11 Jan 06
A physicist named Heim came up with a starting theory connecting
gravity and quantum theory, based on 2 extra dimensions and
later another physicist added 2 more which Heim had thought about
but rejected. Heim died in 2001 at the age of 76 but his theory has
achieved something the standard theory of matter has never done:
predict with incredible accuracy the mass of all the particles from
first principles, the best the standard theory can do is between one
and ten percent accuracy. He predicts several new fundamental
forces, similar to what is already seen in the acceleration of the
expansion of the universe and there is a proposal that just won
out over many other proposals for advanced space propulsion.
Heim predicts that a superconducting ring spinning above a
VERY strong magnetic field will start to counter gravity and the stronger
the field and the faster the spin, could lead to an anti-gravity
space drive. It is already a proposal being studied seriously.
The fact that Heims theory predicts mass makes the physics world
take it very seriously indeed.
Here is the New scientist link:
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200
11 Jan 06
Originally posted by sonhouseThis stuff sounds serious. It wont affect my world of trains, will it? I pray not.
A physicist named Heim came up with a starting theory connecting
gravity and quantum theory, based on 2 extra dimensions and
later another physicist added 2 more which Heim had thought about
but rejected. Heim died in 2001 at the age of 76 but his theory has
achieved something the standard theory of matter has never done:
predict with incredible accur ...[text shortened]... ndeed.
Here is the New scientist link:
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by sonhouseOh God, not more of them. You know, there's really no need to believe that any of these forces exist.
several new fundamental forces
Take gravity, for instance. Suppose the earth, along with all the matter in the universe, were expanding. And suppose this were an accelerating expansion. We'd feel the "force of gravity" simply because the earth were expanding beneath us.
This sort of idea does away with many problems in physics today, not least of which is the notion of forces drawing on unidentifiable, unlimited power sources...
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by BowmannBut there is the fact Heim's theory EXTREMELY accurately
Oh God, not more of them. You know, there's really no need to believe that any of these forces exist.
Take gravity, for instance. Suppose the earth, along with all the matter in the universe, were expanding. And suppose this were an accelerating expansion. We'd feel the "force of gravity" simply because the earth were expanding beneath us.
This ...[text shortened]... least of which is the notion of forces drawing on unidentifiable, unlimited power sources...
predicts the mass of all the known particles, a million times
as accurate as the standard model. That alone has to give any
physicist pause. Another aspect of this theory is the forces it
predicts would explain the accelerated expansion of the universe,
the force behind it. The accelerated expansion is a done deal, its
been proven and modern physics is dealing with it by also postulating
a new force, dark energy or quintesence or whatever they want to
call it. So our big four of forces, weak, strong, electromagnetic and
gravity seem to be headed to the big 5 or the big 6 forces and
extra dimensions to put them in.
I heard of an esperiment already done with the superconducting
rings above a strong magnetic field supposedly causing a reduction
in its weight by one percent. Don't know if anyone is trying to
verify that result or if its just another south korean scientist making
waves. On the strength of the mass prediction alone, its worth
a shot, don't you think?
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by BowmannFrom Wikipedia under "Compton scattering":
That's what you believe. Redshifted starlight could be caused by something much simpler (such as the Compton Effect) with no need for yet another mysterious force.
The Compton scattering has on occasion been proposed as an alternative explanation for the phenomenon of the Redshift by opponents of the Big Bang theory, although this is not generally accepted because the influence of the Compton scattering would be noticeable in the spectral lines of distant objects and this is not observed.
14 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by BowmannIts not just the redshift but the change in the redshift, you know
That's what you believe. Redshifted starlight could be caused by something much simpler (such as the Compton Effect) with no need for yet another mysterious force.
the inverse square law, 1/R^2. That produces a given power
density vs distance curve. So if the inverse square law is correct,
then 'standard candles' which are intrinsically the same brightness
anywhere in the universe, one here is the same stuff as one
ten billion LY away, then at a given distance, it should glow at a
given luminosity. The farthest ones away have more power showing
than would be given by our inverse square buddy. So the conclusion
is a long time ago in a galaxy far away, (literally in this case!)
they were brighter than they would have been if the expansion was
constant. So they say, therefore, things sped up at about the
6 billion year lifetime of our universe which freaked the
cosmologists totally, they were not prepared for such a phenomena.
Thats why they are invoking mysterious new forces to account for it.
But the Heim theory ALREADY postulates two new forces so they
may be related. Of course its all theory so there will always
be dissenters which is a good thing in science, especially since
statistically speaking, any new theory has a pretty large probability
of being wrong, just by the numbers: Lots more theories proven
wrong than right so we have to await the exerimentalists results.
News at eleven.
14 Jan 06
Originally posted by sonhouseI do wish you'd summarize. I don't have all day.
Its not just the redshift but the change in the redshift, you know
the inverse square law, 1/R^2. That produces a given power
density vs distance curve. So if the inverse square law is correct,
then 'standard candles' which are intrinsically the same brightness
anywhere in the universe, one here is the same stuff as one
ten billion LY away, then at a ...[text shortened]... ies proven
wrong than right so we have to await the exerimentalists results.
News at eleven.
14 Jan 06
Originally posted by sonhouseQuite right. An expanding universe implies that the change in redshift is even more important than the redshift itself.
Its not just the redshift but the change in the redshift, you know
the inverse square law, 1/R^2. That produces a given power
density vs distance curve. So if the inverse square law is correct,
then 'standard candles' which are intrinsically the same brightness
anywhere in the universe, one here is the same stuff as one
ten billion LY away, then at a ...[text shortened]... ies proven
wrong than right so we have to await the exerimentalists results.
News at eleven.
As for Mr. Bowmann, well, you know, "flat-earthers" still exist too, and you also have to restrict your words to single syllables with them, too.