The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) is sponsoring a dinner lecture series this month in Sacramento, California featuring a presentation by Dr. Jochem Häuser, co-author with Walter Dröscher on Extended Heim Theory.

The announcement reads as follows:

Dr. Häuser will be joining us from Saltzgitter, Germany, to present: Emerging Physics for Novel Field Propulsion Abstract: In this talk we present and discuss novel physical concepts that might lead to advanced space propulsion technology based on novel gravitational-like force fields. Such a propulsion technology would be working without propellant. This technology is based on the existence of two additional gravity-like fields, which are gravitational fields that are not described by conventional gravitation.

The paper begins with an introduction of the present theoretical and experimental concepts pertaining to the novel physics of these gravity-like fields. In the following section, the latest gravitomagnetic experiments performed at ARC Seibersdorf (2008) [refers to research by Dr. Martin Tajmar – editor] are analyzed, and a qualitative explanation for the highly varying measured results is given.

In section three, the physical basis (termed Extended Heim Theory, EHT) employed in the explanation of the ARC experiments is presented. EHT, based on the construction of a poly-metric (geometric approach), which is obtained by providing each point of external spacetime with an internal 8D space (Heim space), requires the existence of six fundamental interactions, three gravitational fields, which are both attractive and repulsive as well as the known electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces. Moreover, from the interpretation of the poly-metric, the existence of ordinary matter (fermions and bosons) as well as non-ordinary matter (virtual imaginary particles as well as stable neutral (heavy) lepton particles with rest mass) is postulated.

It is shown that conservation principles need to be applied to the complete physical system containing both types of matter. Furthermore, it is argued that the re-interpretation of the general symmetry breaking mechanism leads to virtual particles of imaginary mass, which in turn, should be responsible for the conversion of electromagnetic into gravitational energy (ARC experiments).

In section four, based on this conversion, the physical mechanism underlying the ARC experiments is discussed and comparison of EHT predictions and measured results are given. Arguments will be provided to ensure the consistency of the ARC measurements. The last section, based on the results of EHT, is dedicated to describe a novel experiment for the generation of a gravity-like field (acceleration field) that could serve directly as a propulsion principle, since the direction of the force should be along the axis of rotation of the disk (ring in ARC experiments) and not in the circumferential direction as is the case in the ARC experiments. Furthermore, the scaling of this experiment will be discussed and calculations will be given that show that a substantial force should be producible with current technology.

In the Conclusions the validity and consistency of gravitomagnetic experiments performed is argued and their relation to the existence of six fundamental forces is debated. The widespread scientific and technological consequences of gravity-like fields in the general area of transportation (earthbound, air and space), physics as well as cosmology are also outlined. Finally, recommendations are made how the state of gravity-field like research could be advanced both theoretically and experimentally.

Friday, March 13, 6-8:30pm, $15 – Students $20 – Members $25 – Non-Members

In this blog’s posting of April 14, 2008, “Independent Support of Tajmar’s Theory” reported that Tajmar’s artificial gravity results appeared as temperatures approached that of low temperature (low-Tc) superconducting niobium. There was no such effect found for high-Tc superconductors composed of copper oxide compounds. Tajmar’s study did not explain why there should be such a difference, but should different mechanisms underlying low and high Tc superconductors be found it would add weight to his findings.

Tajmar’s theory depends upon the bosonic pairing of electrons known as “Coopers pairs”. Cooper pairs also exist for high-Tc materials, yet the question has remained until now whether Coopers pairs form in the “pseudogap”, that transition temperature just before high-Tc superconductivity. If found to form and if found to be based upon a mechanism different from low-Tc superconductivity it would bolster Tajmar’s findings.

Today researchers have confirmed with new imaging techniques that electron pairs do emerge in the pseudogap but employ mechanisms very different from theories for conventional low-Tc superconductors such as niobium.

As quoted in this publication), “Together, the existence of preformed electron pairs… should help clarify the picture of high-Tc superconductivity, Brookhaven physicist Peter Johnson said. For example, the findings rule out some theories to explain the high-Tc phenomenon…”, including certain “spin density wave” (SDW) and “charge density wave”(CDW) derived theories. Johnson’s findings are consistent with competing theories such as “Mott insulators” and “charge stripes” that do not apply to low-Tc superconductors.

This further reinforces the distinctions between conventional low-Tc superconductors and high-Tc superconductors that Tajmar found.

I’ve been asking my associates, who are more knowledgeable about Heim Theory, what impact the experiments being conducted at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) would have on testing the validity of Heim Theory. Remember that Droscher and Hauser’s Extended Heim Theory has been the best theoretical model of Tajmar’s gravity generation results.

The LHC experiments include efforts to find supersymmetry particles as well as the Higgs boson, which is suggested as imparting mass to all other subatomic particles. However, Heim Theory is not dependent upon the Higgs mechanism for the concept of mass. According to hdeasy, a frequent poster on PhysOrg Forum, Heim Theory posits that mass is caused by a six dimensional cyclic process or flux. If this flux is open, you have virtual particles. If it closes to form a 6-D circuit, it gives a real particle whose mass is given by this 6-D flux.

