Slashdot Mirror

http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/Introduction_to_Heim_s_Mass-Fo/introduction_to_heim_s_mass-fo.html
Space travel is however theoretically possible using field drive as theorized by Heim

• Ele-Neutrino mass: 0.381 × 10^-8 MeV/c^2
• Mu-Neutrino mass: 0.00537 MeV/c^2
• Tau-Neutrino mass: 0.010752 MeV/c^2

It's hard to say what Heim theory is, since there is so little written about it.

It's hard to say what Heim theory is, since there is so little written about it.

Yes, although to be fair to the guy, Heim didn't write the papers himself and couldn't even proofread them because he was blind, deaf and hand-less due to an accident in 1944. IANAP, but I liked how his formula for calculation of all known particle masses depends on four fundamental constants, c, G, h, E0. Alternatively, one could argue that if you play around for long enough with high-order polynomials, you can fairly readily find many different formulae to fit almost any given set of numbers within an allowed approximation. Maybe that's what happened in Heim's case, or maybe somewhere in the archive of his unpublished/untranslated German papers, there is a proper derivation of his Mass Formula from his theory.

Thanks for your clear explanations. Any thoughts on the validity of the loop quantum gravity variant Heim Theory (full version in German only), and Heim's Mass Formula that quite accurately "predicts" the rest-frame masses of all known elementary particles?

Thanks for your clear explanations. Any thoughts on the validity of the loop quantum gravity variant Heim Theory (full version in German only), and Heim's Mass Formula that quite accurately "predicts" the rest-frame masses of all known elementary particles?

Thanks for your clear explanations. Any thoughts on the validity of the loop quantum gravity variant Heim Theory (full version in German only), and Heim's Mass Formula that quite accurately "predicts" the rest-frame masses of all known elementary particles?

• determining mass of most fundamental particles to experimental accuracy (the others are damn close)
  
• Explaining the problem of entropy and the big bang. (In his model matter forms after expansion begins, so the laws of thermodynamics are consistent)
  
• explains the effects we currently attribute to "dark matter" without needing actual matter.
  
• brings relativity and quantum mechanics into accord.
  

Actually, Heim's theory already makes plenty of predictions, many of them in this PDF from the official website. For example, it predicts that there is a neutral version of the electron with pretty much the same mass (it's called e0 on page 3 of that PDF). Turns out, nobody's ever seen it; the current lower bound on neutral lepton masses is many, many orders of magnitude higher. And those mass predictions? They seem to be quite sensitive to the value of the gravitational constant G (see page 12 of the PDF), but no estimates of theoretical uncertainty in the various masses are given, ever. Serious scientists always include error bars.

But the theory itself shows some reasons for concern, too. Like other unified theories, it claims that there are extra dimensions (beyond the four we know so well). In the other theories (e.g. string theory), there are built-in explanations for why we don't see the extra dimensions (e.g. they're curled up too small). In Heim theory, things get a bit more, well, mystical: according to the website, the extra dimensions aren't curled up, but "are not measurable by physical instruments and have an informational character, since they describe qualitative aspects (meanings) of material organisations." That's the only explanation I've seen offered for why Heim's extra dimensions are invisible, and it doesn't sound like physics at all.

But Heim's extra dimensions are worse than that! According to a paper by Illobrand von Ludwiger that I've seen (he's one of the people working on Heim's theory), Heim's extra dimensions show up in the "metric" equations of general relativity with a minus sign, just like the usual time dimension does. Von Ludwiger says that while they look like time dimensions, they "have to be something different, because more than one single time dimension leads to unphysical results". But he gives no indication of what that "something different" might be, nor of how the difference is apparent within Heim's theory. In fact, it's hard to see what else it could be: a minus sign in the metric is essentially the definition of a "time dimension" in general relativity, no matter what else is going on in the theory. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Heim's theory must "lead to unphysical results".

Actually, Heim's theory already makes plenty of predictions, many of them in this PDF from the official website. For example, it predicts that there is a neutral version of the electron with pretty much the same mass (it's called e0 on page 3 of that PDF). Turns out, nobody's ever seen it; the current lower bound on neutral lepton masses is many, many orders of magnitude higher. And those mass predictions? They seem to be quite sensitive to the value of the gravitational constant G (see page 12 of the PDF), but no estimates of theoretical uncertainty in the various masses are given, ever. Serious scientists always include error bars.

But the theory itself shows some reasons for concern, too. Like other unified theories, it claims that there are extra dimensions (beyond the four we know so well). In the other theories (e.g. string theory), there are built-in explanations for why we don't see the extra dimensions (e.g. they're curled up too small). In Heim theory, things get a bit more, well, mystical: according to the website, the extra dimensions aren't curled up, but "are not measurable by physical instruments and have an informational character, since they describe qualitative aspects (meanings) of material organisations." That's the only explanation I've seen offered for why Heim's extra dimensions are invisible, and it doesn't sound like physics at all.

