Heim Theory

[TheFaithfulStone]

I just finished reading the paper in the "Three Hours To Mars" thread. I'm a little less confused now - although I still can't really follow the math.

 

It seems like Heim's big "conceptual leap" was to say that it's not just gravity that is primarily a distortion of space time, it's EVERYTHING. The fundamental "property" of the universe is the "metron" which is a 1-dimension "string" (sound familiar) In an eight dimensional space. Matter and forces both arise when the normal, flat, Euclidean arrangment of the "heim space" is disturbed. The fundamental properties of metrons are not "set" but rather change over time, explaining (among other things) the creation of matter, why the universe seems to be expanding ever faster, and gamma ray bursters.

 

Now the big question is "Well what causes matter then?" since the the disturbance of the metronic lattice seems to be a self-reinforcing process (forces cause metrons to organize into matter, which cause forces, which cause metrons....)

 

Anyway, my non-expert take on it.

 

TFS

[Pyrotex]

it sounds like you're just attempting to measure the speed of an electron in that book, which should correspond to the speed of light, no? :rolleyes:

Not really. I was dividing the size of an electron by the time it took a mu meson to disappear. Those are unrelated phenomena. It just so happened that the one was smallest time and the other the smallest distance ever measured.

[Pyrotex]

The question is to explain logically and in reference to reality why when an object doubles it speed it takes 4 times longer to stop than it does at the previous speed of 1/2. Aka, all moving objects are equal in energy to its velocity squared, in other words its as if there are two sets of velocities involved.

May I try? This is indeed a common sticking point in Physics 101 and 102.

We need two ways of talking about the consequences of velocity. Let's call one the momentum and the other let's call energy.

 

Momentum is just velocity times mass. Momentum refers to the tendency of that "thingie" to keep its velocity. It may plow its way through ping pong balls and either: 1) slow way down because it has low momentum to start with, or 2) blast its way through because it has high momentum to start with. Momentum is "punch".

 

Energy is velocity squared times mass. Energy refers to how much work it took you (or took some other process or entity) to get that "thingie" up to its velocity. You may think it takes twice the energy to double the velocity, but no--once the "thingie" is moving away from you, it takes energy to reach out and apply more energy--it's farther away and moving away. Let's say you push a bowling ball with your foot and it moves at 3 inches per second. Now to double that velocity, you can't apply the same push again. Your foot has to reach further and has to push much faster to reach that moving bowling ball and give it double the momentum. You have to WORK harder. Energy is "sweat".

 

This is an equivalent explanation of the above. It's not a bowling ball but a rocket ship. It takes X fuel to get the rocket going to 3 miles per second. But it doesn't take another X fuel to double that--it takes X fuel PLUS the fuel you had to have to get that second X fuel up to 3 miles per second along with the rest of the rocket ship, so you could burn it after the first X. It takes fuel to accelerate the fuel that you will be burning to double the speed. And it takes fuel to accelerate THAT fuel! So to achieve a 2V velocity takes four times the fuel to achieve a V velocity.

 

The first example has the energy coming from an external source. Your foot. The second example has the energy coming from an internal source. The fuel tank. But it turns out that doesn't matter. Energy is energy.

[Khan N. Singh]

Not really. I was dividing the size of an electron by the time it took a mu meson to disappear. Those are unrelated phenomena. It just so happened that the one was smallest time and the other the smallest distance ever measured.

 

so how do you explain the resulting velocity? what is it a velocity of?

[TheFaithfulStone]

Returning to the original topic, this forum has a good discussion, and also a link to a pretty easy paper about Heim Theory.

 

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=15

 

Link is in the first post.

 

Heim Theory has some uncomfortable implications, like that quarks may not exsist as sub-sub atomic particles, and that the universe didn't start in a "big bang" with the creation of matter, but rather in a hole crap load of "little bangs" all over an already extremely large universe.

 

I've said before that I have my doubts as to the correctness of this theory, but it has something that M-Theory and (especially) the Standard Model lack, which is one of the those forehead slapping - "duh!" insights.

 

Einstein says "Gravity is the effect of mass on the structure of space time itself."

 

Heim says "Not just, gravity, but every force and every thing. In fact, everything is pretty much made of specially modulated nothing."

 

It requires a SINGLE fundamental "stuff" (the metronic lattice) and it square pretty nicely with a lot of observations.

 

I think Heim may be on to something there with his "fundamental geometrization" of space-time and physics itself.

 

TFS

 

edit: Bad Astronomy also has some pretty good posts on it. At least one person devotes a fair amount of time to debunking it - fairly effectively, but not totally.

[Pyrotex]

so how do you explain the resulting velocity? what is it a velocity of?

