Dröscher’s Other… More Controversial Theory of Propulsion

Creating the discipline of gravity design

One goal of the work of Dröscher, now made more tangible through his collaboration with Tajmar, is that of propulsive fields achievable of space flight. However a more controversial and advanced propulsion aspect of Dröscher and Häuser’s theory has not been mentioned in their publications in recent years, even though they apparently have not abandoned it. Even among talk of new theories of gravity it is controversial. Yet it was this work that brought them an award by the AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics), a very down-to-Earth organization of pragmatic aeronautical engineers and physicists in close association with NASA.

The following descriptions are taken almost wholly from Seculine Consulting’s 2006 “Notes on Heim’s Quantum Theory”, Dröscher & Häuser’s 2002 “Physical Principles of Advanced Space Propulsion Based on Heim’s Field Theory” and their 2004 “Guidelines for a Space Propulsion Device Based on Heim’s Quantum Theory”.

In Heim’s work, which predates string theory, Einstein’s general relativity has been extended in a way that expands the space-time metric by 4 dimensions, and also adds 4 non-metric dimensions for a total of 12 dimensions. In Heim Theory standard gravity G is the tensor summation of three gravitational components, i.e. G = Gg + Ggp + Gq. The 3 gravitational forces are as follows:

Gg (Scalar Gravity, or “Gravitonic”) – propagated by the Graviton
Ggp (Dark Energy/Matter) – a pairing of both attractive (+) and repulsive (-) particles propagated by the Gravito-photon
Gq (Vacuum Field) – a repulsive vacuum particle propagated by the Quintessence particle

Under this theory space propulsion may be achieved using gravitophoton field propulsion, which is predicted to be a two stage process:

Stage 1: Sub-luminal travel is predicted via the acceleration provided by an unbalanced pulling force generated through the absorption of negative gravito-photons in the ship’s drive mechanism.

Stage 2: Super-luminal travel possibilities open up through the use of a positive graivito-photon distribution behind the ship to create a pushing force that results in quantum steps in reduced gravitational potential in the speed of light, and is therefore analogous to a warp drive. This is also described by Heim proponents as a “parallel space” travel since there are different values for G and c within the influence of the positive gravito-photonic field.

Super-luminal travel is faster-than-light travel. Hence the controversy.

Under the assumption that the gravitational potential of the spacecraft can be reduced by the production of quintessence particles, a transition into parallel space is postulated to avoid a potential conflict with relativity theory. In order to resolve this contradiction, it is postulated that the object has to leave our space time and enters into a parallel 4-dimensional physical space-time (or parallel universe/multiverse).

Einstein’s goal was the unification of all physical interactions based on his principle of geometrization, i.e., having a metric that is responsible for the interaction. This principle is termed Einstein’s geometrization principle of physics (EGP). To this end, Heim and Dröscher introduced the concept of an internal space, denoted as Heim space H8, having 8 dimensions (in contrast to the theory’s original 12 dimensions). Although H8 is not a physical space, these invisible internal coordinates govern events in space time.

In such a space, superluminal speeds would be possible in principle. The interesting fact is that an object can transit into parallel space at a relatively low speed from our own space time.

It is clear that a gravito-photon field propulsion would be far superior compared to chemical propulsion or any other currently conceived propulsion system. For instance, an acceleration of 1g could be sustained without entering parallel space during a lunar mission. For such a mission only the acceleration phase is needed. For a launch from the surface of the Earth of a 150,000 kg spacecraft producing an acceleration larger than 1g the first half of the distance to the moon is covered in some 2 hours, resulting in a total flight time of 4 hours. How about a more distant target?

A Mars mission, under the same assumptions as a flight to the moon, would achieve a total flight time with acceleration and deceleration of 34 days in normal space. Entering parallel space, a transition is possible at a speed of some 67,000 mph reached after approximately 1 hour at a constant acceleration of 1g. In parallel space the velocity increases to 0.4 c, reducing total flight time to some 2.5 hours. Compare this to NASA’s projections of a two year round trip to Mars by a direct minimum energy orbit in each direction.

Mars is some 0.5 A.U. away (astronomical units, 1 A.U. = 1,500,000,000 km) yet the nearest star is 4.3 lightyears (1 lightyear = 9,460,000,000,000 km) away. For an interstellar mission, the concept of parallel space is indispensable.

An acceleration phase of some 34 days with 1g would result in a final velocity of just one per cent of the speed of light, 0.01 c in normal space. At the end of an acceleration phase of 34 days a spacecraft with a mass of 100,000 kg transitioned into parallel space would cause a velocity gain by a factor of 33,000 resulting in an effective speed of 330 c. A distance of 10 light-years could be covered within 11 days. The deceleration phase requires another 34 days, so a one-way trip to the star Procyon (11.5 lightyears from Earth) would take about 90 days. There are about 30 known stars within a radius of 13 light-years from Earth.

About the Author

Profile photo of gdaigle

gdaigleGregory Daigle is a former professor of design who has accrued national and international awards for interactive media and STEM learning. He has held management and creative leadership positions with advertising, e-learning, industrial design and interactive media firms. He heads an awarded non-profit for place-based learning and has written numerous articles on design and technology.View all posts by gdaigle

  1. gdaigle

    AUTHOR: Michael
    DATE: 02/18/2009 09:25:54 PM
    I am not sure if you heard of this, but Lawrence Krauss gave a very harsh criticism of Hauscher’s idea.

    “‘I looked through this stuff … completely crackpot, as far as I can see,” theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss told me in an e-mail early today. He said he found the New Scientist report “irresponsible in the extreme … they did not interview any real particle physicists, nor talk about the fact that the theory appears to have no real quantum field theory in it.'”


    Although Lawrence does have reason to be skeptical, as any good scientist should be, I think it is erroneous to classify Droscher & Hauscher as “crackpots”. The proposed hyperdrive is in such early stages that it would be unscientific to make accusations. Further testing is needed before we can reach such a conclusion. Also, Krauss seems to be the only particle physicist with a loud-spoken opinion on this. I’d be interested to hear more from other physicists in the field.

    Lawrence had more to say:

    “Krauss saw the hyperspace concept as a case of deja vu all over again, saying that it’s “based on other nutty things in NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Program … a program I helped to end … and the famous spinning superconductor that demonstrates antigravity, except that no one could actually get it to demonstrate such.'”

  2. gdaigle

    AUTHOR: Michael
    DATE: 02/19/2009 11:09:44 AM
    The fact that Heim Theory is able to predict particle mass & exact values of coupling constants with extreme accuracy is evidence enough that it cannot be overlooked. Thankfully, ever since Droscher & Hauscher introduced their paper for this propulsion system, scientists have taken quite an interest in Heim Theory. The only hurdle it faces is rigorous testing, since only a fraction of Heim’s work was ever peer-reviewed. Hence, skepticism is justified until further experimentation and examination.

    You made a good point concerning Tajmar’s results being published two months later after Krauss’ comments. I wonder what his opinion on this now is after relatively solid experimental data.

    I am quite familiar with the high temperature spinning superconductor fiasco by Podkletnov. If I recall correctly, his experiment was never reproduced & the setup involved was overly difficult. This whole episode in the 90’s quickly turned to another cold fusion debacle. I am glad Tajmar disassociates his results from Podkletnov’s.

    By the way – for not being a physicist, you seem to have a surprisingly good understanding of all of this. I must ask, do you work in the field of science?

  3. gdaigle

    Editor’s reply:

    I think Krauss’s early reaction (from three years ago, by the way) to Droscher/Hauser’s paper would need to be expanded for clarity’s sake.

    I am not a physicist, but as I understand it when you quantize spacetime in EHT using condensation zones you get the same particles as the Standard Model… and the two extra dimensions of EHT make it possible to derive quantum theory.

    FYI, Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) incorporates quantum field theory. It and EHT are closely related (except for EHT’s additional time-like dimensions), so if you rebut one you need to consider how the other is impacted.

    Krauss ended his comments by grouping EHT with “other nutty things” in NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Program, saying that no one could actually get spinning superconductors to demonstrate antigravity.

