Heim's Mass Formula, Quantum Electrogravity, "Hyperdrive"

Hi,

No flames plz, I'm not claiming to believe in any of the following, but
was simply just seeking some enlightened answers.

As you know, a couple of speculative theorists named Hauser and
Droscher have presented a paper proposing some faster-than-light
"hyperdrive" based on the speculations about "quantum gravity" or
"electrogravity" by a fellow named Burkhard Heim. Apparently his
speculations favored the belief that electromagnetism and gravity can
be directly interconvertible, via particles he called "gravitophotons".

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...25331.200.html

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

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?...ticle&sid=1680

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

One of the more notable features of the equation he came up with, was
that it is apparently able to calculate the masses of fundamental
particles to high accuracy. So that's what I'm posting here to ask
about -- does Heim's formula indeed do this, as is claimed? If so, then
how does it do this when no other mainstream accepted framework exists
to do this?

Has Heim somehow cheated by arbitrarily contriving a formula to force
it to come up with values already known from measurement? It's just
that it seems extraordinarily unlikely for a formula to be able to
calculate a variety of known fundamental particle masses to high
accuracy, if it was just randomly cobbled together.

Is there perhaps even just a portion of his formula that may posssibly
have merit, while other parts should be discarded?

Hauser and Droscher have conjectured that it should be possible to
prove whether or not gravitophotons exist, by performing an experiment
which involves rotating a toroidal mass above a superconductive coil
generating a powerful magnetic field.

"manofsanATyahoo.com" writes:

One of the more notable features of the equation he came up with, was
that it is apparently able to calculate the masses of fundamental
particles to high accuracy. So that's what I'm posting here to ask
about -- does Heim's formula indeed do this, as is claimed? If so, then
how does it do this when no other mainstream accepted framework exists
to do this?

Has Heim somehow cheated by arbitrarily contriving a formula to force
it to come up with values already known from measurement? It's just
that it seems extraordinarily unlikely for a formula to be able to
calculate a variety of known fundamental particle masses to high
accuracy, if it was just randomly cobbled together.

I know not more than you (if you've actually read the articles you've
linked to), but Heim's theory is said to attempt "to explain the nature
of elementary particles, along with their observed lifetimes and
discrete mass spectrum using a concept known as quantized
geometrodynamics. This concept involves an abstract mathematical object
embedded in 12-dimensional space. The space occupied by this object is
extremely small. In this model, all space consists of many quantized
surface elements on the order of 10-70 m^2 small."

This looks neither randomly nor conventional. Which does not have to
mean it is correct... I do not know how Heim got to his model (there is
a 1000-pages publication/translation of his works underway).

Is there perhaps even just a portion of his formula that may posssibly
have merit, while other parts should be discarded?

There is no way to tell except of testing the theory with experiments.
That Heim's stuff offers ways to do that seems to be the main difference
to similar far out theories like the string theory. If all or parts or
nothing of it has to be discarded... well. Time (and experiments) will
tell.

Hauser and Droscher have conjectured that it should be possible to
prove whether or not gravitophotons exist, by performing an experiment
which involves rotating a toroidal mass above a superconductive coil
generating a powerful magnetic field.

Heim's theory proposes *two* gravity forces and that experiment is
designed to test for the second one. Since it is extremly weak, proving
it against quite powerful magnetic fields won't be an easy task.

What strikes me is that there has been some russian "scientist" years
ago who pretended to be able to modify gravity by rotating masses above
a magnetic field. As far as I know nobody was able to reproduce his
findings and he did not offer any substantial theory for his results.


Disclaimer: I'm just curious and in no way anything like a scientist in
these things. Still, this looks like something worth of trying to verify
or falsify experimentally, especially since Heim doesn't look like the
usual kook, although being almost deaf and blind and with no hands
surely is enough to turn strange and lonely. If he had been better
integrated with the academic community things might have been different
(but this certainly was very, very hard in the 40s and 50s with such
handicaps).


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

manofsanATyahoo.com wrote:
Hi,

No flames plz, I'm not claiming to believe in any of the following, but
was simply just seeking some enlightened answers.

Don't think i'm that enlightened, but i have read a few of the ofending
papers i think.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...25331.200.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Theory
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?...ticle&sid=1680
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006

Ok, i would not call any of these good sources of science, so be very
carfull. Yep, even New Scientist, as they regularly talk about papers
that have not been peer reviewed or anything. They have some pretty bad
stuff in there from time to time.

The paper that i belive that one of the above links will give, does not
appear peer reviewed and i have a problem with some of the results.
The main problem is the magnatude of the effect. We should have
allready seen it. We can get some things down to 1 part in 10^14 and
better, this kind of effect should have been notced. Like on neutron
stars or something.

However the paper does have one redemming feture as follows.

Hauser and Droscher have conjectured that it should be possible to
prove whether or not gravitophotons exist, by performing an experiment
which involves rotating a toroidal mass above a superconductive coil
generating a powerful magnetic field.

Yep, thats a sign i look for. A test. But i have serious doubts about
all of this.

greg

ps this reply has not been peer reviewed

manofsanATyahoo.com wrote:
Hi,

No flames plz, I'm not claiming to believe in any of the following, but
was simply just seeking some enlightened answers.

As you know, a couple of speculative theorists named Hauser and
Droscher have presented a paper proposing some faster-than-light
"hyperdrive" based on the speculations about "quantum gravity" or
"electrogravity" by a fellow named Burkhard Heim. Apparently his
speculations favored the belief that electromagnetism and gravity can
be directly interconvertible, via particles he called "gravitophotons".

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...25331.200.html

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

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?...ticle&sid=1680

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

One of the more notable features of the equation he came up with, was
that it is apparently able to calculate the masses of fundamental
particles to high accuracy. So that's what I'm posting here to ask
about -- does Heim's formula indeed do this, as is claimed? If so, then
how does it do this when no other mainstream accepted framework exists
to do this?


Unfortunately there's no real independent confirmation of this that
I've been able to find; I'd love to know if anyone else has. No-one
outside their group actually seems to understand the theory well enough
to turn the equations into a program, and I haven't heard anything
directly stated by the people at DESY who are supposed to have run it.

Has Heim somehow cheated by arbitrarily contriving a formula to force
it to come up with values already known from measurement? It's just
that it seems extraordinarily unlikely for a formula to be able to
calculate a variety of known fundamental particle masses to high
accuracy, if it was just randomly cobbled together.


It's still possible. A derivation and explaination of the mass
equation was promised back in March, but hasn't arrived. It's also
possible that the formula just doesn't exist or doesn't give the stated
results, for all the investigation I've done. There may be German
speakers who could provide verification, as the theory has only been
published in German.

Is there perhaps even just a portion of his formula that may posssibly
have merit, while other parts should be discarded?


It is a result of an incredibly complex (2000 page) theory, based on
new mathematical formalisms. You can modify the theory certainly, but
it's probably either a ToE or a ToN...

Hauser and Droscher have conjectured that it should be possible to
prove whether or not gravitophotons exist, by performing an experiment
which involves rotating a toroidal mass above a superconductive coil
generating a powerful magnetic field.

The one encouraging thing is that they seem very keen to get some
experimental verification.

Regarding it predicting the fundamental masses...I am a particle
physicist and have never heard of a paper from desy verifying this
(which is what new scientist claims). Personally I wouldnt take much
notice until it predicts something new and someone finds this new
effect with experiments.

And as the other poster said new scientist frequently publishes
articles on "revolutionary ideas" in physics, many of which are not
really taken seriously by the scientific community.

That said it would be great news if this is true! Who wouldnt want to
go to other star systems?

I looked into this a bit more and for example the electron mass they
predict (they dont quote an error so I assume the value is supposed to
be exact) is around 27 standard deviations from the measured value
(this calculation can be found on wikipedia). That means the theory is
inconsistent with the data from experiments.

Also they predict a mass of an e0 ("neutral electron" apparently) at
similar mass to the electron. Yet this particle has never been observed
in any particle collider experiments to date. So this theory has a
major problem in that it apparently predicts particles that do not
exist in nature.

So unless the theory can be modifed to avoid these problems it seems it
is ruled out by the current available experimental data from particle
colliders.

Then again the LEP experiments ruled out then current supersymmetry
theory and now with a few tweaks it is still possible supersymmetry
does play a role in nature....

wrote:
Regarding it predicting the fundamental masses...I am a particle
physicist and have never heard of a paper from desy verifying this
(which is what new scientist claims). Personally I wouldnt take much
notice until it predicts something new and someone finds this new
effect with experiments.

And as the other poster said new scientist frequently publishes
articles on "revolutionary ideas" in physics, many of which are not
really taken seriously by the scientific community.

That said it would be great news if this is true! Who wouldnt want to
go to other star systems?

Well, wasn't the paper awarded by AIAA as well? I realize the AIAA
isn't an organization of academic physicists, but I suspect it has its
share of physicists who have a lot of hands on experimental experience.

Hi, thanks for the replies.

Well, that Podkletnov guy who attracted interest from Boeing seemed to
be a quack. But I've heard that many physicists expect that there ought
to be some way to directly convert gravitation into electricity and
vice-versa.

I rather liked some of the thinking put forth by Rueda, Haisch, et al
on Dynamic Vacuum Physics.
If gravity is the warping of space, as Einstein has said, then it means
a warping of the Dynamic Vacuum. If the warped vacuum is anisotropic in
its dynamic quantum activity relative to regular unwarped space, and if
this dynamic quantum activity is the "grain" of space, then it would be
interesting to find a way to experimentally verify this.

If "flat" space is supposed to be an isotropic balance of forces
emanating from the sub-Planck scale, then how does mass/matter act to
skew this across such a distance??

"mhodgkin" wrote:

I looked into this a bit more and for example the electron mass they
predict (they dont quote an error so I assume the value is supposed to
be exact) is around 27 standard deviations from the measured value
(this calculation can be found on wikipedia). That means the theory is
inconsistent with the data from experiments.

But isn't this merely a matter of one of their
input parameters having much less precision than
that currently available from experimental
results, which are ridiculously precise and so have
ridiculously small standard deviations?

IIUC, what these folks have is a theory that for
the first time is spitting out results that are
excellent approximations of the experimental
measurements of particle masses, and doing it for
the first time "from first principles". That they
have to use as a starting point physical constants
(IIRC, it's the "gravity one") less precise than
the known values of what they are trying to predict
will certainly produce results less accurate than
the measured ones, the important thing is that they
are producing those results _at all_; not meeting
current known precisions in the predicted values
isn't a useful criticism of the theory, merely a
motivation to measure that one input parameter
(or perhaps all of the input parameters) to
precision equal to the precision desired in the
outputs, _then_ see how the output accuracy is.

xanthian.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

wrote:
I looked into this a bit more and for example the electron mass they
predict (they dont quote an error so I assume the value is supposed to
be exact) is around 27 standard deviations from the measured value
(this calculation can be found on wikipedia). That means the theory is
inconsistent with the data from experiments.

But what is the measured value based on?


Also they predict a mass of an e0 ("neutral electron" apparently) at
similar mass to the electron. Yet this particle has never been observed
in any particle collider experiments to date. So this theory has a
major problem in that it apparently predicts particles that do not
exist in nature.

A lot of accepted theories predict particles that have never been
observed. The Higgs Boson, for one famous example. Given that electrons
primary interaction tends to be field based, related to its electric
charge, without a charge it has no field and should be a very weakly
interacting massive particle. Are you certain the 'neutral electron'
isn't just another particle we already know about?