Followup on the Heim Drive

unitx · 2006-08-04 15:28:15

For a while now I have been keeping note of developments on the Heim Quantum Theory and its implications regarding a revolutionary form of space travel. Here is a letter released this past July.

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/d … ersion.pdf

This update includes Droscher's remarks on the recent experiment involving spinning superconductors performed by Martin Tajmar. At the end of the letter, Droscher concluded that it would be feasible to use his proposed technology(graviphoton field I believe) not only to traverse the vast distances between stars but also as a method to lift a 150 ton spacecraft off the surface of Earth.

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-04 15:44:28

but also as a method to lift a 150 ton spacecraft off the surface of Earth

*BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP* Crackpot alarm! Crackpot alarm!

unitx · 2006-08-04 17:04:48

Did you bother to read the actual paper?

noosfractal · 2006-08-04 19:01:08

Thanks unitx. Very interesting. Nice related article & discussion at

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=501

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-04 22:25:45

Its a confluence of things...

-A "new understanding" of physics... that nobody understands

-Bold claims of fantastic technology (anti-gravity drive)

-Specific application ($$$) with specific mass estimates

...any one of which, fine, but all three? The chance that its not a crackpot sham becomes vanishingly small.

maxie · 2006-08-05 07:12:42

-A "new understanding" of physics... that nobody understands

Sure... Remember that probably 99 % of scientists believed Einstein was a dilettante ? And even today, 99 % procent of people can't really understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Riemann geometry and so on ?

The fact is that Heim / Droescher theory is quite easy to understand. Of course, by the 1% that matter.

-Bold claims of fantastic technology (anti-gravity drive)

Wasn't something similar said by past scientist about 100 years ago? A body heavier than air can't fly, thus any flying aparatus is impossible ? But wait, now we have planes...

...any one of which, fine, but all three? The chance that its not a crackpot sham becomes vanishingly small.

You know, this sound like a response we'll get from a person who lived in 1600s if we told him about lasers, radio, flying to the Moon.....

SpaceBull · 2006-08-05 08:38:50

Wow. I initially thought this was just bogus, but just found an article in Science Daily about some serious ESA-funded experiments that at least partially proves the connection between magnetic fields and gravity:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 232140.htm

Using this technology to make something fly off the ground will probably not happen in hundreds of years, but the effect is still quite interesting. We shouldn't wait for this technology to mature before we colonize Mars though...

unitx · 2006-08-05 14:28:22

the Heim theory is and has been discussed for the past 8 months in this on-going thread at PhysOrg. I would definitely recommend checking it out. There's a professor by the name of hdeasy who has contributed a lot to the forum. Many graduate students have also reported their findings. It's topping 64 pages!

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s=3d … 385&st=945

noosfractal · 2006-08-06 18:37:09

Tajmar result seems to be nonbullshit, but opinions vary as to the cause ...

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.phys … bdcf4c1afe

publiusr · 2006-08-11 15:17:02

150 tons from the surface. It would be nice.

unitx · 2006-08-15 22:21:00

Here is an extensively revised edition of the paper I linked on my first post in this thread:

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/d … evised.pdf

This was published about a day ago.

John Creighton · 2006-08-15 23:44:12

I skimmed though the paper. In my opinion it did a very good job of summarizing the various current paradigms of physics and how they link together. I didn’t get all the connections like the relevance of discrete space to electromagnetic gravitational coupling. It is probably necessary to derive the coupling from first principles using EHT. The paper of course didn’t delve into the details that much and I am not sure if it contributes any new theory or just provides a nice summery.

As far as using anti gravity to propel a space ship into space I suspect you would have similar problems as you would using magnetism to propel a ship into space except for the fact that you will require more energy to generate the anti gravitational fields. One plus I think is when leaving an anti gave launch tube the anti gravity would generate a wind away from the tube thus you would have less shock then you would leaving a magetube. Once you leave the gravity tube though the anti gravity would dissipate just like magnetic fields and you would still be relying on momentum to carry you into space.

