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.
This seems to be the place to find out... I haven't even looked yet...I'm afraid...
A few other related links:
MAGNET EXPERIMENT TO MEASURING
SPACE PROPULSION HEIM-LORENTZ FORCE
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
note that Mufon is the Mutual UFO Network
Elementary Structures of Matter
by Dipl. Phys. Burkhard Heim
This looks like what we want...
Heim Quantum Theory for Space Propulsion Physics
Well, my first impression is, wow!!!! I hope they're right...
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.
Me too. I'd like to hear from the experts here.
Why does the Air force have intrest this?Shouldn't NASA or some other govement deptrament be reashing this?
Maybe..but it made it here:https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=83624
quite some time ago !
see posting #9 ?
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
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.
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/fundamentals/mg18925331.200.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!
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...
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.
I find this a little suspicious:
(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:
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.
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_pw/D_Zur_Herleitung_Der_Heimschen_Massenformel.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.
There must be a few more heavyweights in this forum who could expound there ideas about this? It's very exciting to think it might be true, but I'm not counting my chickens. Saying Nasa is interested says it all for me, they're hardly going to take much notice unless it has at least an outside chance of being a plausable mechanics?I'd love it if it was right though
This is a little off the main subject here, but -- when I first read about the Heim drive (or the Z machine) on the New Scientist web page yesterday, the first thing that popped into my mind was the humongous magnetic drive in the movie Contact that was used to send Jodie Foster's character onto a faster-than-light interstellar journey.
Separate names with a comma.