil2 + teil3 +teil4 )
WN0fu.f: z2 = (PP-QQ)*(4+(B+1)*(1-q))/2.
WN0fu.f: z4 = PP*(B/2.+2+q)*(2-k)
WN0fu.f: z5 = -QQ*(B/2.+1-4*(1+4*q))*(2-k)
WN0fu.f: z6 = (B-2)*(1+3*(PP-QQ)/2.)/4.
WN0fu.f: z9 = -(B+2)*(1-q)/4.
WN0fu.f: z11 = -q*(1-q)*(B-4)/4.
WN0fu.f: z12 = -(B-2)/4.
WN0fu.f: teil2 = z4+z5
WN0fu.f: teil4= -ibin(PP,3)*( (2*(1+ieq)+z10 -q)+z11+z12+z13 )
WN0fu.f: a2 = teil1 -(1-r)*( teil2 + teil3 +teil4 )
WN0fu.f: write(6,*) ' z3 =', z3 , ' z4 =', z4
WN0fu.f:C write(6,*) ' teil3=',teil3, ' teil4=',teil4
WN0fu.f: goto 400
WN0fu.f:c zw =(wet/dfloat(k))*(4.d0*(2.d0-wet)
WN0fu.f:c & *dfloat(4*B+PP+QQ))
WN0fu.f:cc zw =((wet/dfloat(k))*(4.d0*(2.d0-wet)
WN0fu.f:cc & *dfloat(4*B+PP+QQ))
WN0fu.f:c z4= ( dfloat((PP-QQ)*(H+2))+dfloat(PP )*( dfloat(5*B*(1+q)*QQ) +
WN0fu.f:c + ( z3 + z1 + z4 + z5 )
WN0fu.f:c write(6,*) ' z4 = ' ,z4
WN0fu.f:400 continue ! neuer code fuer y
WN0fu.f: zw = ( wet/k)*( 4*(2-wet)-pi*ebn*(1-eta)*wet)*(k+ebn*wet*(k-1))
WN0fu.f: + + 5*(1-q)*(4*B+PP+QQ)/(2*k+(-1)**k)
WN0fu.f: + -q*(1+ieq)*( k*(PP*PP+1)*(B+2)+(PP*PP+PP+1)/4.)
WN0fu.f: z4 = ( (PP-QQ)*(H+2)
WN0fu.f: zw1= z2+ibin(PP,2)*(1-ibin(QQ,3))* ( z3+z1 )+z4+z5!)
WN0fu.f: y = r*zw + (1-r)*zw1 ! KLAMMER versetzt 4.5.03
WN0fu.f:c write(6,*) ' z4 = ' ,z4
WN0fu.f: a3 = dfloat(4*B)*y/(1.d0+y)-1.d0/dfloat(4+B)
WN0fu.f: eque = a3/dfloat(4*B) ! alt1
compini.f:C integer*4 igam ,ialfpm ,iparm ,itab
compini.f: pi = 3.14159265358979 D0
compini.f: hq = 1.054571596 D-34 ! CODATA'98 (+-82)
compini.f: c = 2.99792458 D8
compini.f: ! # const: from table page 54 :
compini.f: qn(2) =24
compini.f: qp(2) =34
compini.f: HH(2)=104
compini.f: oc = 4.D0/3.D0 ! # const
compini.f:C Rg = 376.730313461 D0 ! CODATA'98 # const c.f. Hprog.for
compini.f:C beta = 1.D0/1.00001411D0 ! #const "
compini.f: case (4)
compini.f:C fakMeV = 0.05609545 D31 (Sch)
compini.f: eta = pi/Dsqrt(Dsqrt(4.D0+ pi*pi*pi*pi))
compini.f: eq = 3.D0/(4.D0*pi*pi)*Dsqrt(2.D0*theta*hq/Rg)
compini.f: beta = 1.D0/1.00001411D0
compini.f:C eq.4a page 13 ( anno 1985 ? )