The paper did mention warp drives and I am not sure if they were inserted because they are cool, or because there are novel ways in EHT to produce such warp drives. The paper did not discuss the connection but I suppose if you can generate anti gravitational fields you may be able to manipulate space time in a way to move a ship though space at super Lumina speed. Of course this is just conjecture on my part and nothing supported by the paper.

unitx · 2006-08-16 00:41:22

If you looked closely, the paper did mention superluminal speeds. an integer (n)
where n>1. The paper mentions it is an integer n*c which obviously would give superluminal speeds.

noosfractal · 2006-08-16 01:29:24

I didn’t get all the connections like the relevance of discrete space to electromagnetic gravitational coupling.

So physics has general relativity (GR) for the large scale (gravity and the shape of spacetime) and quantum theory for the small scale (pretty much everything else), but the two don't meet in the middle. Naturally there has been a search for a unified field theory, i.e., something that predicts the behavior of quantized gravity/spacetime (recall GR says "gravity = the shape of spacetime"). String theory is the favorite (actually brane theory nowadays), but ...

Now Tajmar is saying that he has generated a gravitation effect 10^17 greater than that predicted by GR, i.e., he is saying that he has found where GR breaks down at the small scall. The excitement is that Droscher & Hauser are saying that not only did Tajmar not make a mistake, but that EHT (a string theory competitor) predicts his results to ridiculous accuracy.

The paper did mention warp drives and I am not sure if they were inserted because they are cool, or because there are novel ways in EHT to produce such warp drives.

Because "gravity = the shape of spacetime" if you can generate gravity, you can change the shape of spacetime, i.e., a gravity drive is a warp drive.

As for the propellantless propulsion application, it's like trying to predict the performance of a modern rocket with only knowledge of the first Chinese fireworks.

John Creighton · 2006-08-16 12:25:48

The excitement is that Droscher & Hauser are saying that not only did Tajmar not make a mistake, but that EHT (a string theory competitor) predicts his results to ridiculous accuracy.

It is exciting but I am not sure if it is a break though. It is more like the result of about 50 years of hard under funded research. I’ve heard for quite a while about predictions of rotating super conducting rings producing anti-gravitational fields. Some theories that predict this are quite old. For instance Nelious Boor once asked some physicist if his rockets would soon become obsolete because even back then there were predictions in physics about warp drives.

It seems that just now all the theory developed over the last 50 years is starting to come together and it is coming together with experimental results to back it up. So yeah it is exciting and it kind of rekindles my interest in physics. I was especially impressed with the clarity of the paper even though many details of the theory were left out. But in terms of a break though we can’t contribute this to one Eureka like moment like some people like to view the history of science.

The paper did mention warp drives and I am not sure if they were inserted because they are cool, or because there are novel ways in EHT to produce such warp drives.
Because "gravity = the shape of spacetime" if you can generate gravity, you can change the shape of spacetime, i.e., a gravity drive is a warp drive.

I have to look closer at the conditions for a warp drive but the theory does not let us generate any kind of gravitational field we want. It doesn’t let us generate a gravitational monopole or if it does it must be an attractive gravitational monopoly and not a repulsive gravitational monopole which I think would be analogous to the negative energy required for the Huckleberry drive.

I am not saying you can’t generate a warp drive with this theory without using negative energy but the fact that you can generate gravity does not imply you can make a warp drive. The steps in between must be filled in. Also even if you could generate warp drive like conditions I suspect that the necessary fields must be produced externally from the ship. Thus it would be more like a warp tunnel that we must build to the next star and it would require that gravity generating machines be placed along the route. This sounds prohibitively expensive and not very practical.

Curiously the paper implies due to the discreteness of space Einstein’s theory or relativity breaks down at near the speed of light. This is because length contraction can not be infinite. However, once this minimum length contracting is met the ship would be unobservable. I am not sure of the implications of this in terms of paradoxes and faster then light travel but it certainly makes me scratch my head and go hmmmmmm…..

