Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Hyperspace engine (Heim's Quantum Theory)

  1. Jan 7, 2006 #1
    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 [Broken]

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 17, 2006 #2
    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.
  4. Jan 17, 2006 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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?
  5. Jan 17, 2006 #4
    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 [Broken] (in German).
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  6. Jan 17, 2006 #5
    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.
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2006
  7. Jan 17, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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 [tex]\Gamma^i_{km}[/tex]? Evidently Heim acknowledges that these are not tensors, hence coordinate dependent. How then can they be a feature of the underlying manifold?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  8. Jan 17, 2006 #7
    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.
  9. Jan 17, 2006 #8
    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 gotta be a point of departure that can be used to start attacking the problem of clarifying Heim's ideas.
  10. Jan 18, 2006 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm wondering why it wasn't moved to the fantasy and science fiction bookshelf.
  11. Jan 18, 2006 #10
    First, the inital equation you correct had a [tex]\Gamma^i_{km}[/tex] too many. it should be: In Riemann geometry the curvature tensor [tex]R^i_{kmp}[/tex] can be defined by an operator [tex]C_{p}[/tex]? , that acts on the Christoffel symbols
    [tex]R^i_{kmp}[/tex] = [tex]C_{p}[/tex] [tex] \Gamma^i_{km}[/tex]. (1.2)
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2006
  12. Jan 18, 2006 #11
    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?
  13. Jan 18, 2006 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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 occured to us that the THEORY could be discussed here, so there was a concensus to have the thread here.
  14. Jan 19, 2006 #13
    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.
  15. Jan 20, 2006 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Because it's a tragedy?
  16. Jan 27, 2006 #15
    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?
  17. Jan 27, 2006 #16
    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.
  18. Feb 3, 2006 #17
  19. Feb 3, 2006 #18


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Hi Anome,
    welcome to our humble board.
    Glad to have you.
  20. Feb 6, 2006 #19
    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.
  21. Apr 10, 2006 #20
    The thread http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=630 [Broken] is very popular - 43 pages and growing - meantime mass formula in Mathematica, C++, Excel, Pascal etc.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook