Here are my postings since May in the PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=3030
Also here are recent papers by Hauser, peer reviewed for conferences:
And another recent offering:
The AIAA paper is short on pictures and long on text.
On an alternative explanation for Tajmar’s experimental results –
My reply 7-27-2011:
I noted a few days ago that M.E. McCulloch posted a second paper ascribing the Tajmar Effect to a Hubble-scale Casimir Effect. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266
Now it’s been picked up in an article in PhysOrg. I noted in my book that Tajmar thinks quantized inertia a better explanation for his effect than EHT. Now McCulloch hopes Tajmar’s group will test the theory with a rotating superconductor 0.01% the mass of the original ring Tajmar and deMatos experimented with.
Unanswered questions from me include that Tajmar et al did not find the effect for rotating Type 2 superconductors. Why should such supercooled materials not elicit a quantized inertia effect? Also, MiHsC is posited as an explanation for the Pioneer effect, even though less complex and equally plausible mechanisms have claimed their own explanations for that effect.
Very interesting nonetheless.
On lack of a Higgs particle –
djolds1: IIRC, EHT explicitly posits a Higgs mechanism. Looks like particle physicists are finally giving up the ghost on that, and by extension the entire Standard Model.
My reply 8-28-2011:
The lack of a discovery of a singular Higgs particle of ordinary mattery by the LHC is actually good news for EHT.
In their paper “Gravitational Field Propulsion” (AIAA 2009-5069) Hauser and Dröscher state, “Any admissible subspace combination needs S2 or I2 coordinates to be present in order to realize physical events in our spacetime. The only exception is the Hermetry form H16 for the Higgs field.”
In their late 2009 paper “Emerging physics for novel field propulsion science” they expand their description that EHT’s three R subspaces deliver, “15 fundamental groups of particles… of gravitational or non-gravitational nature, while the O(2, q) 2 O(2, q) stands for the 6 Higgs and 6 anti-Higgs bosons, responsible for all types of charges that fundamental particles can possess. It is believed that all particles of OM or NOM… interact with its respective Higgs particle and gain charge (e.g mass or electric charge etc.), but their inertia (energy) should come from group O(1, q) , which denotes a special Hermetry form, H16 from subspace T1.”
OM stands for ordinary matter. NOM or Non-Ordinary Matter are particles of imaginary mass that should occur “as virtual particles, which means that they are not present (do not occur) in the initial and final states of a reaction, but act in the intermediate steps.”
In “Coupled Gravitational Fields A New Paradigm for Propulsion Science” (AIAA2010-021-NFF) they clarify that “there are three degenerated Hermetry forms that describe partial forms occurring in NOM, namely the families of imaginary messenger particles, i.e. photon, gluon, and dark matter… Hermetry form 16 is reserved for the inertia field, which is some kind of Higgs field pervading the whole Universe” They continue, “Imaginary particles are formed via the Higgs mechanism, for instance, as described by M. Kaku, (Kaku, M.: Quantum Field Theory, Oxford, 1993. Chap.10.).
So EHT postulates a total of six Higgs and anti-Higgs fields. These 12 Higgs bosons are transitory particles of imaginary mass. It is the interaction between fundamental particles and the Higgs mechanism that imparts charge and mass to them. EHT does not predict a singular Higgs boson of ordinary matter (OM), which has been the focus of the LHC’s search.
On Reed’s analysis:
gocrew: It’s hard to get excited about Heim Theory after Reed’s analysis. The only reason to pursue it was some of the possibilities it offered, which now seem to have been, well, I’ll not say fraudulent, just wrong. In a very suspicious way.
Without the predictions of mass, there really is little to get excited about, little to make us think he was on to something.
My reply 11-5-2011:
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss that Heim was “on to something.” Even though my understanding of the physics is limited, I do believe that Dr. Reed’s analysis of the shortcomings of Heim’s original theory is correct. However, I don’t think Reed’s conclusions should be applied by others to Dr. Hauser’s work in Extended Heim Theory.
In discussions with Hauser, it was pointed out to me that the idea of how to construct a poly-metric tensor was of much greater importance than Heim’s actual derivation. As applied to their (Hauser and Dröscher’s) eight-dimensional gauge space extension of Heim Theory, it seems to give a more complete and correct picture than Heim’s six-dimensional approach. The basic ideas of physics in Heim’s books are essential, but provide only a starting point. All of the formulas have to be derived anew, which is what EHT has accomplished.
Hauser and Dröscher have already pointed out in their papers that Heim’s mass spectrum analysis must at least be incomplete, simply because of his use of six-dimensional space. It was also pointed out to me that the new formulations in EHT did reveal additional errors in Heim’s math and that Reed’s correct analysis of Heim’s wrong spherical Laplacian had already been taken into consideration by EHT’s formulations.
gocrew: I have read that EHT is very separate from Heim Theory. However, does EHT have anything to get excited about? The possibility of deriving mass was exciting. Now, all EHT has, unless I am mistaken, is the possibility of a single experiment that has other explanations.
I’m not trying to put the last nail in the coffin. All I’m saying is I don’t see much reason to get excited anymore.
My reply 11-11-2011:
Like many others here, I’m all for a demo levitating a Hummer, but until that day there are some interesting new leads from disproving older theories… and from new ones… that improve EHT’s position among other “outlier” theories. And other refinements (read his last paper AIAA2011-6042) that give multiple ways to test its predictions:
1. If the LHC does not find a massive Higgs boson, that would give more weight to EHT since it would put the Standard Model into greater question and EHT would be there (among many others) to fill the gap. EHT predicts several less massive Higgs and anti-Higgs particles.
2. Verlinde’s holographic theory makes information and the organization of structures key to understanding space-time. You may have seen this theory referenced in recent episodes of PBS’s NOVA. Alternatively, holographic theory mirrors EHT’s four subspaces representing the formation of information structures (I2) and organizational structures (S2).
3. Hauser mentioned in his last paper that if physical experiments can be set up that lead to a conversion from photons into gravitophotons, a coupling between electromagnetism and gravitation would be established. Hyperbolic metamaterials have created electromagnetic “event horizons”, which are analogous to gravitational black holes. I would like to see if gravitomagnetic predictions can be represented analogously in the laboratory by employing metamaterials.
4. If symmetry breaking as the underlying cause of producing gravitophotons is real, then one outcome should be the production of a new real particle with lower ground state that should be detectable… if someone is looking for it.
On mention of Dr. Tajmar’s new publication, “Evaluation of enhanced frame-dragging in the vicinity of a rotating niobium superconductor, liquid helium and a helium superfluid” doi:10.1088/0953-2048/24/12/125011 contradciting earlier findings:
Mindrust: I wonder how gdaigle is reacting to this. If I remember correctly, he made a blog dedicated to Tajmar’s discovery in 2006.
djolds1: Greg recently wrote a book on the subject. My guess would be… sadly.
My reply 11-16-2011:
Disappointed, but not sad.
My blog has followed the theory of EHT as well as the findings of Dr. Tajmar, but has always had as its main focus the design implications of manipulating gravity-like fields.
I am still reviewing Dr. Tajmar’s paper for its full impact on his nine previously published papers on the topic. Determining exactly why he got his previous results at AIT is as interesting to me as his report of no significant results achieved with his new apparatus at KAIST.
Dr. Tajmar’s configurations for his earlier experiments were never going to produce the much stronger and axially propulsive field effects that Dr. Hauser envisioned, but they did provide a dataset with fewer alternative explanations than Gravity Probe B and the other anomalies that give weight to EHT.
Certainly this puts into question the bosonic pathway for EHT, but not the fermonic (really strong magnets) pathway originally posited by Hauser and Droescher. I am less clear about the impact of this newest study on Hauser’s proposed mechanism for gravitomagnetic fields, which is symmetry breaking rather than Cooper-pair coupling.
As for me, I’m planning to present a slideshow tomorrow on my book to fellow faculty members and will certainly mention Dr. Tajmar’s most recent findings… disappointing or not, it’s all part of the discovery process.