As for the propellantless propulsion application, it's like trying to predict the performance of a modern rocket with only knowledge of the first Chinese fireworks.

The paper even said that you can’t use the gravity machine as a space ship drive. I think it probably for every point it repeals the anti-gravity machines repels from the earth it attracts the earth an equal amount in other locations. To bad my electromagnetism knowledge is getting fuzzy because the math looks really similar. I’ve thought of some advantages of anti-gravity over electromagnetism. The biggest advantage I see of anti gravity is that the pilot can be accelerated without feeling the g forces because the acceleration would be uniform on every part of the body (like free fall) and would not be a push from the ship floor. I suspect you could also use this to produce artificial gravity in space ships without requiring the ship to rotate. However that might not make economic since. So essentially anti-gravity could give the ship a velocity boost with zero g forces on the pilot before the first stage kicks in. It sounds kind of cool but just because it is possible does not mean it is practical. The engineering details still must be worked out.

unitx · 2006-08-16 18:46:59

I have to look closer at the conditions for a warp drive but the theory does not let us generate any kind of gravitational field we want. It doesn’t let us generate a gravitational monopole or if it does it must be an attractive gravitational monopoly and not a repulsive gravitational monopole which I think would be analogous to the negative energy required for the Huckleberry drive.
I am not saying you can’t generate a warp drive with this theory without using negative energy but the fact that you can generate gravity does not imply you can make a warp drive. The steps in between must be filled in. Also even if you could generate warp drive like conditions I suspect that the necessary fields must be produced externally from the ship. Thus it would be more like a warp tunnel that we must build to the next star and it would require that gravity generating machines be placed along the route. This sounds prohibitively expensive and not very practical.
Curiously the paper implies due to the discreteness of space Einstein’s theory or relativity breaks down at near the speed of light. This is because length contraction can not be infinite. However, once this minimum length contracting is met the ship would be unobservable. I am not sure of the implications of this in terms of paradoxes and faster then light travel but it certainly makes me scratch my head and go hmmmmmm…..
As for the propellantless propulsion application, it's like trying to predict the performance of a modern rocket with only knowledge of the first Chinese fireworks.
The paper even said that you can’t use the gravity machine as a space ship drive. I think it probably for every point it repeals the anti-gravity machines repels from the earth it attracts the earth an equal amount in other locations. To bad my electromagnetism knowledge is getting fuzzy because the math looks really similar. I’ve thought of some advantages of anti-gravity over electromagnetism. The biggest advantage I see of anti gravity is that the pilot can be accelerated without feeling the g forces because the acceleration would be uniform on every part of the body (like free fall) and would not be a push from the ship floor. I suspect you could also use this to produce artificial gravity in space ships without requiring the ship to rotate. However that might not make economic since. So essentially anti-gravity could give the ship a velocity boost with zero g forces on the pilot before the first stage kicks in. It sounds kind of cool but just because it is possible does not mean it is practical. The engineering details still must be worked out.

The Heim Drive is not a 'warp drive' at all, rather it more or less resembles a 'hyperspace drive'. It doesn't warp spacetime. The authors of the paper state that at a certain speed (% of c), the spacecraft slips into a parallel space (NOT parallel universe, but more like a subspace) where the speed of light is n*c.

John Creighton · 2006-08-16 19:40:55

The Heim Drive is not a 'warp drive' at all, rather it more or less resembles a 'hyperspace drive'. It doesn't warp spacetime. The authors of the paper state that at a certain speed (% of c), the spacecraft slips into a parallel space (NOT parallel universe, but more like a subspace) where the speed of light is n*c.

