Heim Theory Falsified...this is depressing

[williatw]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/07/heim-theory.html
The People at http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... ntry488952

seem to be saying that Heim's numbers were cooked, that is bad no stinking hyperspace drive. Still would like someone to run the experimental test at the magnetic field strengths suggested by Walter Dröscher and Jochem Häuser

[Giorgio]

I do not see anything in that discussion and related papers that actually invalidate Heim Theory.
Heim has made some hypothesis to get to his theory. Mansson refuses these hypothesis and than states that without them Heim Theory fails (which is obvious IMHO):

Which is the correct way? I think the Heim way is wrong!

This really does not prove that Heim Theory is wrong, same way as it does not prove that Heim is right.

I still think that Heim Theory is a very intriguing piece of work and should deserve some experimental verification.

[djolds1]

I do not see anything in that discussion and related papers that actually invalidate Heim Theory.

See Dr. John Reed's (jreed) posts on pages 198 and 199 of that physorg thread.

[Giorgio]

Thanks, I didn't see those one.

Dr. John Reed got issues with mass calculation with Heim in the previous years.
Now I see that he went back and tried mass calculation with the Tau lepton and didn't get any meaningful result.
I really can't comment on this statement by Reed, firstly because he does not attach any calculation to his post, and secondly because Heim paper is indeed quite tough (for me) to pretend to fully understand it in details.

The only people that can reply to this new claim by Reed are the one who did it before, the Heim Research Group.
It will be interesting to see if and how they will reply to him.

[williatw]

From: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?s=90 ... 85&st=3000

"Dröscher and Hauser's efforts in EHT are for an eight-dimensional gauge space rather than Heim's original six-dimensional space. Since Dröscher and Hauser derive those results without reliance upon Heim's calculations you need to address EHT as a separate body of work, even though the "kernel" of the idea (hermetry of space) remains Heim's. Any errors or incompleteness of calculations in the original Heim Theory should reflect only upon Heim Theory. EHT should be judged on its own merits and calculations."....sounds like they are separate issues, good so there is maybe still hope for the space drive applications.

[djolds1]

From: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?s=90 ... 85&st=3000

"Dröscher and Hauser's efforts in EHT are for an eight-dimensional gauge space rather than Heim's original six-dimensional space. Since Dröscher and Hauser derive those results without reliance upon Heim's calculations you need to address EHT as a separate body of work, even though the "kernel" of the idea (hermetry of space) remains Heim's. Any errors or incompleteness of calculations in the original Heim Theory should reflect only upon Heim Theory. EHT should be judged on its own merits and calculations."....sounds like they are separate issues, good so there is maybe still hope for the space drive applications.

Greg Daigle just published a book on gravitech via EHT - he's deeply invested in EHT emotionally. I wish he and you were right, but IMO we can now write off the Heim hypothesis as a plausible approach to yoking gravity. Other approaches still remain - Woodward Effect, HFGW, Dynamic Theory, etc. I would be flabbergasted if 8D EHT's gravitational mathematics were not deeply based in 6D Heim Quantum Theory's similar mathematics. When the foundations of an idea implode, the extensions of that idea disintegrate along with it.

[CaptainBeowulf]

I haven't read that thread in a year or so, but from what I recall controversy over whether Heim cooked the books goes back several years. Basically it's gone back and forth, where people think they've found evidence that he input the observed particle masses, but then decide that there's evidence he didn't (ie. they find calculations that predate when they thought he input stuff).

Heim seems to have been a smart guy, but both his style of conveying his ideas (writing and calculations), and his organization and record-keeping of how he developed his ideas, are very eccentric and obtuse. It's interesting to watch those who are both qualified to understand the relevant physics and who are willing to put in the time discuss it... even if there's really no coherent overall theory, maybe there's an idea or two which will inspire someone in the right direction...

[djolds1]

I haven't read that thread in a year or so, but from what I recall controversy over whether Heim cooked the books goes back several years. Basically it's gone back and forth, where people think they've found evidence that he input the observed particle masses, but then decide that there's evidence he didn't (ie. they find calculations that predate when they thought he input stuff).

Its actually John Reed who's gone back and forth and back. Thought he found a flaw in the mathematics, went deep into the mathematics, and then found his presumed flaw was wrong. Since then he's spent time working on a translation of Burkhard Heim's work, and now reports he's found fundamental flaws by working through the translation.

Heim seems to have been a smart guy, but both his style of conveying his ideas (writing and calculations), and his organization and record-keeping of how he developed his ideas, are very eccentric and obtuse. It's interesting to watch those who are both qualified to understand the relevant physics and who are willing to put in the time discuss it... even if there's really no coherent overall theory, maybe there's an idea or two which will inspire someone in the right direction...