compini.f: write(6,101) 'c.f. Anhang B , pg. 54 '
compini.f: goto 400
compini.f:C (4-8) Parametermatrix: entfaellt
compini.f:400 continue
detailini.f: integer*4 jq,jk
detailini.f: do jq = 0,2; n4tab(jk,jq)= -99999.; enddo
detailout.f: integer*4 jq,jk
detailout.f: write(6,*) ' N4(k,q) ,k =', jk, ' q = 0,1,2 :'
detailout.f: write(6,*)( n4tab(jk,jq), jq = 0,2)
etaqk.f:C pi = 3.14159265358979 D0 I am Common/CONST/
etaqk.f: integer*4 kq,k
etaqk.f: zw1 = Dsqrt(kq*kq*kq*kq*(4.d0+k)+pi*pi*pi*pi)
fmass.f: Subroutine Fmass(fma,GG4,SS4,FF4,FI4,WN04,sum14,sum24 )
fmass.f:C + , N1,N2,N3,N4,EQK,EQ1,E1K
fmass.f: + ,zw1,zw2,zw3 ,zw4,zw5,AAA ,UU ,sum1,sum2
fmass.f: real*4 fma, WN04,GG4,SS4,FF4,FI4 ,sum14,sum24
fmass.f: integer*4 ibin
fmass.f: zw4 = - zw3*zw1* oc/u
fmass.f:C write(6,*) 'zw5,zw4 =',zw5,zw4
fmass.f: zw4 = zw5 + zw4
fmass.f:C write(6,*) ' ln(0.5*k*N3) = ' ,zw4 , ' q,k=',q,k
fmass.f: N3 = dexp( zw4) * 2.d0/dfloat(k)
fmass.f: N4 = dfloat( 4*( 1 + q*(k-1)) / k )
fmass.f: zw4 = (1.d0 -dsqrt(EQK))/(1.d0+dsqrt(EQK))
fmass.f: zw4 = zw4 * zw4
fmass.f: N5 = AAA*(1.d0+dfloat(k*(k-1)*2**(k*k+3))*AAA*fuNk(k)*zw4)
fmass.f: zw4 = 4.d0*(1.d0 - dsqrt(eta))/(1.d0 + dsqrt(eta))
fmass.f: zw4 = zw4*zw4
fmass.f: zw3 = eta*(1.d0 -alfm/alfp)*zw4*dfloat(qs(k))
fmass.f: N6 = 4.d0*dfloat(k)*
fmass.f: + + dfloat(4*r*BB(k)*(1-QQ)) /dfloat(3-2*q)
fmass.f: + -dfloat((PP-QQ)*(1-q))*4.d0*pi/dsqrt(dsqrt(2.d0)) ) )
fmass.f: fi=N4*dfloat(p*p/(1+p*p))*(dfloat(s+qs(k))/dsqrt(dfloat(1+s*s)))*
fmass.f: + ( dsqrt(dsqrt(2.d0)) -4.d0*UU*dfloat(BB(k))/WN0f )
fmass.f: + + dfloat(p*(p+1))*N3 + dfloat(4*s)
fmass.f: + + dfloat( qp(k)*(1+qp(k)))*N3 + dfloat(4*qs(k))
fmass.f: sum2 = amu* 4.d0* dfloat(q) * alfm
fmass.f:C Fma = mue*((GG + SS + FF + FI)*alfp + 4.*q * alfm )
fmass.f: GG4 = GG ; SS4 = SS; FF4 = FF; FI4 = FIFI
fmass.f: sum14 =sum1; sum24 =sum2 ; Wn04 = Wn0f
fmass.f: n4tab(k,q) = N4 ;n5tab(k,q) = N5 ;n6tab(k,q) = N6
fmass.f: integer*4 k , nk , nkfu
fmass.f: integer*4 function NSk (k) ! eq. 8f1 pg.15
fmass.f: integer*4 k , nk
thetaqk.f: integer*4 q ,k