Isn’t there a paradox here. Consider person A at rest, person B at 0.5 c and person C just near enough to the speed of light so that person A cannot observer person C but person B can observe person C. How is this possible since if A can observe B and B can observe C shouldn’t A be able to observe C by talking to person A. Of course with relativity to observes can’t agree anyway on the order of events so is it also true that they can’t agree as to weather someone is observable, that transitivity observation is some how not valid. Or is it the case that if person C is not observable to person B then person C is also not observable to person B. If the latter is true then before person C become unobservable to person A, A the velocity measured of person C by person A and B becomes the same or at least as near as is possible to measure given the constraints of the uncertainty principle.

noosfractal · 2006-08-17 02:25:12

The paper even said that you can’t use the gravity machine as a space ship drive.

My reading of section 7.1.3 ... "From these numbers it seems to be possible that, if our theoretical predictions are correct, the realization of a workable space propulsion device that can lift itself from the surface of the Earth seems to be feasible with current technology" ... is that you can.

To bad my electromagnetism knowledge is getting fuzzy because the math looks really similar.

Yep. My understanding is that they're saying you generate gravity just like you generate electricity - rotation in a magnetic field. The constants are different, so we haven't noticed it before.

John Creighton · 2006-08-17 12:22:34

From the link by the orginal poster:

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/d … ersion.pdf

4.1.3 Space Device Based on Field Propulsion
The experiment by Tajmar et al. generates an azimuthal
gravitational field, and thus is not suitable for propulsion.
The lesson learned from the experiment by Tajmar et al.
is the fact that the coupling to bosons (Cooper pairs) is of
prime importance. However, employing the general
Heim-Lorentz force equations to the experimental setup
of Fig. 3, Heim-Lorentz force now produces force components
in the radial r and z- directions. These components
are given by
Fr  er=
vC
c
me v
T bz  e×  e z  (14)
F z  ez=
vC
c
v
T
c
mn v
T bz   e×  ez ×  e
(15)
where vC is the velocity of the Cooper pairs in the superconducting
solenoid (Fig. 3), v
T=10m/ s denotes the
velocity of the rotating disk or ring, and bz is the component
of the (gravitational) gravitophoton field bgp (dimension
1/s) in the z-direction. In contrast to the fermion coupling,
experimental requirements are modest. The following
assumptions were made: N=100 number of turns of
the solenoid, current of some 1-2 A (needed to calculate
bz), diameter of solenoid 0.1 m. A detailed analysis predicts
an acceleration in z-direction of some 6.0×10-5 g.
From these numbers it is clear that, if theoretical predictions
are correct, the realization of a workable space propulsion
device that can lift itself from the surface of the
Earth seems to be feasible.

The force sounds very small. I’ll read close the details later tonight and insert the necessary equations. I suspect the power requirements are enormous.

noosfractal · 2006-08-17 13:09:23

I’ll read close the details later tonight and insert the necessary equations.

You might want to work from the later paper. Tajmar provided more info causing Droscher & Hauser to revise their equations.

unitx · 2006-08-17 14:26:41

From the link by the orginal poster:
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/d … ersion.pdf
4.1.3 Space Device Based on Field Propulsion
The experiment by Tajmar et al. generates an azimuthal
gravitational field, and thus is not suitable for propulsion.
The lesson learned from the experiment by Tajmar et al.
is the fact that the coupling to bosons (Cooper pairs) is of
prime importance. However, employing the general
Heim-Lorentz force equations to the experimental setup
of Fig. 3, Heim-Lorentz force now produces force components
in the radial r and z- directions. These components
are given by
Fr  er=
vC
c
me v
T bz  e×  e z  (14)
F z  ez=
vC
c
v
T
c
mn v
T bz   e×  ez ×  e
(15)
where vC is the velocity of the Cooper pairs in the superconducting
solenoid (Fig. 3), v
T=10m/ s denotes the
velocity of the rotating disk or ring, and bz is the component
of the (gravitational) gravitophoton field bgp (dimension
1/s) in the z-direction. In contrast to the fermion coupling,
experimental requirements are modest. The following
assumptions were made: N=100 number of turns of
the solenoid, current of some 1-2 A (needed to calculate
bz), diameter of solenoid 0.1 m. A detailed analysis predicts
an acceleration in z-direction of some 6.0×10-5 g.
From these numbers it is clear that, if theoretical predictions
are correct, the realization of a workable space propulsion
device that can lift itself from the surface of the
Earth seems to be feasible.
The force sounds very small. I’ll read close the details later tonight and insert the necessary equations. I suspect the power requirements are enormous.

