7 views

Skip to first unread message

Jan 16, 2007, 2:25:41 PM1/16/07

to

Some of you may recall a buzz of media excitement last year about

"Heim theory", the revolutionary physical theory developed in the

1950s by the blind deaf handicapped genius, Berkhard Heim. Among

other claims made in the media and on their website is that Heim

theory provides a mechanism for faster than light travel. This claim

caused it to get some notice amongst readers of these groups.

"Heim theory", the revolutionary physical theory developed in the

1950s by the blind deaf handicapped genius, Berkhard Heim. Among

other claims made in the media and on their website is that Heim

theory provides a mechanism for faster than light travel. This claim

caused it to get some notice amongst readers of these groups.

The main claim to theoretical success of the Heim theorists is (from

the official website, www.heim-theory.com):

"[...]he privately performed the difficult calculations for the

Einsteins unified field theory and fulfilled Einsteins dream after

decades of lonely work: a complete geometrical description of all

forces and a formula for the masses of all elementary particles. The

mass formula was programmed and the spectrum of masses was printed in

1982 by physicists at DESY (Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron),

Hamburg. This formula yields all known and some unknown masses of

elementary particles and resonances on account of the knowledge about

the internal dynamics of geometrical structures, without introducing

of Higgs-bosons or perturbation calculations.

Until now, Heims unified field theory must be considered the most

successful one, since in physics there are no better results for the

properties of elementary particles yet, since Higgs-bosons have not

yet been found and physical properties of strings can not yet be

determined. Therefore, it should to be checked by specialists."

Unfortunately, no specialists could easily check these or any other

Heim theory calculations since the Heim disciples were unable to

explain them to physicists, and the only reference works were the

original books by Heim, written in German.

Finally, someone called John Reed dug has back into Heim's book,

translated it from German, and discovered the secret of the incredible

particle mass predictions: they were put in explicitly by hand.

Yes, that's right: the Heim disciples apparently took his equations

that they didn't understand either, fumbled them around a bit and

extracted the same numbers that Heim put into them...and called it a

prediction!

So much for that space drive?

Kris

Jan 16, 2007, 6:39:52 PM1/16/07

to

Kris Kennaway wrote:

> Yes, that's right: the Heim disciples apparently took his equations

> that they didn't understand either, fumbled them around a bit and

> extracted the same numbers that Heim put into them...and called it a

> prediction!

If so, then yes, that ought to pretty much stuff the theory. Alas.

--

Sea Wasp

/^\

;;;

Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/

Jan 16, 2007, 7:12:15 PM1/16/07

to

Kris Kennaway wrote:

> Yes, that's right: the Heim disciples apparently took his equations

> that they didn't understand either, fumbled them around a bit and

> extracted the same numbers that Heim put into them...and called it a

> prediction!

>

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/f72785ee1bb126a9/bc0ec8393f3f3b6f#bc0ec8393f3f3b6f

>

> So much for that space drive?

Not a huge shocker, really. But still amusing.

--

Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/

San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis

There are no dull subjects. There are only dull writers.

-- H.L. Mencken

Jan 16, 2007, 8:32:15 PM1/16/07

to

Erik Max Francis wrote:

> Kris Kennaway wrote:

>

> > Yes, that's right: the Heim disciples apparently took his equations

> > that they didn't understand either, fumbled them around a bit and

> > extracted the same numbers that Heim put into them...and called it a

> > prediction!

> >

> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/f72785ee1bb126a9/bc0ec8393f3f3b6f#bc0ec8393f3f3b6f

> >

> > So much for that space drive?

>

> Not a huge shocker, really. But still amusing.

>

Woodwards machian transiant mass variation prediction is far less

obvious crankery. At least that makes testable predictions. Predictions

that I've heard are so far inconclusive at best, something reminiscant

of the cold fusion crowd... but its at least a good place for

constructing a reactionless drive for a sci-fi setting if nothing else.

Assume the universe is machian and has nonlocal momentum transfer

mechanisms. Futz around with mumblemumble to induce mass variatons in

your reaction mass.

Sure would be nice, but the universe so far has been unsympathetic

towards physical laws that permit space opera.

Jan 18, 2007, 5:25:50 AM1/18/07

to

Kris Kennaway wrote:

> Finally, someone called John Reed dug has back into Heim's book,

> translated it from German, and discovered the secret of the incredible

> particle mass predictions: they were put in explicitly by hand.

>

> Yes, that's right: the Heim disciples apparently took his equations

> that they didn't understand either, fumbled them around a bit and

> extracted the same numbers that Heim put into them...and called it a

> prediction!

>

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/f72785ee1bb126a9/bc0ec8393f3f3b6f#bc0ec8393f3f3b6f

>

> So much for that space drive?

>

> Kris

I'd say good riddance. Any theory that predict FTL drive belong to

sf/f, not science. BTW I feel a lot of disappointments about "wonders"

in the experimental physics lately: huge gravimagnetic effect is not

reproduced and axion discovery debunked. Latest cool effect not

debunked yet ;) remain quark-gluon fireball ("quark-gluon glass") dual

(isomorphic in a sense, if I'm understand it correctly) to black hole.