 

[Vanadium 50]

Your third claim, is completely contrary to the predicted and accepted values that I have seen and I would like to see your source for this info.

Looking at http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/G_Selected_Results.pdf" of heim-theory.com I see the masses of the proton, neutron and electron of

• proton 938.27959246 MeV
• neutron 939.57336128 MeV
• electron 0.51100343 MeV

They give the experimental masses as

• proton 938.27231±0.00026
• neutron 939.56563±0.00028
• electron 0.51099907±0.00000015

Using their own numbers, the measurements are 28, 27 and 29 standard deviations from the prediction.

Using the most recent CODATA numbers, one gets:

• proton 938.272013±0.00023
• neutron 939.565346±0.00028
• electron 0.510998910±0.000000013

Which are 33, 35 and 347 standard deviations away from the prediction.

Of course, a large source of the uncertainty is in the uncertainty in converting from amu to MeV. So let's look at mass ratios, where this uncertainty cancels. Only two are independent, so I look at the two ratios that are best measured:

m_p/m_e = 1836.151262118 \; v. \; 1836.15267247 \pm 0.0000008
m_p/m_n = 0.998623025223 \; v. \; 0.99862347824 \pm 0.0000000046

Which are off by 1764 and 984 standard deviations from the prediction.

 

[Hdeasy]

Stop harping on with ththe same old rubbish , V: it's been said repeatedly that HT is a work in progress. By it's formulae, proton was 33 standard deviations away from the experimental values, where a standard deviations is 0.00023 MeV. But the much vaunted QCD lattice computations, with many more input parameters, still only gets to within 2% or 81588.87 standard deviations !!

That's the real comparison - your rubbish up there is a prime example of 'there are lies, damned lies, and statistics'.

And where is String theory on this? Precisely nowhere!

 

[Vanadium 50]

Provocative words like "harping" and "rubbish" don't elevate the level of discourse.

I was told that my claim was "is completely contrary to the predicted and accepted values that I have seen". So I provided the data that I used. That's how science works.

One position would be that Heim's theory should be taken seriously because it makes remarkably accurate predictions of particle masses. Another position is that it's a work in progress so the predictions of particle masses should not be taken so seriously. I have a problem supporting both positions simultaneously.

Logically, string theory and lattice gauge theory could both be wrong and it wouldn't make Heim right.

That said, there is a difference between the lattice gauge calculation of Durr et al. where they claim an accuracy of about 3.5% and calculate the proton mass to within 0.5% and 1.5% (they actually published two calculations) and Heim which claims an accuracy of about a part per trillion (again, from appendix G) and then substantially fails to achieve it.

 

[Orbb]

That said, there is a difference between the lattice gauge calculation of Durr et al. where they claim an accuracy of about 3.5% and calculate the proton mass to within 0.5% and 1.5% (they actually published two calculations) and Heim which claims an accuracy of about a part per trillion (again, from appendix G) and then substantially fails to achieve it.

I can't find any information on the precision of the theoretical values in appendix G. Could you please specify where in the paper an accuracy of ~ 1 per trillion is claimed?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I can't find any information on the precision of the theoretical values in appendix G. Could you please specify where in the paper an accuracy of ~ 1 per trillion is claimed?

Look at the number of significant figures on (e.g.) the proton mass.

 

[Orbb]

I doubt these are significant figures, and this is claimed nowhere. On the contrary, in the last part of F ('Concluding remarks') it is stated that

The error Q(N) = Q(0) = Q based on the approximation z = 0 for all of the N only causes an
approximation error less than 0.1 MeV.

This also applys for the ground states N=0. So the accuracy may be around 0.1 MeV, which is still well beyond the 4% precision of QCD.

 

[gabbagabbahey]

Provocative words like "harping" and "rubbish" don't elevate the level of discourse.

Agreed. The bolded statements were also unnecessary.

I was told that my claim was "is completely contrary to the predicted and accepted values that I have seen". So I provided the data that I used. That's how science works.

Thank you for providing the data you based your claim on. I didn't realize that in terms of standard deviations the errors were so large, and though I would say 27,28,29 are on order ~10, I see now that your claim of them being ~100 is not completely contrary to the data.

However, surely you must be at least a little curious as to how Heim theory got values this close (when compared to the QCD lattice calculations)? I know I am; and so far, many attempts to show that the data was simply cooked have come up empty.

One position would be that Heim's theory should be taken seriously because it makes remarkably accurate predictions of particle masses. Another position is that it's a work in progress so the predictions of particle masses should not be taken so seriously. I have a problem supporting both positions simultaneously.

Fair enough.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If Heim - or rather, the author of Appendix G - means 123.4 when they write 123.45678901, I guess that's what they mean.

I don't suppose when they say there are 5 neutrinos they might really mean 3? That would solve another problem.

 

[Orbb]

If Heim - or rather, the author of Appendix G - means 123.4 when they write 123.45678901, I guess that's what they mean.

I don't suppose when they say there are 5 neutrinos they might really mean 3? That would solve another problem.

Providing so many insignificant figures seems a bit strange, but on the other hand it makes no sense to assume that by these numbers, the author provides a falsification of the theory he is actually proposing.

Concerning the neutrinos (again taken from F):

The empirical ß-neutrino can be interpreted by n1 and the empirical m-neutrino by n2.
For the time being it cannot be decided whether the rest of the neutrinos also are implemented in
nature or whether it concerns merely logical possibilities.

There appear many resonances in the theory which have not been observed in nature, which is assumed to be due to the present lack of a selection rule for N. This may also be related to the neutrino issue.

Edit: I believe, this has also to do with the mean life, which for many resonances may be very short. Heim spent the rest of his life on calculating the mean lifes in order to find a selection rule.