I'll admit, I myself am dubious about that incredibly small acceleration. It seems as though it would take an eternity for a spacecraft to lift off the surface. There must be more to this than what meets the eye since he explicity stated that it is feasible (Although, I guess it depends on what your definition of feasible is). What about the force vectors the radiate outward from the ring? What about that acceleration?

noosfractal · 2006-08-17 16:15:39

I'll admit, I myself am dubious about that incredibly small acceleration. It seems as though it would take an eternity for a spacecraft to lift off the surface.

The most recent paper has the z-acceleration proportional to the square of rotational velocity and the "gravitophoton field." Some particular parameters - v = 10 m/s and, to generate the field, 100 windings, 1-2 Amps and a solenoid diameter of 0.1 meters - yeild a z-acceleration of 4.0x10^-4 g.

We need four orders of magnitude to get to a z-acceleration of 4g. We can get two orders by taking the rotational velocity up to 100 m/s and probably another couple by upping the solenoid windings and the current, or some convenient combination thereof. Hence "feasible with current technology."

unitx · 2006-08-17 16:44:46

What you are describing reminds me of the article I read at howstuffworks.com on electromagnetic propulsion (not the stuffs that deals with ion engines and plasma).
I realize that the function of the solenoid and wire below vary greatly when compared to Heim's application to a space drive.

Here is the original article - http://science.howstuffworks.com/electr … ulsion.htm

That article uses traditional physics to explain how that form of propulsion would work.

John Creighton · 2006-08-17 20:23:21

Has anyone considered the dynamic effects caused by the displaced air due to the radially outward force from the torus. I can’t decide it will make it easier or harder to lift off the ground. I know you want to display fluid in a boat or a blimp to float but the fluid isn’t pushing on the space ship and the gravitation fields of the ship are pushing a lot of fluid up (think equal and opposite reaction) is the force of what the ship pushes down more? I don’t clearly see the mathematics.

noosfractal · 2006-08-18 00:17:49

Here is the original article - http://science.howstuffworks.com/electr … ulsion.htm
That article uses traditional physics to explain how that form of propulsion would work.

Nah - it violates conservation of momentum under traditional physics (it doesn't push or pull against anything). For this to work you need to be able to tap ZPE or something equally bizarre. See ...

Propellantless Propulsion by Electromagnetic Inertia Manipulation - Brito, 1999
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/0994.pdf

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-08-04 15:28:15

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#2 2006-08-04 15:44:28

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#3 2006-08-04 17:04:48

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#4 2006-08-04 19:01:08

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#5 2006-08-04 22:25:45

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#6 2006-08-05 07:12:42

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#7 2006-08-05 08:38:50

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#8 2006-08-05 14:28:22

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#9 2006-08-06 18:37:09

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#10 2006-08-11 15:17:02

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#11 2006-08-15 22:21:00

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#12 2006-08-15 23:44:12

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#13 2006-08-16 00:41:22

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#14 2006-08-16 01:29:24

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#15 2006-08-16 12:25:48

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#16 2006-08-16 18:46:59

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#17 2006-08-16 19:40:55

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#18 2006-08-17 02:25:12

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#19 2006-08-17 12:22:34

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#20 2006-08-17 13:09:23

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#21 2006-08-17 14:26:41

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#22 2006-08-17 16:15:39

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#23 2006-08-17 16:44:46

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#24 2006-08-17 20:23:21

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

#25 2006-08-18 00:17:49

Re: Followup on the Heim Drive

Board footer