Heim's Theory of Everything

[aetherius]

I came across this article on Heim's "Theory of Everything". I found it intuitively appealing given my non-physics background. I was wondering how the physics community views Heim and if anybody else has thoughts on this after reading the article. <br />www.americanantigravity.com/documents/AuerbachJSE.pdf#search='Heim%27s%20quantum%20theory' <br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

I was looking up Heim just the other day; something to do with gravity.

 

[siarad]

I remember this from several decades ago.<br />Few people could understand it & experiments ended in failure I seem to recall but has been resurrected

 

[7lives]

" It explains nothing real and existing,"<br /><br />Science never has explained what gravity really is or its true essence. All they have done so far is describ its effect on and interaction with matter. Yes it is an attraction force, but what is this force? where does it eminate from? What is its source? etc.<br /><br />Gravity is like black energy. Everybody knows what it does, but nobody knows what it is.<br /><br /><br />Until science finds out that question we will never have a thoery of everything. If you don't know one of you variables how can you come wiith a comprehensive unity?<br /><br />That is why Heim's theory is important. It opens the doors to new ideas and thought. It may ultimately be proved to be wrong, but it may provide the sperm for further reasearch.<br /><br />In my simple layman's mind, my intuition tells me that gravity and magnetism are related. I can never prove it, but at least there are people out there that are looking at that possibilty. And it is exiting!<br /><br /><br />

 

[mcbethcg]

"Gravity is like black energy. Everybody knows what it does, but nobody knows what it is."<br /><br />Untrue. I don't know what "Black energy" does.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Science never has explained what gravity really is or its true essence.</font><br /><br />+1 yes --hold that thought close to your heart-- it is the thesis statement of cosmology: gravity = unknown. <br /><br />until science gives me more than what it has thus far offered, i'm not buying their gravity stock. i'll invest in gold or silver. something real. <br /><br />as well, anything packaged with "EM" attached to it is pretty much discounted even if it is proven in a lab.

 

[yevaud]

<i>my intuition tells me that gravity and magnetism are related.</i><br /><br />Well, yes, at sufficiently high enough temperatures - before what's known as "Symmetry Breaking."<br /><br />At around 10^-43 seconds after the actual Big Bang during the period known as the "Quantum Gravity" era (10^32 Degrees K), Gravity seperated from the other forces (which themselves became seperate during and after the Inflationary Era).<br /><br />However, don't make the mistake of believing that they are similar forces. They're not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[aetherius]

Here's an example of why I like Heim. He offers an alternate explanation for the origin of matter and also offers a pre-Big-Bang scenario.<br /><br />www.americanantigravity.com/documents/AuerbachJSE.pdf#search='Heim%27s%20quantum%20theory' p. 6<br /><br /><i>Hence, according to heim matter did not originate very soon after a “big bang” explosion but more<br />uniformly in scattered “fire-cracker” like bursts, perhaps of galactic proportions. Spontaneous uniform creation<br />of matter, coupled with the partly attractive and partly repulsive force of gravity mentioned in Section 3 resulted in the observed large-scale galactic structure of the universe.</i>

 

[yevaud]

I've been trying to read the linked document. Pretty turgid. I'll have to get back to you on this, when I've had a chance to read it in-depth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[makuabob]

Things have changed for the better! About this time last year, an ESA/USAF Research-funded experiment had its findings posted. Tajmar et al. have produced gravity impluses by spinning up superconducting discs (niobium or lead). Spun one way, this circumfrential gravitational force propagates one way, and spun up the opposite direction, the gravitational force propogates the opposite way.<br /><br />The mechanism has to do with Cooper-pairs of electrons. It won't get us to the stars,... yet. Search the web on "Tajmar et al.", You'll find plenty. Look in PhysOrg for "Heim Theory" and you'll find plenty.<br /><br />"THIS changes everything!"

 

[R1]

does this have anything to do with the way they levitated a frog with antigravity recently<br /><br />with superconductors or magnets or something? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[billslugg]

Allright, I am not a physicist. BUT I can recognize BS. This is pure BS. Quoting: "An in depth analysis of the trinity of spheres existing at time T=0 derives from set theory all known coupling constants plus a few ones."<br /><br />Scientists never refer to their effors as "in depth". That is understood. That is accepted. It is a given.<br /><br />Second: There is no such thing as a "trinity of spheres". To indroduce such a concept into the scientific literature would require several pages of explanation. I don't see that here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[enigma10]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The real problem is that 95% of Americanos can't tell the difference between a well substantiated theory and a totally unsubstantiated guess<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /> I would go so far as to say this ratio can truly reflect the entire world. Anywhere, really, critical thinking skills are not encouraged. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[search]

Auerbach and Ludwiger (the scientists behind the report) are doing a description of Heim Theory in a (non-mainstream) scientific journal paper. If you noticed the date of the report to the Journal of Scientific Exploration is 1992. Heim Theory is still controversial, being translated from german and there is even fraud allegations. <br /><br />Currents Status of the Theory:<br />"Due to Heim's disinclination to publish his work and the difficult mathematical underpinnings of the theory, Heim's work was relatively unknown in the broader physics community during the 20th century. The paper published in 2005 was, for many physicists, the first they'd heard of the theory. It prompted intense scrutiny from some sections of the community, although it was subsequently dismissed by many as some of its predictions did not appear to be in line with recent experimental results. Some proponents, seeing instead the positive aspects such as accurate mass predictions continue to study the theory. A new mobilizing factor may be the success in reproducing [17] the size and direction of the gravitomagnetic field effect of Martin Tajmar et al."<br /><br />Having read the above lets look to the following paragraph from the report:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"all but 4 of them curl up in such a manner that they exist only in dimensions of the order of 10ˆ-35 m. Thus they are hidden and do not manifest themselves in the macroscopic world."</font><br /><br />Today the smallest testable distance which thechnology allows is 10ˆ-18m (and I am being generous by around -2) and this is the problem with the String Theory and similars, they are just not testable, so they can mathematical prove there is 6 dimensions or even 10 or 11 but no one will be able to prove or disprove this on the "test table".<br /><br />Einstein required some years until its theories were tested and still today they are being tested as we speak.<</safety_wrapper>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