But Heim's extra dimensions are worse than that! According to a paper by Illobrand von Ludwiger that I've seen (he's one of the people working on Heim's theory), Heim's extra dimensions show up in the "metric" equations of general relativity with a minus sign, just like the usual time dimension does. Von Ludwiger says that while they look like time dimensions, they "have to be something different, because more than one single time dimension leads to unphysical results". But he gives no indication of what that "something different" might be, nor of how the difference is apparent within Heim's theory. In fact, it's hard to see what else it could be: a minus sign in the metric is essentially the definition of a "time dimension" in general relativity, no matter what else is going on in the theory. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Heim's theory must "lead to unphysical results".

Actually, Heim's theory already makes plenty of predictions, many of them in this PDF from the official website. For example, it predicts that there is a neutral version of the electron with pretty much the same mass (it's called e0 on page 3 of that PDF). Turns out, nobody's ever seen it; the current lower bound on neutral lepton masses is many, many orders of magnitude higher. And those mass predictions? They seem to be quite sensitive to the value of the gravitational constant G (see page 12 of the PDF), but no estimates of theoretical uncertainty in the various masses are given, ever. Serious scientists always include error bars.

But the theory itself shows some reasons for concern, too. Like other unified theories, it claims that there are extra dimensions (beyond the four we know so well). In the other theories (e.g. string theory), there are built-in explanations for why we don't see the extra dimensions (e.g. they're curled up too small). In Heim theory, things get a bit more, well, mystical: according to the website, the extra dimensions aren't curled up, but "are not measurable by physical instruments and have an informational character, since they describe qualitative aspects (meanings) of material organisations." That's the only explanation I've seen offered for why Heim's extra dimensions are invisible, and it doesn't sound like physics at all.

But Heim's extra dimensions are worse than that! According to a paper by Illobrand von Ludwiger that I've seen (he's one of the people working on Heim's theory), Heim's extra dimensions show up in the "metric" equations of general relativity with a minus sign, just like the usual time dimension does. Von Ludwiger says that while they look like time dimensions, they "have to be something different, because more than one single time dimension leads to unphysical results". But he gives no indication of what that "something different" might be, nor of how the difference is apparent within Heim's theory. In fact, it's hard to see what else it could be: a minus sign in the metric is essentially the definition of a "time dimension" in general relativity, no matter what else is going on in the theory. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Heim's theory must "lead to unphysical results".

But they are not measurable by physical instruments and have an informational character, since they describe qualitative aspects (meanings) of material organisations. That is the reason why Heim in the last years of his life developed an extended formal logic, in order to describe quantitative as well as qualitative aspects uniformly. Only in this way it was possible to formalise biological and psychological processes (like consciousness) in a 6-dimensional manifold, and therefore also non-physical events; this will have exceptionally far-reaching consequences for all fields of science.

I just spent an hour looking over the abstracts of Heim theory on http://www.heim-theory.com/ feeling like I suspect a dog would feel if it tried to read a book. Heim's work may definitely be a retreat into a sort of extended quasimathematical fantasy, something all too understandable for someone who lost his hands, sight, and most of his hearing at the age of 19.

But if he's right, this is perhaps the most powerful story in the history of humanity. That it took a blind, handless man to "see and feel" the fundamental structure of the universe would be breathtaking, and even more astounding that those who could see and feel could not be convinced to follow on his journey.

The best part about this is that this story has an end. Heim theory makes specific predictions, and a single experiment could prove or disprove it. If he is right, Newton, Einstein, and Goedel will definitely have to move down a chair.

Including Jochem Hauser and Walter Droscher's paper (PDF) that won the AIAA prize: Guidelines for a Space Propulsion Device AIAA 2004-3700
http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/theorie_raum fahrt/guidelinesforaspacepropulsiondeveiceaiaa2004 -3700.pdf

The web site referenced at the end of the dead tree edition of the New Scientist article: http://www.heim-theory.com/

I particularly dislike the string theories. If they could prove that string theories are right this would diminish my respect for god as a smart guy/girl/whatever. I hold the quantum-loop theory or the heim theory in much higher regards as they are smarter.

http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/contents.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim-Theory

regards, sqar

Not so fast... You may want to check out the Theories of Burkhard Heim and its applications to space propulsion.

Why care what he has to say? Well - for one Heims theory apparently is the only theory which yields remarkably exact theoretical values for the masses, the resonances, and the mean lifetimes of elementary particles, as well as the Sommerfeld fine structure constant.

If his calculations are correct a flight over 10 light-years could be done in roughly 80 days - 160 days roundtrip.

Extraordinary claims that require extraordinary proof indeed. However, if I got US 1.5 Billion and would be thinking about exploring space I would not mind spending a few million to go about proving/disproving them...