    Of course Tajmar was involved investigating the claims of that early program and his experimental success (published just two months after Krauss’s comments) are based in part on carefully evaluating those failures.

  4. gdaigle

    Editor’s reply:

    Extended Heim Theory will be bolstered if Tajmar takes it to heart as the theoretical basis for his results. Others, such as Dr. Brandenburg at Orbitech posit that Tajmar’s results can be explained by standard GEM theory (see next week’s SPESIF conference: http://www.ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html)

    I am a designer but have degrees in science. I immerse myself in the theory until it’s time to talk about the design implications impacting our cities and lives. See more in the Discussions and The Editor sections on my main site: http://www.gravitymodification.com

  5. gdaigle

    AUTHOR: Michael
    DATE: 02/19/2009 08:56:39 PM
    Judging by the “talk” at wikipedia on Heim Theory, I don’t believe that it has gained much interest or traction from mainstream physicists. One user even stated most physicists regard Heim Theory as “nonsensical quack theory”.


    Also – perhaps you can mention your education in your “Editor section” on the main website so people can understand how you are relatively knowledgeable about this topic. I read this website and then found out who the editor was. I was contemplating whether or not you were the one writing the blog entries. I don’t know many (closer to any at all)designers who understand theoretical condensed matter physics.

    Editor’s reply:
    I appreciate the comment on my bio. I’ll make some adjustments this weekend. As a former professor and research manager at a design firm I wish more designers would read original scientific papers to get ahead of technology implementations.

    As for “quack theory” that severe remark was from editor Whateley23. HT is definitely alternative, but look at Wikipedia’s entries on “Higgsless_model” and “Beyond_the_Standard_Model” and you’ll see it’s not alone.

  6. gdaigle

    AUTHOR: Michael
    DATE: 02/24/2009 02:11:37 AM
    I have gone over some of Brandenburg’s writings on that page. His work is quite interesting. I am especially intrigued by his “tachyonic drive” proposal. I personally think GEM theory will end up being the winner in this case, but it’s actually a good thing. There are many emerging possibilities that can give us practical FTL space drives. In fact, high frequency gravitational waves, which most physicists are fairly certain exist, are being discussed for space propulsion. Also, there are theories undergoing rigorous peer-review and testing right now that may spawn a new technological revolution, such as string theory and loop quantum gravity. It is too early to say what kind of breakthroughs they will provide, but Andrew Bender(physicist) wrote a book on the possibility of a propulsion device based on M-Theory that can travel from one solar system to the next in a couple of minutes by isolating volumes of space-time.

    Of course, it would be premature to give these ideas too much attention now. The prospect of gravity modification is controversial enough.

  7. gdaigle

    Editor’s reply:
    I wonder if, like J. Brandenburg, A. Bender offers an explanation Tajmar’s results through M-Theory or his Membrane Theory of Gravity?

    I would like to read more about GEM Theory but Brandenburg does not publish on http://www.arxiv.org and I’m too “thrifty” to buy individual papers.

  8. gdaigle

    AUTHOR: Michael
    DATE: 02/24/2009 02:40:03 PM
    You can read a few pages from the book on amazon.com


    or the homepage of the book.


    Unfortunately, he doesn’t mention rotating superconductor’s or the work of Martin Tajmar. Possibly because he spent over four years developing his space drive idea and his M-Theory of gravity. It was published only a couple of months after the ESA released their results.

    The drawback Bender has is he hasn’t obtained his PhD, which means it is highly unlikely that scientific journals will publish his work. He did however, spend two years trying to publish papers, but apparently physicists lacked the ability to calculate quantum mechanical equations where general relativity was a component. He has stated he is planning on publishing a paper ASAP. It should be said that he is a in a wheel chair with debilitating back pain.

    There is a lot of information out there on GEM both online and in books.

    Editor’s reply:
    A PhD is helpful but not an absolute requirement. And of course publishing in a peer reviewed journal without the support of an institute to keep you going can be difficult, though I know those who have done it. Most importantly the research must stand on its own merits.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    No Twitter Messages.
Skip to toolbar