No Higgs particle is needed as it is another mechanism for assigning mass. Note that of the six dimensions involved in assigning mass, three are like time. The other three are the familiar space dimensions (length, breadth, height).

Heim theory is based on quantizing space, in 2-D quanta of area (Planck length)*(Planck length) called metrons. This aspect is similar to Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG), a theory gaining acceptance over string theory. Find the Higgs and that is bad news for Heim Theory.

A Wikipedia article on Heim Theory which is viewed as a reliable non-technical discussion by Heim adherents, states “confirmation of supersymmetry … would falsify all existing versions of Heim theory, which are mutually exclusive with supersymmetry.” If results of the LHC experiments find no Higgs or superspartners (a feature of most versions of string theory) then that spells the end for the Higgs mechanism of mass and many versions of string theory.

The remaining alternative theories to Higgs and accounting for the breaking of electroweak symmetry (including Heim Theory) would gain new attention and scrutiny.

How likely is it that this long-suspected Higgs particle will not be found? Who else thinks that not finding the Higgs might be a more interesting outcome? Physicist Stephen Hawking for one.

Hawking told BBC Radio he’d bet US$100 that the LHC won’t find that tiny Higgs particle. While Hawking said the LHC’s conditions should theoretically allow it to be discovered, he said it’d be “much more exciting” if it didn’t — leading to his wager.

Professor Higgs, 79, who first postulated the existence of the particle 44 years ago, disagrees in a recent interview. “My understanding is he puts together theories in particle physics with gravity… in a way which no theoretical particle physicist would believe is the correct theory. From a particle physics, quantum theory point of view, you have to put a lot more than just gravity into the theory to have a consistent theory and I don’t think Stephen has done that. I am very doubtful about his calculations.

During this year’s AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) Dröscher and Hauser presented their paper “Gravity-Like Fields and Space Propulsion Concepts” which drew comparisons between values predicted by EHT (Extended Heim Theory) and the troubled Gravity Probe B.

In May the Sr. Review Committee at NASA Headquarters did not grant the Gravity Probe B team its final funding extension. Gravity Probe B is a long-standing experiment to measure gravitational frame dragging. As reported in New Scientist, the probe’s data was unexpectedly noisy. However, Tajmar has explained the “noise” in a recent paper and in their AIAA paper Dröscher/Hauser explain how the “noise” is actually misalignment and frequency shifts that fall well within the expected values projected by EHT and its predicted two additional gravity-like fields.

The paper is also valuable in that it breaks into sections the the present experimental basis for the existence of these novel gravity-like fields, discusses the main physical features of EHT, discusses all relevant experiments, determines the nature and type of the fundamental interaction(s) responsible for gravitomagnetic effects, and finally, posits a novel experiment for the generation of a vertical gravity-like field that might serve as test for their propulsion principle.

In short, a very good summary article on where we are with gMOD as predicted by EHT. Finally, their closing remark gives a glimpse into their excitement. “Needless to say, control of gravity would lead to completely new technologies, comparable to the advent of electricity and magnetism in the 19th century.”

I had missed the fact that earlier this year in a response to an early version of Tajmar’s paper on the role of helium (see June 23 entry), Jochim Hauser and Walter Droscher suggested that there are no major friction effects with helium. Since the effect is not due to the mechanical friction of rotating gases the authors suggest Tajmar’s anomalous effect must be due to other mechanisms.

They go on to say that since symmetry breaking is required for the production of gravitophotons, yet the Tajmar’s effect occurs at temperatures higher than required for Cooper-pair formation, it is likely not the Cooper-pair bosons that produce the symmetry breaking.

This brings into the mix the possibility that a yet unidentified symmetry breaking mechanism far above superconducting temperatures may be sufficient to produce Tajmar’s results (see note from the Editor near the bottom of the April 14 Blog entry).

A new publication by Dr. Tajmar (with Plesescu and Seigert) is entitled, “Anomalous Fiber Optic Gyroscope Signals Observed above Spinning Rings at Low Temperature”. It can be accessed HERE.

In the article, Tajmar confirms his earlier results reporting that, “our signals are up to 18 orders of magnitude larger” compared to classical frame-dragging spin-coupling predictions of general relativity.

But there is a new twist. The rotating helium used to cool the system has also been found to contribute to the effect. Helium was employed in Tajmar’s original experimentation series to convey cold to the niobium (Nb) superconducting sample. However, now the Nb has been shown to contribute a weaker effect and the rotating helium produces the main effect. This occurs below 25-30 degrees Kelvin, well above superconducting temperatures for Nb and only 47 degrees below that of liquid nitrogen.

Remember that Tajmar’s central tenet has been that the superconducting Nb allows for the creation of bosonic Cooper pairs and it is the movement of these bosons that produce the gravitomagnetic effect. But helium is also a boson (both nucleus and atom) and apparently the major contributor to the effect. This is still consistent with the work of Droscher and Hauser and brings into view the possibility that the rotating ring need not be of solid material nor restricted to very low temperatures.

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.