Heim was blind due to a lab accident during WW2. But if Dr. Reed is correct, the entire Heim model was highly tuned to reflect cutting edge particle physics c. 1970. That isn't abstruse methods of record keeping - that's design.

[Giorgio]

Heim was blind due to a lab accident during WW2. But if Dr. Reed is correct, the entire Heim model was highly tuned to reflect cutting edge particle physics c. 1970. That isn't abstruse methods of record keeping - that's design.

This is probably the biggest point that always made me consider that Heim did not made his theory to fit the existing mass model.
It would have been an incredible feat even for a man in good health to do it, can you imagine how difficult should have been for someone almost blind and deaf and (in the last years of his life) blocked in bed?

This of course does not add credibility to his theory, but to me it removes the doubt that he might have "designed" it by will.

[rcain]

... but IMO we can now write off the Heim hypothesis as a plausible approach to yoking gravity....

i think we need some kind of special paint.

[djolds1]

Heim was blind due to a lab accident during WW2. But if Dr. Reed is correct, the entire Heim model was highly tuned to reflect cutting edge particle physics c. 1970. That isn't abstruse methods of record keeping - that's design.

This is probably the biggest point that always made me consider that Heim did not made his theory to fit the existing mass model.
It would have been an incredible feat even for a man in good health to do it, can you imagine how difficult should have been for someone almost blind and deaf and (in the last years of his life) blocked in bed?

This of course does not add credibility to his theory, but to me it removes the doubt that he might have "designed" it by will.

If Dr. Reed is correct, the Heim hypothesis was designed. Apparently not by directly inputting the mass values into the mathematics (Dr. Reed has already examined and discounted that), but a step further back, by intentionally mis-stating the mathematics of gravitational theory. Incredibly elegant, but it still indicates a tuned model.

... but IMO we can now write off the Heim hypothesis as a plausible approach to yoking gravity....

i think we need some kind of special paint.

Flat white should suffice. We and others can intelligibly write atop it with ease.

[Giorgio]

Apparently not by directly inputting the mass values into the mathematics (Dr. Reed has already examined and discounted that), but a step further back, by intentionally mis-stating the mathematics of gravitational theory. Incredibly elegant, but it still indicates a tuned model.

Not only elegant, but also an incredible feat that makes it even more hard to believe that it was tuned (at least to me).
For this reason I hope he is wrong and that he just did not apply correctly the quantum boundaries to calculate the Tau Lepton mass.

I also wrote to the Heim Research Group advising them about Dr. Reed statement and I'll post here any reply I get from them.

[djolds1]

Apparently not by directly inputting the mass values into the mathematics (Dr. Reed has already examined and discounted that), but a step further back, by intentionally mis-stating the mathematics of gravitational theory. Incredibly elegant, but it still indicates a tuned model.

Not only elegant, but also an incredible feat that makes it even more hard to believe that it was tuned (at least to me).
For this reason I hope he is wrong and that he just did not apply correctly the quantum boundaries to calculate the Tau Lepton mass.

I also wrote to the Heim Research Group advising them about Dr. Reed statement and I'll post here any reply I get from them.

That the Heim method can't account for any particle masses determined after 1970 or so strongly indicates a tuned model, but I look forward to your report.

[Giorgio]

If Dr. Hauser or someone else from the Heim research group will confirm this, than we can really put this theory aside. Otherwise I believe that they will give plenty of clarifications and explanations as they did in the past.

I hope to hear back from them in a short time.

[Giorgio]

Here you go guys:

Dear Giorgio,

thank you for you e-mail message.

We share the doubts of Dr. Reed.
Several years ago, I had already pointed out to the Heim research group that I could not see a proper derivation of the mass formula.

In the meantime also Professor Auerbach, ETH Zurich contacted us about the same topic.

Moreover, since we feel that a subspace that we call I2 (information) seems to be missing from Heim as well as we think that there is only a 4D spacetime while all other coordinates are in 8D gauge space. This formulation leads to a completely different picture of matter and interactions as well as the fundamental symmetry groups.

However, we think thta Heim's original idea of constructing a poly-metric tensor, when properly modified can be used as a classification scheme for fundamental interactions and matter.

As a result we predict six fundamental interactions, three of them being of gravitational nature.

Publications can be found on our website.
Sincerely,

Jochem Hauser.

Dr.rer. nat. Jochem Hauser
Professor HPC, Ostfalia &
Scientific Director HPCC-Space