The ratio of those two measurements was very nearly ... the speed of light itself. "c"

 

The meaning is this: IF there is a Metron, the smallest distance (Space is quantized)

 

and IF there is a Chronon, the smallest span of time (Time is quantized)

 

Then at the speed of light, the fastest speed possible in OUR universe,

 

You are traveling at one Metron per Chronon.

 

Peddle to the metal, Francois, and don't dodge the pedestrians.

[TheFaithfulStone]

See, it's things like that which make me suspect that quantized space-time is on to something.

 

All basic principles of the universe, should (in an elegant fashion) result from extraordinary simplicity which gives rise to unbelievable complexity.

 

The other thing that bothers me about Heim Theory is that quarks shouldn't exsist, at least in the six dimensional version.

 

TFS

[arkain101]

Ya ought to check out this topic.. it smells good.

http://hypography.com/forums/strange-claims-forum/5022-2d-vs-3d-space.html

 

nearing my last post is relating this concept to gravity.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Found me a deal breaker.

 

Heim predicts the spead of gravity to be 4/3c. Which it ain't. It's c. (or actually 1.1c +- .15 = (which to mean means it's c, dammit.)

 

I wonder if there is way to reconcile his prediction of graviton speed with experimental data, and if this prediction makes the rest of his math fall apart.

 

Still, the mass predictions are pretty interesting.

 

TFS

[Ahsmohdean]

I have been doing alot of reading on this subject in the last few days, seems alot of people have. Often the statement that a suggested experiment is mentioned with regards that it should be carried out to prove or disprove this heim theory. A experiment that involves realy realy strong electromagnetic fields and may produce anti gravity particles and posibly shift matter into higher dimentions. And it all sounds realy familiar to me. Of course the Navy denies it ever happened. I just find it funny that it sounds alot like the Philidelphia experiment, which if there is any truth to it at all was supposedly conducted before heim even made his theory. Anyways they try to use realy powerfull electromagnetic fields to degause i think is the word they use (make the ship not attract mines), and it ended up traveling several hundred miles in seconds and possibly into and through other dimentions. I just got a laugh out of all this recent heim theory stuff, when i read it because it seems this experiment was already carried out before the theory was made, and did produce the results he descibes. Of course there is no proof whatsoever about the Philidelphia experiment, all that remains is he said she said, some books and a movie.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Uh... okay.

 

The idea that electromagnetism and gravity are somehow related is pretty common - but mostly it's just wishful thinking. I am sure that they ARE in fact somehow related - (imagine electroweak theory) but I kinda doubt that their relationship implies an ability to affect one with the other.

 

ALSO. Other dimension != parallel universe where c > c or any other such ridiculous thing. A three dimensional universe is one in which you can describe the location of any point with three numbers. A four dimension universe can be described with four numbers, etc. A six dimensional theory means that there are six numbers needed to describe a point in six dimensional space, not that there is a parallel universe with talking dragons and Red Lectroids.

 

Now, the way you "travel in an alternate dimension" in Heim theory is not "slipping into a different space time." it's exactly that - if your position is decribed by six numbers, you can change the numbers for dimensions four and five. Heim postulates (and indeed calculates) that changing the coordinates in dimensions five and six also has an effect on dimensions 1-4. So it's not that "c" is faster in 5D or anything like that, it's that "distance" is the wrong concept. You can change your "aeonic" coordinate, and that nesscitates a change you your "normal" 4D coordinates.

 

At least, that's the way I read it. But that makes a lot more sense than alternate universes with John Lithgow as an alien. (Especially since that's true in THIS universe.)

 

TFS

 

edit: Actually, that's not really what he says either. You do this thing with the spinning toroid of "not-yetium" and you gain the ability to manipulate your "aeonic" (or whatever, I don't remember) coordinate, when you change this you change the rest of them as well, but since you are not acting on the first four dimensions (the ones where pesky rules like relativity apply) you're not subject to said pesky rules, and you can go as fast as the fifth dimension will allow.

[aaronearl]

Found me a deal breaker.

 

Heim predicts the spead of gravity to be 4/3c. Which it ain't. It's c. (or actually 1.1c +- .15 = (which to mean means it's c, dammit.)

 

I wonder if there is way to reconcile his prediction of graviton speed with experimental data, and if this prediction makes the rest of his math fall apart.

 

Still, the mass predictions are pretty interesting.

 

TFS

 

Have the speed of gravitons actually been measured and found to agree with the predictions of G.R.? I know that I'm no physicist, but the last thing I heard about such things was an attempt to build a detector that would measure the flux of this type of radiation, associated with other types of stellar events... but not the properties of the gravitons, themselves.

 

Actually, can you fill me in on the present experimental tests of G.R.?

 

Thanks.

