Heim Theory

[TheFaithfulStone]

Yeah, that's Heim's "ka-thwap" moment.

 

Unfortunately, there's some other stuff which basically rules it out. (For instance it predicts the speed of gravity to be 4/3 c. Gravity travels at c.)

 

That and the lack of error bars on the mass predictions pretty much relegate it to a little place I like to call "Krackpot Korner!"

 

But it's still interesting at face value, and the it does have the (rather profound) insight of a geometric interpretation of the universe.

 

TFS

[docbill]

Yeah, that's Heim's "ka-thwap" moment.

 

Unfortunately, there's some other stuff which basically rules it out. (For instance it predicts the speed of gravity to be 4/3 c. Gravity travels at c.)

 

That and the lack of error bars on the mass predictions pretty much relegate it to a little place I like to call "Krackpot Korner!"

 

But it's still interesting at face value, and the it does have the (rather profound) insight of a geometric interpretation of the universe.

 

TFS

 

Where do you get your information?

 

True Heim did initially report his theory predicted 4/3 c as the speed of gravity, but shortly after he found that was a calculation error. There are no velocities faster than c in Heim theory. There couldn't be, as it is an extension of general relativity.

 

As for error on calculations, show me one theory that includes errors. Lets see is it Newtons:

 

F = G m1 * m2 / r^2

 

Is it:

 

E = m * c^2

 

No. Errors are a result of measurements, not calculations.

 

The only theories I know that include error terms are ones that are based on iteration. For example, if you are computing the predicted line shape of Z boson decays you need to iteratively add the effects of higher and higher order Feynman diagrams. Since you have to stop adding terms at some point you will need to then estimate the error from the higher order terms that are omitted. Consequently, virtually all high energy physics formulas include error terms to the formula. It is not that the theory is not "exact", but the person performing the calculation needed to approximate in order to perform the calculations.

 

Heim theory doesn't involve interative calculations. All the results are simple algebra equations as with classical physics so there are no error terms.

 

True, when you do mass predictions you use measured values. For that you have errors. However, in most cases people use significant figures to indicate the degree of accuracy of these calculations.

 

All the formulas for mass calculations are online in several different forms. (Java applets, excel spread sheets, mathmatica files, etc.) If you prefere to see error estimates instead of significant figures feel free to modify your copy to generate these values. However, trust me that it won't leave you any the wiser as most results are much more accurate than measured values so all you really need is the error bars on the measurements you are comparing to.

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

True Heim did initially report his theory predicted 4/3 c as the speed of gravity, but shortly after he found that was a calculation error. There are no velocities faster than c in Heim theory. There couldn't be, as it is an extension of general relativity.

 

I was not aware of this, and I stand corrected.

 

The only theories I know that include error terms are ones that are based on iteration.

 

One of the more commonly raised objection to Heim Theory is that it does not include these error bars, and they have never been published by the Heim Group. I am by no means an expert on particle physics, so if you say this is true, I have no reason to doubt you.

 

However, one of the other objections to Heim Theory is that it's predictions, while accurate to a lot of "digits" are actually about a hundred standard deviations of.

 

For example, the Heim predicted mass of an electron is 938.27959. The measured mass of an electron is 938.272029±0.000080. That's only an actual error of 0.00756, which seems pretty good until you realize it's 94.5 standard deviations off.

 

So there's that. There is also the prediction of the neutral electron, which as far as we know, is a critter that doesn't exist. (On the other hand, it doesn't predict the Higgs, which has the same problem of not existing.)

 

I guess I shouldn't call Heim Theory crackpottery, if anyone every actually built the 500 RPM superconductor thingy, we'd find out pretty quick. (Being testable is of course, anathema to half-bakery) But on the other hand, a lot of the people who argue in favor of it are not exactly what you'd term reliable sources.

 

So, with that in mind, I'll retract by statement that Heim Theory is relegated to "Krackpot Korner" and just say that it tends to be defended by denizens of that neighborhood, and that it is certainly not as well peer-reviewed as the Standard Model (which has it's own problems.)

 

Anyway, I hope someone does test it someday, cause it would be DAMN COOL if we could make some graviphotons or sumpin.

 

TFS

[docbill]

For example, the Heim predicted mass of an electron is 938.27959. The measured mass of an electron is 938.272029±0.000080. That's only an actual error of 0.00756, which seems pretty good until you realize it's 94.5 standard deviations off.

 

That I agree is cause for concern. Even worse is neutrinos, were the mass estimates are more than a thousand times larger than the experimental limits. Both which prove to me there are indeed some problems with Heim theory. These could be simple calculation errors, or they could indicate a much larger problem. Still it is impressive, considering other models can't estimate these masses to better than a 10% accuracy.

 

There are two big problems with Heim theory which keep it from mainstream physics, neither of which mean it is crackpot science.

 

1. Heim theory is a mathematical construction with little physical justification. Albert Einstein did not just write some equations and claim he explained gravity. Rather he formulated basic equivalence princibles and then showed mathematically were they lead to. Even a monkey understands they feel the same with a constant acceleration as they do when standing on the Earth. Heim unfortunately did not do this, or if he did this has not been translated and made available to the general physics community. As such, it is hard to ever feel confident Heim theory has ever been proven or disproven. If you understand the princibles you can answer the question, is this result reasonable. If the rules are just pure mathematics you can always claim a calculation error, or that the problem was setup incorrectly.

 

2. Few people, if any understand how Heim calculated the eigenvalues used to compute his mass formulas. The same could be said of super string theory. But at least with super string theory, all the information has been published in multiple sources and physists interested in learning the theory can do so in two to five years.

 

Both these issues are resolvable, but only if people with the skill to do so are willing to spend a significant part of their life doing so. The highest priority, would be to figure out the postulates which comprise Heim theory, and try to prove or disprove those. Then, even if Heim theory turns out to be a wash we still would have learned something new about the world. For Heim theory to be as accurate as it is, at least some of those postulates must be correct.

 

So there's that. There is also the prediction of the neutral electron, which as far as we know, is a critter that doesn't exist. (On the other hand, it doesn't predict the Higgs, which has the same problem of not existing.)

 

All unified theories predict particle which don't exist. I searched for Susy-Muons at CERN. However, nobody considers it a failure of Super String Theory for us not to have found them. If I remember correctly, some versions of Super String also predict a neutral electron, but I could be wrong.

 

I guess I shouldn't call Heim Theory crackpottery, if anyone every actually built the 500 RPM superconductor thingy, we'd find out pretty quick. (Being testable is of course, anathema to half-bakery) But on the other hand, a lot of the people who argue in favor of it are not exactly what you'd term reliable sources.

 

I don't think so. That I would call crackpottery. Making engineering predictions on an unproven theory is never sound. If someone asked me to build that device I would laugh in their face. Prove the theory, then consider the applications for it. When you prove the theory, keep it as simple as possible. If one thinks they can propell a space ship with that design, then surely we can measure a consistent effect in the lab with existing materials.

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

I don't know about propelling a space ship, but apparently (I can't follow the math) if you spun a twelve tesla magnet around really fast it would create those graviphoton critters.

 

Which, you know, an experiment you can do to see if it's true is certainly one up on String Theory.

 

TFS

[docbill]

I don't know about propelling a space ship, but apparently (I can't follow the math) if you spun a twelve tesla magnet around really fast it would create those graviphoton critters.

 

Which, you know, an experiment you can do to see if it's true is certainly one up on String Theory.

 

The problem is if this prediction was wrong, would we really know if Heim theory is incorrect? It is abit like searching for Susy-Muons for Super String Theory. The model would probably work just as well without it.

 

Without the aid of some basic postulates, I have no way of knowing if the prediction is reasonable and neccessary. i.e. With general relativity constant accelleration and being stationary in a gravitational field are equivalent. Ergo, mass must curve space. Therefore, even light is bent by gravity. So the bending of light is a neccessary condition for the theory to be true.

 

If once could come-up with a simmular argument for how a spinning magnetic field exites a vacuume to produce gravophotons I would feel far more comfortable with the conclusiveness of such an experiment and could probably devise a way to use a smaller magnet to produce a measurable effect, perhaps in a microgravity environment.

 

Bill

[Lsos]

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. Almost as though all velocities are infact double of what they are commonly interpreted.

 

I used to wonder the same thing myself....

 

Basically, you're only half right when you say it takes you four times longer to stop. Four times longer the distance, but not four times longer the time. It only takes twice as much time to stop something going twice as fast....

 

Lets say you try to stop from 10mph and it takes you one second. Now try to stop from 20mph and it takes you, as expected, 2 seconds...twice the time. But, don't forget that during those 2 seconds you were also going, on average, twice as fast. Twice the time AND twice the speed...and you've got 4x the distance. There's no black magic...it makes perfect sense if you think about it.

 

Is this what you were looking for, or am I completely off?

[arkain101]

Is this what you were looking for, or am I completely off?

 

I dont think so. However I may have been wrong about it taking 4 times the time to stop instead of distance. I'd have to work it out I guess.

 

1000kg car 10m/s then stops in 10m.

E=1/2(M*V^2)

E=50,000

 

Work.

50,000J= F x 10m

F=5000N

 

F=M*A

A=F/M

A=5000/1000

a=5m/s^2 slowing down -5m/s^2

 

A=V-U/T

-5=0-10/t

t=2s

 

double v to 20m/s

 

t=20/5= 4s

 

so the time is only double although, 4 times distance covered. If those calculations are right.

work involved..

 

at 10m/s = 5000Nx10m= 50,000J

 

at 20ms/ = 5000Nx40m= 200,000J

 

anyhow, I honestly dont remember much of entry physics equations, I dont know if that is even right. But what I've been reading is 2times the velocity will double the action and the equal and opposite reaction and cause 4 times the total work capable.

 

If your car can only turn on a consistent force with its breaks and you are driving 10m/s and it takes 10m to stop. If you drive 20m/s it will now take 40m to stop with the same braking force.

 

If you drop a ball from 2m in the air into clay it will sink a certain distance into the clay (distance A 10mm). If you then drop it from a height that makes it hit at twice the velocity as before it will sink 4 times further than distance A (now 40mm)