As an alternative explanation of the nature, Heim's theory seems like something we should pay some attention to. 5.45x10¹⁰⁷ as age and 6.37x10¹⁰⁹ light years as diameter of the universe seem very reasonable compared to the oversimplification of events as presented by big bang theory. <br /><br />Heim's explanation of electromagnetic waves as a consequence of deformations of 6th, 5th, and 4th dimension is a possibility, but his idea of origin of gravitons is a little vague to me. <br /><br />A few things are misunderstood or 'lost in translation' from German. He meant 'triple spheres' by 'Trinity of spheres', not religious.<br /><br />I have a feeling some breakthroughs will come from such unknown scientists. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[chesh]

Teh Big Bang has a great deal of substantiation, from the cosmic background radiation, to the Red shift, and quite a few other measures.<br /><br />As such, it's a valid scientific model about how the universe arose. To compare it favorably to Heim's hypotheticals is simply not correct.<br /><br />Heim's theory hasn't a single verified and confirmed portion of it. It's not substantiated, and as such is not taken seriously, except by persons who have very little solid idea about what constitutes good sciences & what is simply weak hypothesis. And given the length of time this Heim hypothesis has been around, without confirmation, it's likely fantasy.

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

You'll never find me arguing about Bragg's Diffraction theory, or Fourier spectrum, or Pauli's exclusion principle or any subjects of these nature. But I'll argue anytime about the realistic possibilities of Big Bang or Black Holes as we know now. <br /><br />There are 3 groups of people. One group will live and die believing God created the universe, another group will live and die believing Big Bang created the universe, and the third group will live and die believing in nothing. Im in the 3rd group. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[doubletruncation]

There is a pretty interesting blog post linked at the bottom of the "Heim theory" wikipedia site - http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1197916<br /><br />The writer claims that he's tracked down the origin of the theory's amazing mass predictions to essentially inserting them into the theory as fixed parameters in the first place (in other words, it doesn't actually predict them at all). I haven't looked at it in enough detail to confirm, but it's something to keep in mind. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chesh]

Your post completely ignored the critical issue of considerable substantiation of the Big Bang vs. Heim's completely unsubstantiated beliefs.<br /><br />As the issue of substantiation is essential to good science, indeed foundational, we can only assume this appears to be of no importance to you and thus no discussion in a scientific sense is possible.<br /><br />One cannot ignore the evidence in any kind of scientific discussion.

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

You are right, we can argue for days about how this universe got started but it wont go anywhere. Because a very important piece of the puzzle is missing, the piece no one knows what it is at this point in time. Without that piece of the puzzle I'll lose the debate miserably against your text books. So I have to retreat from the big bang battle for now.<br /><br />DoubleTruncation: Thanks for the link, I'll read it later. I was no way defending Heim's theory. IMHO, the exact theory on how the universe got started is still up for grab. That's why I read all alternative theories and try to get a sense of the missing piece I mentioned earlier.<br />Hope I cleared my position. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[makuabob]

Um,... say what?!<br /><br />Do you have a link or some other way to point us to that news?

 

[chembuff1982]

I'm working on a theory about gravity and spacetime right now. Think of gravity as disruptions in spacetime to to matter and energy. Matter and energy bend space and time, likewise, space uses gravity to counteract this. Sort of like how a rubberband acts. You apply one force, it's just the inverse force from the rubberband. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You may be a genius, but google knows more than you! </div>

 

[makuabob]

Yes, I've read through such postings (see http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=1335 ).<br /><br />However, to SAY you've found the answer but just don't have the time and/or inclination to show that you've actually found it leaves those assertions suspect.<br /><br /> For the lovers of the Big Bang theory, bear in mind that nothing in its scope expects or predicts gravitational fields that can be generated WITHOUT mass. This is exactly what Tajmar et al. have done with superconducting discs. Spinning up a niobium disc one way produces a circumfrential gravitational force in one direction, and spinning it up in the opposite direction produces that force in the opposite direction.<br /><br />Gravity has been commanded to come and go at the will of scientists. Face it. It's a new world. Or, to quote The Firesign Theater, "Everything you know is wrong!"

 

[makuabob]

Well, even the scientists don't know BS when they're sitting on a pile of it, guarding it as if it were the Ark of the Covenant.<br /><br />Ever heard of Alan Sokal? No? He wrote a paper (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair ) that proved peer review isn't necessarily up to the task.<br /><br />Ever hear of Ludwig Boltzman? His works on statistical methods allowed him to develop the (now firmly-entrenched) Laws of Thermodynamics. Very few of the 'scientists' of his time (turn of the 20th century) gave credence to his 'ravings.' He was correct despite 'established' science thinking it was BS.<br /><br />So, if the "experts" can be wrong and/or misled, the rest of us are no better off.

 

[makuabob]

It's worth bearing in mind that many a great theory began WITHOUT direct evidence. Give the principles in Heim Theory some time to be borne out.<br /><br />ONLY Heim predicted that gravitophotons would produce a force without mass. Tajmar and de Matos have executed dozens of runs which produced gravity pulses in a direction related to the direction that a superconducting niobium (also, a lead) disc was spun up. Sure, they named it a "gravitomagnetic" force, but it was predicted IN THE 1950's, by Heim, that gravity came in attractive and replusive forms. Look it up, it's there.