Heim Theory -

[Aero]

Now that the phys org forum seems to be forever dead, I need an outlet to discuss Heim Theory. For those who would like to familiarize themselves with the basics, I suggest:
http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/downlo ... 01.2en.pdf
There exists a pure English version of this talk (MMB paper) edited by John Reed, but I can't find the link at the moment.

I am currently concerned with Heim's corrected law of universal gravitation. He makes the point that if something has no mass then it does not exist in a physical reality (He excludes such things as ideas, dreams and thoughts, which exist but are not physical). (Light photons have mass, for example, and so does every physical thing that we know about.) Therefore, to exist, a gravitational field must have mass, al be it much less mass than the body of gravitational field source mass. Still, the gravitational field is huge so the gravitational effect of the field mass should be included in the universal law. Heim proceeds to derive this law and an overview is given in the above reference.

But the paper doesn't provide the basic picture I need to understand his approach. It gives a formula then solves it, which I can follow well enough, but I need the picture related to the formula that illustrates the effects within the four zones of effect. He gives a different picture that illustrates the sources of gravitational acceleration, but it is not clear in its relationship to the formula. I think this is indicative of Heim's problem in communicating his theory. He was near blind and really smart so he tended to start out in the middle of things. I need to see the basics then try to work my way to his first formula.

So I need to draw my own picture which I can easily do with pencil and paper. Its just a picture of the four gravitational zones resulting from a central mass and its field mass as a space vehicle flies off to infinity. But I am having a problem finding a draw program that is simple enough to display this idea. I wish I had the old Apple MacIntosh Draw program. Something that is quick to learn and just a little bit more flexible that the Draw options in Microsoft Word.

Any suggestions? If I can't learn to use it within half an hour, its not for me. I'll use pencil and paper, and scan it into a jpg. But then I need to use Photoshop to annotate it. That is undesirable.

[Betruger]

Why is photoshop undesirable? You need only use the brush tool and freehand it, or use the shapes tool which has circles and other basics shapes.. I did this in about 2-3min back when I was first reading about polywell and trying to get my father to explain the basics to me. The square and circle are done with the shape tool, 5 seconds each, the rest is all free hand with the brush tool. Half an hour is definitely enough to learn those two tools, and how to edit image layers.

[MSimon]

Paint is pretty good for quick and dirty annotation.

[hanelyp]

A matter of terminology: Under relativity theory mass and energy are distinct, though connected, quantities. So a photon has finite energy from zero mass time an infinite gamma factor. Any particle not traveling at light speed must have a non zero mass to have non zero energy.

As far as gravity having energy, I understand that's part of the theory behind a black hole. But like electromagnetism that would be energy without mass.

[Aero]

Heim theory makes extensive use of E = mc^2, the equivalence of mass and energy. He states that if something has no energy and no mass then it does not exist in the physical world. Seems obvious to me , but of course the obvious is not always so at the quantum scale.

[drmike]

"no energy" and non existence makes sense, "no mass" and non-existence does not make sense. Photons have energy, but no mass, and it's pretty clear they exist.

The full formula is E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 where E is total energy, m is the rest mass, c is light speed and p is kinetic momentum. A photon can have no mass and we can define its momentum by its energy. This is consistent.

Are there any specific experiments which would prove his theory is more useful than other theory?

[TallDave]

Are there any specific experiments which would prove his theory is more useful than other theory?

Predictions claimed to have been derived from first principles that are experimentally testable are:

Predictions of the masses of neutrinos
Predictions of new particles
Predictions of excited states of existing particles
Predictions for the conversion of photons into the so-called "gravito-photons" resulting in a measurable force.

Heim theory is intriguing because the Droscher extension seems to be able to indepently derive the particle masses using only the quantum numbers k, Q, P, kappa and charge. AFAIK no other theory can do this.

Heim theory is probably falsified if they find any superpartners. Heim does not predict a Higgs particle, either.

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

[Aero]

Dr Mike

Specifically, Heim Theory predicts the masses of the elementary particles to within fractions of one percent. But even that is outside the 3 sigma bounds of the most accurate particle mass measurements. It also predicts the lifetime of elementary particles very closely though not as closely as it predicts the masses. These predictions are based on known universal constants, all of which, except the gravitational constant, are currently defined values in the 2006 CODATA database. The mass formulas have been programmed and are available on source forge in several computer languages.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/heim-theory/
By adjusting the Gravity constant by less than 2 sigma, most of the masses of the particles can be calculated exactly. The thing is, its not the same value of the gravity constant giving the exact answer for all particles.

If anyone downloads and runs these programs, be cautioned that the values of the universal constants programmed are not necessarily internally consistent. You should verify a consistent set of input values before looking at the answers. Oh, and I have a simple formula for adjusting the input value of the gravity constant for you if anyone wants to explore this.

Further, Heim Theory predicts the existence of a "field drive" for space propulsion. Recently, (2002-2008) M Tajmar has conducted very well controlled experiments which may confirm this effect however the jury is still out on this. (There are competing theories.)
M Tajmar publishes here
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2271

[pbelter]

Since the Physorg forum is dead (other than in its Lofi version which is very hard to read) it would be nice to have a www.talk-heim.org

[Aero]

Since the Physorg forum is dead (other than in its Lofi version which is very hard to read) it would be nice to have a www.talk-heim.org

Yes it would, but who will volunteer to create, host and moderate it? Unfortunately, that's just not my cup of tea.

The Heim Theory thread on PhsyOrg was up to 148 pages (a single thread) when PhsyOrg forum died.

And there were spin-off threads. One interesting spin-off a was cellular automation effort which attempted to model the metron contraction during the expansion of the universe in accordance with Heim Theory. They were hoping to understand the spontaneous generation of mass. Last I heard there was a fundamental difficulty in that the smallest mass particles are like 10^55 times larger than a metron. That whole area needs some deep theoretical thought, IMO.

The thing that made the PhsyOrg thread superior was the participation of a few really senior and knowledgeable physicists who were proponents of honest research and honest theoretical evaluation.

[drmike]

Thanks Aero! I'll go check that out.

[pbelter]

I was starting to think about the best ways to set up an alternative site for the Heim Teory while I checked physorg one last time

and the PHYSORG FORUM IS BACK ONLINE !!!

here is the link to the last discussion page on Heim Theory:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... 85&st=2220

[kurt9]

Since the Physorg forum is dead (other than in its Lofi version which is very hard to read) it would be nice to have a www.talk-heim.org

The thing that made the PhsyOrg thread superior was the participation of a few really senior and knowledgeable physicists who were proponents of honest research and honest theoretical evaluation.

It would be nice to have a new discussion forum on Heim Theory if we could get the same people commenting as they had in the PhsyOrg thread. Although I never made any comments in it (much of it was over my head), I followed it for 2 years in order to track developments with the theory.

[Aero]

GREAT NEWS for this thread!

The PhsyOrg forum is back online!

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... 85&st=2235

We don't need to start over!

Now if only Nebel and Polywell development could come back from the pit of silence...