Jan 18, 2007, 8:59:12 AM1/18/07

to

serg271 wrote:

> BTW I feel a lot of disappointments about "wonders"

> in the experimental physics lately: huge gravimagnetic effect is not

> reproduced and axion discovery debunked.

> BTW I feel a lot of disappointments about "wonders"

> in the experimental physics lately: huge gravimagnetic effect is not

> reproduced and axion discovery debunked.

As the saying goes, 'the impossible doesn't happen very often'.

Earth-shattering, unexpected experimental results have a high

probability of turning out to be errors, artifacts, or outright

fraud.

Paul

Jan 18, 2007, 11:13:45 AM1/18/07

to

: "serg271" <aocr...@yahoo.com>

: Any theory that predict FTL drive belong to sf/f, not science.

: Any theory that predict FTL drive belong to sf/f, not science.

What I found even more persuasive was the inept reasoning for why

you could modify inertial mass and get velocity changes due to

conservation of momentum. This is so obviously wrong-headed.

Well. One can make it sensible, by insisting that there's a single,

special frame in which momentum (and energy and so forth) is *really*

conserved, and it's just coincidence that it appears to be conserved

in other frames. And the simplest way of making FTL sensible is also

to insist on a special frame in which maxwell's equations hold true,

and it's just coincidence that they appear to hold true in other

frames. So you can make the argument that if you can swallow one,

you can swallow the other, and if you can't one, you can't the other.

But the rationale for velocity manipulation based on conservation

is soooooooo wrong-headed, since it's wrong headed whether physical

laws are "really" invariant galilean style or lorentz style. So

much more *fundamentally* confused than just picking an invariance.

But that's just me.

Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

Jan 18, 2007, 9:42:34 PM1/18/07

to

On 2007-01-18, serg271 <aocr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Latest cool effect not

> debunked yet ;) remain quark-gluon fireball ("quark-gluon glass") dual

> (isomorphic in a sense, if I'm understand it correctly) to black hole.

The string theory calculations relating the quantum gravity of certain

black hole systems in 10 dimensions to the properties of certain gauge

theory plasmas in 4 dimensions are pretty solid; the body of research

around this conjectured correspondence now extends to hundreds of

nontrivial checks. Why should particle physics in 4 dimensions (NB:

not 4 dimensions + 6 rolled up dimensions) have anything at all to do

with quantum gravity in 10 dimensions? Astounding, but it seems to be

true: each is exactly equivalent (isomorphic) to the other, when

written in different variables.

The surprising thing is that even though the 4d gauge theory that is

most easily studied using this correspondence is not QCD (the theory

of quarks and gluons which correctly describes the strong nuclear

force), it is apparently "close enough" to QCD to reproduce highly

nontrivial features of the QCD plasmas produced and studied at the

RHIC accelerator, and in some cases it even gives a better (or at

least comparable, depending on who in the QCD community you talk to

and how much they have tweaked their model ;-) agreement to the

experimental data than the various approximate theoretical models

based on QCD.

This is pretty close to direct experimental evidence for string

theory (although extending the calculations to the quantum gravity

theory dual to QCD itself remains an open area of research).

Kris

Jan 19, 2007, 12:40:05 PM1/19/07

to

Kris Kennaway wrote:

>

> This is pretty close to direct experimental evidence for string

> theory (although extending the calculations to the quantum gravity

> theory dual to QCD itself remains an open area of research).

>

Jan 19, 2007, 3:29:01 PM1/19/07

to

serg271 wrote:

> I'd say good riddance. Any theory that predict FTL drive belong to

> sf/f, not science. BTW I feel a lot of disappointments about "wonders"

> I'd say good riddance. Any theory that predict FTL drive belong to

> sf/f, not science. BTW I feel a lot of disappointments about "wonders"

When celerity varies (VSL), it's not so much of a problem.

> in the experimental physics lately: huge gravimagnetic effect is not

> reproduced and axion discovery debunked. Latest cool effect not

/what/ discovery debunked?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion

> debunked yet ;) remain quark-gluon fireball ("quark-gluon glass") dual

> (isomorphic in a sense, if I'm understand it correctly) to black hole.

See my criticisms of scientific thÃ¨ories:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/a27dac66b0818f9e/f3bd5969d5bdd101?#f3bd5969d5bdd101.

-Aut

Jan 19, 2007, 5:59:22 PM1/19/07

to

Is any of this testable or is it just mathematics and philosophy?

Jan 19, 2007, 3:02:48 PM1/19/07

to

That's the idea, yeah :) It's not quite that simple though, because

the real world isn't described by QCD, it's described by the standard

model (which includes QCD as a subsector). There are string

theoretical constructions of the minimal supersymmetric version of the

standard model, which is the theory that is commonly hoped will be

observed by the LHC starting in 2008.