[Pyrotex]

Have the speed of gravitons actually been measured and found to agree with the predictions of G.R.? I know that I'm no physicist, but the last thing I heard about such things was an attempt to build a detector that would measure the flux of this type of radiation, associated with other types of stellar events... but not the properties of the gravitons, themselves.

...

Okay, I am not the expert you are looking for. He is the ONE who shall come after me, and whose shoelaces I am unworthy to tie... uh... sorry. I got carried away.

Back to your question. As far as I have read in the past decade, no one has actually no-kidding detected a graviton or gravitational radiation. There is an experiment to do so with a pair of L shaped laser vacuum chambers (interferometers), but they are still learning to filter out noise. One facility is in Louisiana, the other up in the NW somewhere. Last I read, they were still a factor of 10 or 100 away from their required sensitivity.

 

And another thing--the speed of gravitational radiation, Vg, is (I think) assumed to be the same as light © because gravitational fields themselves do not have mass. Therefore, they are manifested by massless "particles", therefore they travel at c. Massive particles MUST travel slower than c, since they suffer from all that Lorentz-Fitzgerald poop as they approach c. But I do not remember anybody claiming that gravity HAD to travel or has been PROVED to travel at c. It could travel at 4/3 * PI * c as far as I know. Or c / PI. The latter would be a real bummer, as it might mean we will never travel faster than light. :(

[docbill]

Of course, I don't buy for a second that this enables hyperdrive (some BS about "entering other dimensions") but it's predictions of mass seem pretty interesting, especially as my limited understanding of the Standard Model says it's mass predicitions aren't nessecarily any MORE accurate. (Plus that free parameters thing....)

 

Keep in mind this type of prediction is not unique for Heim Theory. I have seen several articles that describe how Super String Theory could allow faster than light travel. Furthermore, all theories require the same thing to make the dream a reality, negative mass. For super string the technique is to use the negative mass to generate a stable wormhole between two points in the universe without navigating inbetween. For Heim theory the trick is to use negative mass to reconfigure space to open a portal to another universe, so you can travel between two points without passing through the space inbetween.

 

When you think about it carefully, it is quite possible the two theories are predicting the exact same thing only the terminology used to describe it is different.

 

So, why Heim theory then? Because one significant strength of Heim theory is it accurately predicts and describe mass. When it comes to Super String Theory, nobody has a clue how to create negative mass. In fact, few can agree on the issue of it even being possible. However, Heim theory actually predicts ways one could generate negative mass, or equivalently reduce the rest mass of matter.

 

Unfortunately, you may have notice that the arguments as to how you effect this trick with Heim theory are incomplete. The reason being is all we really know is there an equivalence princible that could allow contact with "subspace". It is a long path from predicting an equivalence princible to actually designing a macro level device that can apply that princible. It might be as simple as simply apply the gravophoton field logically equivalent of a magnetic field across a whole object, or it could be more complicated than teleportation. Nobody really knows at this point.

 

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

Actually, do you even need negative mass?

 

You just need negative pressure

 

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the entire universe if filled with low-level particles (the Zero-point Energy) Since all particles have "mass" even the ZPE should "depress" space time a little.

 

If you could create a perfect Casimir Vacuum (one where there are NO virtual particles being created inside it) you could create quite a bit of negative pressure.

 

TFS

[ha ha - the ad at the bottom of this page says "Find Theory of Everything. Plus great Mother's Day Gifts."]

[docbill]

Actually, do you even need negative mass?

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the entire universe if filled with low-level particles (the Zero-point Energy) Since all particles have "mass" even the ZPE should "depress" space time a little.

 

I saw a Nova episode with scientists claiming they have created negative mass is this manner. I don't know if I believe it. However, in Heim theory you take the reverse approach. You try to get space to create as many virtual particle as possible. It turns out the gravophotons are produced as virtual pairs, with being repulsize and one being attractive. Now the trick is one interacts more strongly with charged particles, while the other interacts more strongly with mass. So by varying the charge/mass ratio, you can have a net to interact with external objects. In this manner you can either increase or decrease your effective rest mass. The decrease in net mass is what would allow an equivalence princible with a different subspace.

 

Something I haven't seen anyone mention is the increase in rest mass might also be usefull. The reason being, we could already be in a subspace. (In fact I suspect we must be.) If so increasing our rest mass appropriately could allow us to transfere to space with a slower speed of light. Obviously that is not usefull for space travel, but it could be extremely usefull to generate special relavistic effects such as time dialation at much slower speeds. As near as I can tell moving between subspaces with different reference frames would also cause movement through time, but there might be a princible in Heim theory that prohibits that.

 

Bill

[Farsight]

Sounds good to me. Right ball park.

 

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

 

"In Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravitation is interpreted in a geometrical way; it is a consequence of the curvature of space-time. Heim Theory expands this approach to all forces, so all physical phenomena, even matter itself, are a consequence of the structure of space-time...