Kris

Jan 20, 2007, 3:36:11 AM1/20/07

to

Autymn D. C. wrote:

> serg271 wrote:

> > I'd say good riddance. Any theory that predict FTL drive belong to

> > sf/f, not science. BTW I feel a lot of disappointments about "wonders"

>

> /what/ discovery debunked?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion

>

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-12/uab-ltf120606.php

look also here

Jan 20, 2007, 3:40:19 AM1/20/07

to

Jan 20, 2007, 2:57:14 AM1/20/07

to

On 2007-01-19, Autymn D. C. <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>> in the experimental physics lately: huge gravimagnetic effect is not

>> reproduced and axion discovery debunked. Latest cool effect not

>

> /what/ discovery debunked?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion

A retiring experimental physics professor at buffalo announced at his

retirement party that he'd discovered the axion thereby completing his

life's work. The data and statistics in the paper are not so

convincing.

Kris

Jan 20, 2007, 2:59:58 AM1/20/07

to

Yes, you compare theoretical quantum gravity calculations to

experimental data measured at RHIC. You can also compare

quantum gravity calculations to QCD meson and baryon mass

measurements and QCD (lattice gauge theory) calculations.

Kris

Jan 20, 2007, 9:04:54 PM1/20/07

to

Ooof. Lattice guage theory itself is a computationally intensive chore.

How many years do we have to churn computers before we arrive at

statistically significant differences?

And quantum gravity calculations... Are they as computationally

intensive as lattice QCD? Really how much does gravity effect these

interactions anyways? I understood that its so weak as to not be

measurable.

Jan 21, 2007, 2:51:34 PM1/21/07

to

On 2007-01-21, dez...@usa.net <dez...@usa.net> wrote:

>

> Kris Kennaway wrote:

>> On 2007-01-19, dez...@usa.net <dez...@usa.net> wrote:

>> >

>> > serg271 wrote:

>> >> Kris Kennaway wrote:

>> >> >

>> >> > This is pretty close to direct experimental evidence for string

>> >> > theory (although extending the calculations to the quantum gravity

>> >> > theory dual to QCD itself remains an open area of research).

>> >> >

>> >> Could it be *the* quantum gravity theory ?

>> >

>> > Is any of this testable or is it just mathematics and philosophy?

>>

>> Yes, you compare theoretical quantum gravity calculations to

>> experimental data measured at RHIC. You can also compare

>> quantum gravity calculations to QCD meson and baryon mass

>> measurements and QCD (lattice gauge theory) calculations.

>>

>> Kris

>

> Ooof. Lattice guage theory itself is a computationally intensive chore.

> How many years do we have to churn computers before we arrive at

> statistically significant differences?

>

> Kris Kennaway wrote:

>> On 2007-01-19, dez...@usa.net <dez...@usa.net> wrote:

>> >

>> > serg271 wrote:

>> >> Kris Kennaway wrote:

>> >> >

>> >> > This is pretty close to direct experimental evidence for string

>> >> > theory (although extending the calculations to the quantum gravity

>> >> > theory dual to QCD itself remains an open area of research).

>> >> >

>> >> Could it be *the* quantum gravity theory ?

>> >

>> > Is any of this testable or is it just mathematics and philosophy?

>>

>> Yes, you compare theoretical quantum gravity calculations to

>> experimental data measured at RHIC. You can also compare

>> quantum gravity calculations to QCD meson and baryon mass

>> measurements and QCD (lattice gauge theory) calculations.

>>

>> Kris

>

> Ooof. Lattice guage theory itself is a computationally intensive chore.

> How many years do we have to churn computers before we arrive at

> statistically significant differences?

You expect the universe to condescend to be easy to calculate?? ;)

Anyway lattice QCD calculations are typically matching to experiment

at the 1% level nowadays.

> And quantum gravity calculations... Are they as computationally

> intensive as lattice QCD?

I don't think so, but the state of the art is not as good as lattice

QCD yet. These are theoretical complications more than computational.

> Really how much does gravity effect these

> interactions anyways? I understood that its so weak as to not be

> measurable.

That's entirely the point: you would not expect gravity to be at all

important for the dynamics of the strong nuclear force, but it turns

out that in other variables the strong nuclear force in 4 dimensions

*is* gravity (string theory) - the catch is that it's gravity in a 10

dimensional curved space, not a 4-dimensional flat space.

Kris

Jan 24, 2007, 10:11:04 AM1/24/07

to

On Jan 20, 12:36 am, "serg271" <aocra...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Autymn D. C. wrote:

> > serg271 wrote:

> > > I'd say good riddance. Any theory that predict FTL drive belong to

> > > sf/f, not science. BTW I feel a lot of disappointments about "wonders"

>

> > /what/ discovery debunked??http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion> Autymn D. C. wrote:

> > serg271 wrote:

> > > I'd say good riddance. Any theory that predict FTL drive belong to

> > > sf/f, not science. BTW I feel a lot of disappointments about "wonders"

>

>http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-12/uab-ltf120606.php

>

> look also here

>

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread...

reply:

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2006/12/axions_and_the_problem_of_eure.php

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu